And what of the people you do really "know" who don't actually know what ideas are going around inside your head? What's stranger? Or, what's a stranger? The world is full of people who are strangers to some parts of us, and friends to others. Which parts make a "stranger"?
These are very interesting questions, and it’s something I wish I understood better. Here’s my attempt:
---
My Internet friends have better access to my thoughts and my interests. My “real life” friends have better access to my behavior and my physical expression. Which is more “me”? Who “knows” me better?
I have a theory that even for people who have been reading this blog for years, who have read many thousands of words that I have typed, they would probably feel they understand “me” better – my hopes, desires, fears, values – if they were in a room with me for 5 minutes. Not because I have a very different in-person persona than comes across in writing, but because I think people make all kinds of instant personality judgments on the basis of appearance, facial expressions, voice, etc. etc. At least I know I do. That’s not to say that the judgments are necessarily accurate, but that they feel more accurate than reading thousands of written words.
One benefit of written communication is that it provides the luxury of carefully choosing words. And when words are more carefully chosen, signal strength is higher and meaning is better expressed. I would hate to try to tell someone with the spoken word how I feel about them, at least without having written something first, because when trying to communicate something as complex as feelings, words are bound to be fumbled over, and if writing is useful for anything, it is for de-fumbling.
BUT I think the fact that it’s easier to say difficult things in writing says a lot about the status writing is given in our minds. It’s easier because it carries less weight. You can make profound and heartfelt statements in writing, but they will probably be received less heavily than fumbling over words in person. That’s because feelings are physical more than verbal expressions. People may ooh and aah over your verbal eloquence, but they will only trust your proclamations if they are backed with physical expression.
I'd suggest that a groom at the altar trying to express his feelings for his bride would do better not to read a prepared statement but to fumble over improvised words. He will strain over the limits of language and the inadequacy of his chosen words, but the physical signs of that strain may communicate more than any words ever could.
Which brings me back to my point. Writing is a horribly inefficient way to get to [feel that you] know someone. If all you have access to are words, it’s really hard to make any judgments about how they actually feel about the words they have written. And since relationships rely on a shared understanding of how you and the other person feel about one another, Internet relationships are inherently “strange,” and severely constrained.
By “strange” I don’t mean “not close”. I genuinely feel close to some of the people with whom my interactions are almost exclusively written, but the relationships are still “strange” because I feel less confident that I know/understand them or that they know/understand me. I have assembled a narrative of the person in my mind based on many bits of written evidence, but because I think people make judgments based on physical expression much more strongly than verbal expression, I fear that if I spent just a few minutes with them in a room, a lot of my assumptions would be blown and my perception of “them” would be seriously altered.
Again, that’s not to say that spending a few minutes in a room with them would push my perception in the direction of Truth, just that it would feel that way.
In conclusion, evolution has probably not built us for relationships that are primarily verbal. Whether or not we can understand someone through the words they use, we are unlikely to feel that we do, and so any relationship that lacks physical expression is probably necessarily “strange”.
Maybe that’s obvious. But it makes things a bit clearer in my mind.
***
For better-chosen words on the limits of words, see Colin Marshall’s post and Bob’s comment.
