Metaphorical inversion

[gfish]

It occurred to me to me today that saying "small world" when you see a weird coincidence is not only trite, it's exactly backwards. Weird coincidences aren't suprisingly common because the number of objects that can interact in the world is very small. They're common because so much stuff is going on, because the world is so much more insanely complicated than anyone can possibly imagine. The number of interactions is so astronomical, long odd events are constantly happening all around us.

It's a big world after all!

Comments

[randomdreams.livejournal.com]

I think they've heard people say that, from things that are small-world incidents ("wait, you were born in St. Jude's Hospital in Lower Wackensack? So was my brother!") and have extended to using it to describe anything that seems statistically unlikely.

[sistawendy.livejournal.com]

Put the coffee down, Fish. Or is it weed?

[peteralway.livejournal.com]

Yep. I always figured that there are a millions of things happening every day, so some of them have to be million-to-one coincidences.

[tithonium.livejournal.com]

It's a small world, the same size as always, but getting more crowded. Which skews the probabilities.

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

This. Any old weird coincidence is not what that metaphor means. It refers specifically to people; meeting someone who you unexpectedly have mutual friends with ("OMG, you know Ivo too?") or running into someone you know from one hobby at an event for a different one ("Hey, it's Bob, my line-dancing partner! I didn't know he was into Artisanal Soft-Serve Ice Cream Making too!") Anyone using it for just general coincidences is misusing it.

Yeah I know, blah blah blah language is malleable and it evolves. You wanted to know why the usage didn't make sense. Most metaphors that don't make sense come about exactly like this-- they get misunderstood, and then misused, and then the misuse becomes common, and then the common misuse replaces the original use.

[randomdreams.livejournal.com]

I'm a proscriptive descriptivist: yes, the language is malleable, which is exactly why we have to hammer it back into shape when it begins to bend.

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

Hee hee hee.

My second paragraph was actually aimed at Fishy, because whenever I point out that WORDS MEAN THINGS he goes BUT LANGUAGE IS MALLEABLE and we're off. :)

[randomdreams.livejournal.com]

Why am I not surprised to hear the alliances on your part and his?

[gfish.livejournal.com]

I would still say this applies, though. We know more people than we think, and we run into more people than we think. The scope of our interactions, particularly when extended one or two degrees, is far broader than we intuitively believe.