Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA15432 (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 16:03:11 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB160@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Central questions of memetics Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 16:00:31 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
The problem is Richard that it is far from 'easy' to predict what audiences
are going to be interested in at anything more than a very general level of
primal interests that you talk about. Rather like saying women pick men
based on high mpi, it is quite a reducitve argument.
Sorry, more later, but I've just realised I've got a lecture to give!
(anyone would think I worked for a living!).
vincent
> ----------
> From: Richard Brodie
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2000 3:33 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Central questions of memetics
>
> Chuck wrote:
>
> <<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?>>
>
> Successful news producers know what sells to their audience. It's easy to
> recognize a "nightly news" story versus an "NPR" story. No evil intention
> is
> necessary, only the recognition that certain news items are more
> interesting
> to the audience than others, and the audiences are drown to the stations
> that provide those type of stories. "Usefulness" is not a particular
> factor.
> Sensationalism, for the masses, tends to be, as are stories about
> celebrities, disasters, scandals, and so on... very primal interests.
>
> <<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?>>
>
> Memes and viruses are not the same thing. Mind viruses are larger
> superorganisms. Adherents to religions tend to share some memes, which are
> components of these superorganisms, but the meme is not the virus.
>
> Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
> http://www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 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 - 16:03:29 BST