Joho the Blog
|
|
|
April 15, 2003
Gary muses on the nature of these online friendships we're forming. I like his contrast between "knowing someone" and "knowing of someone." As Gary says, the Net certainly adds many shades of gray between those already off-white hues. And, I too struggle with what to call people I've never met physically to whom I feel attached emotionally. Over the years, I've gotten comfortable referring to some of my equaintances (yes, it's a yech-y term, so come up with something better) simply as "friends" because I've known them longer and more deeply than some RW people I call friends. And yet there are still differences: my interaction with my e-friends tend to be topic-based, more intentional than the rather random RW meetings, intermittent, and, I suspect longer-term because they are not subject to the vagaries of the RW. BTW, I'm flattered that Gary uses me as his example. This came about because he and I have been talking a bit about Friendster, an artificial friendship network that seems to be catching on. I'll blog about it later today. I love you, too, Gary. Posted
by D. Weinberger at April 15, 2003 09:27 AM
TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference Gary on Friendship: Tracked on April 15, 2003 02:35 PM Tracked on April 15, 2003 02:39 PM
» To all my friends from Way.Nu Tracked on April 15, 2003 03:08 PM
» Friends, Far and Near from Blindspots Tracked on May 30, 2003 10:09 PM
» Emily Post in the online global village from BookBlog Tracked on February 6, 2005 01:49 AM |
Comments
I think that the online relationships can be just as strong as RL relationships, but do suffer a bit in truly painting a picture of the person.
I've played online RPGs for a while and there are several people I have known for 5+ years online. We got to know quite bit about each other and our families. In my mind I had built up an 'avatar' in my mind of what the people were like in RL.
At one point, I met several of them in RL and had a chance to spend an evening talking and drinking. My visions were quite a bit off. For example, on the net, I never think of people having an accent or body mannerisms. But in RL, people are very different in the way they speak. Now the 'avatar' in my mind of these people is much more aligned with with reality.
I met you Dave, at SXSW, in RL for the first time. Not really knowing who you were. Since SXSW, I've read your writing. Since I've met you in RL, in my mind I see you speaking with enthusiasm on the topics with your hands moving energenically.
While online relationship grow over time, a single meeting in RL can advance it greatly and bring it much tighter sense of friendship.
Posted by: Michael | April 15, 2003 11:12 AM
My wife calls my online friends my 'imaginary' friends. I've started using it to differentiate as well, and none of my imaginary friends seem to mind the term.
Posted by: Kyle | April 15, 2003 12:15 PM
Suggestions -- not necessarily serious -- for "what to call people I've never met physically to whom I feel attached emotionally."
l'aquaintances (Long distance aquaintances)
d'aquaintances (long Distance aquaintances)
v'aquaintances (Virtual aquaintances -- yuck)
pen pal (reuse of an old term)
zenfriend (because it all happens in the mind)
remfriend (REMote friend -- try saying it fast a few times!)
angel, ghost, spirit, spook, etc (because they're here in spirit only)
voice (as in, "a voice in my mind")
Posted by: Mike Owens | April 15, 2003 12:47 PM
Dave, why don't you hold a contest to come up with a better term than equaintances? Folks would submit their entries as comments and you'd pick the one(s) you like best. Wha'd'ya think?
Posted by: Mike Owens | April 16, 2003 07:55 PM
Mike, I'm sorry to tell you that I did exactly that a year or so ago and "equaintances" is the one that stuck in my mind.
Posted by: dweinberger | April 17, 2003 12:05 AM
Shoot, so much for that idea.
Posted by: Mike Owens | April 17, 2003 11:13 PM
I like this site.
Posted by: china shareware | September 29, 2004 01:24 PM