Re: Central questions of memetics

From: Chuck Palson (cpalson@mediaone.net)
Date: Mon May 08 2000 - 20:12:05 BST

  • Next message: Chuck Palson: "Re: Central questions of memetics"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA12340 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 9 May 2000 01:09:25 +0100
    Message-ID: <39171184.A51A2524@mediaone.net>
    Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 20:12:05 +0100
    From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net>
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I)
    X-Accept-Language: en
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
    References: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJIEHOEMAA.richard@brodietech.com>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    As I said, I looked at your site and found the following:

    "The breakthrough in memetics is in extending Darwinian evolution
    to culture. There are several exciting conclusions from doing that,
    one of which is the ability to predict that ideas will spread not
    because they are "good ideas", but because they contain "good
    memes" such as danger, food and sex that push our evolutionary
    buttons and force us to pay attention to them."

    I presume that is what you were pointing me to.

    I don't see how this answers my concern. First, what does it mean to say "not
    because they are 'good ideas'?" but that nevertheless "push our evolutionary
    buttons and force us to pay attention to them." Do you mean those in the media
    who manufacture stories on the nightly news that either simply exaggerate
    certain dangers or even manufacture them? If so, then I can see how that might
    apply. In the US these tendencies to either exaggerate or lie increase
    exponentially around sweeps time. Lots of times people get sucked into believing
    the lies for their entire lives; and lots of times the scares simply fade
    because people cease to believe them. Exactly why one or the other happens is an
    interesting question that has some answers. But I fail to see how treating memes
    as having an independent life of their own furthers our understanding of them.

    You seem to be saying that there is a trick going on here. There is, of course.
    But the trick is calculated and produced by the media according to certain very
    well known formulas. And people often believe them for some interesting reasons.
    But I still cannot see how treating memes as independent viruses is useful. It
    just seems to me that culture is a part of Darwinian evolution, not something
    that evolves off by it's own. What am I missing?

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 09 2000 - 01:09:41 BST