Skip to main content

How can you know someone you've never met?

I recently had an email from science journalist Angela Saini. We've never met, never spoken on the phone, never exchanged emails, yet each felt we knew the other slightly, as we had read each other's blog and posted comments on them.

So, in a way, I feel like I know Angela, but we don't really know each other at all. I suppose there's a two dimensional spectrum of knowing at play here. At one end is your best mate, at the other that embarrassing kind of 'knowing' someone where you go up to them in a bar, and you say 'don't I know you from somewhere?', and they sigh and say 'I'm on TV.'

But my initial example is a genuine two-way knowing from people who have had no real direct communication. With all the electronic media and social networking going on these days, I think we need a new word for this kind of indirect knowing someone. It could be to knowe someone (the 'e' at the end for electronic) or to kmow someone ('m' for media) - or something else much better someone else can think of.

Whatever it is, it would be useful to have such a word to get round the need to tediously introduce yourself 'We sort of know each other from exchanging comments on blogs' - or even worse, 'I "know" you electronically,' which sounds like a euphemism for low grade cybersex.

What do you think? I'd love to get to knowe you.

Comments

  1. It is odd, this new etiquette of "knowing" people online - especially if you then actually meet them. In the past 3 years (excluding colleagues and family) I have met more people in real life whom I first encountered blogging than in any other way. Is that strange? Sad? Crazy? I don't know, but I am enjoying it! It is perhaps a bit like an arranged marriage, in the sense that you both have a thorough "list of common interests and attitudes" check before actually meeting?

    ReplyDelete
  2. By the way, I just remembered - I did hope to actually meet Angela the other week, as I attended a conference and apprarently she had also said she might attend (so someone there told me). I did not manage to spot her, though. I do like her contributions to Nature Network.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To complicate it even further, there's the matter of how you "know" them online. If you "meet" someone through a shared interest or perhaps work, there's some sort of connection there that isn't only about a chance encounter online. How else are people with obscure hobbies such as decorating snail shells or emu breeding supposed to hook up with likeminded others?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sarah - I guess there will usually be something in common, or why would you have the chance encounter. (So I know you're called Sarah, for instance, thanks to a shared interest in writing, though you're definitely in the knowe class.)

    I'm not attacking the concept - indeed it's a great way to hook up with other emu breeders, or in my case writers and scientists. It's just that until recently that would have taken place at the local emu breeders club, so you would meet conventionally, rather than knoweing them despite never having met.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry, I meant Sara - that's the trouble of using memory on a knowe!

    ReplyDelete
  6. CHICKEN SEEKS EGG: Lonely emu-breeder, male, nonsmoker, 78 mi. from Alice Springs, seeks other emu-breeders for companionship, swapping stories, eggs, who knows, maybe more? Please send picture of emu.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's an interesting post, Brian, picking up on the zeitgeist of the cusp of something or other, in the town hall if wet, restrictions may apply.

    Like Maxine, I have gotten to know lots of people really well through the blogosphere, and I always enjoy meeting them in person (including your good self!)

    Sometimes the iRelationship seems so close that on one occasion I met a fellow blogger and we were both convinced that we'd met before, except that when we thought about it - hard - we discovered we hadn't.

    Not sure it's an entirely new phenomenon, though - more the rediscovery of the ancient art of correspondence, when people wrote letters often, physical travel was difficult and very expensive, and the postal service delievered many times a day. I am sure that - say - Darwin, or Jane Austen, or H. P. Lovecraft (the last a formidable correspondent) 'knew' many more people remotely than they did 'in person'.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Brian, I'm not sure people necessary have anything in common (except obviously going online to "meet" other people in the first place). There are all sorts of social networking sites that don't seem to have any particular theme other than being social networking sites. Sort of the virtual equivalents of pubs, only without the alcohol and near-death experiences involving darts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous - nice one!

    Henry - you're right, but I think it feels a lot more immediate because of the directness of e-contact.

    Sara - possibly, although even on (say) Facebook, almost everyone I'm virtual friends with I have something in common, whether it's writing, going to the same school or living in the same village... and we've all got internet access, and mostly are from Western countries. So I'm not convinced it's really a random connection.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Brian, I love the idea of having a word to describe an internet acquaintance. Nice to knowe you.

    Maxine, I'm aware of the conference of which you speak. I was supposed to attend but I got commandeered by the BBC to do some work at the last minute. Hopefully catch you next time!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...