What we give up by using first names

The practice feels intimate, but it reflects a fear of real engagement.

from the September 21, 2007 edition

Page 2 of 2

Page 1 | 2

It is nothing of the kind. Far from being intimate, sharing first names alone is impersonal. Dispensing with surnames reflects wariness more than informality. In a guarded time like ours, revealing two names to another person ratchets up one's level of exposure. Once someone knows both of your names, that person can guess your ethnicity, your ancestry, your country of origin. He or she might be able to figure out who your parents are, and could have heard that your cousin Mike is in jail. And, of course, those who possess your surname can Google you on the Internet.

In the ID free-for-all of cyberspace, chatters seldom share one genuine name, let alone two. Cybercommunities are like an electronic Mardi Gras, a setting in which few participants are who they seem to be, and everyone can cut loose.

Central to this freedom is the careful guarding of one's surname. During years spent covering technology for The New York Times, reporter Michel Marriott found that using his actual name in chat rooms was a real conversation stopper. Doing so made Mr. Marriott feel like a nudist at a costume party.

On and off the Net, not giving up our surname allows us to substitute candor for intimacy. Like strangers on a train, those who don't identify themselves fully are free to share secrets because they know their relationship has no traction. No matter how friendly it may appear to first-name those we don't know well, doing so seldom leads to actual friendship.

The promiscuous use of given names is too faux familiar. What it really reflects is fear of genuine engagement. By becoming a first-name society we've exchanged the actual familiarity of two names for the feigned familiarity of one.

• Ralph Keyes is the author of "The Post-Truth Era" and, most recently, "The Quote Verifier."

1 | Page 2