Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA20264 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 10 May 2000 13:36:59 +0100 Message-ID: <39191230.59A605C9@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:39:28 +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 Qs of memetics... Some Points/Ideas for Mr. Palson References: <20000510051230.46859.qmail@hotmail.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
"Mark J." wrote:
> I have a few logs to toss on the fire in the way of Mr. Palson's original
> reply...
>
> > > Chuck Palson wrote:
> >Now, as to values, I see it all the time. Choice of metaphors is always
> >revealing, and the notion that memes are "viruses" that can "infect" tells
> >me something about the point of view.
>
> I would argue that this is not necc. the case. While theory is often framed
> for aesthetic concern, predictive power and understanding is paramount.
You are in theory sort of correct. But in fact, in the social sciences, choice
of metaphor does say a lot because it is extremely difficult as it is to get
perspective on the subject matter because we are so intimately involved with
ourselves. So even the slightest hint of a metaphorical meaning is just the tip
of an attitude iceberg, if you will. Just about every posting in this list, for
example, has an obvious bias against technology and it's effects - that we don't
really need them. I am not necessarily against that point of view, but it has to
be part of the hypothesis and specifically defined (like, what in particular is
bad about changing technology; what is its net effect, etc. etc.). But that's
not done because the fascination with memes is its seeming simplicity. But as I
have tried to show, you can't isolate human behavior so simplistically; context
is everything and every attempt by the social sciences to study things in
isolation has eventually flopped pretty badly. So when you say that this may be
a useful theory, it does not seem plausible to me because it is making the same
mistake that every other flopped theory has made. Even Richard Brodie kind of
admitted that treating memes as isolated units like genes is really just a kind
of rhetorical flourish. I think the difference between say, Richard Brodie and
Richard Dawkins is only the level of consciousness they have of what they are
doing.
>
> In psychology, for example, there are several major theoretical schools that
> have EXTREME differences in thought and technique. Still many of these
> disparate schools can be used together to provide a better picture. Some
> cases may call for behavior therapy, others cognative, and still others
> biomedical intervention.
Psychology is a good example of the difference between science and practice. As
anyone who has done psychology knows, treatment is highly dependent on the
individual chemistry between the patient and psychologist. The marketbasket of
treatments are simply a bag of tools that are provided to best suit the
personalities involved. For the most part there is no such thing as a pure
Jungian or Rogerian or whatever - that's only their starting point. They use
what feels most comfortable to their personality. So that's not really science,
it's therapy. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that if it works.
> If memes can add even a slight bit to our
> understanding they should be looked at with a kind of seriousness. I
> personally dont like the picture presented by old school "black box"
> behaviorism, yet I know it has definite useful applications. I believe the
> same situation may be said to apply to memes. While the notion of ideas
> "out to get us" is not the least bit palatable to some, we must realize that
> palatiblity is a moot point.
I have adopted many unpalatable ideas. It's not palatability that is the problem
- it's plausibility. I see neither the usefulness nor the plausibility of the
idea that memes have a life of their own. I do see, however, where certain kinds
of people are more comfortable dividing up reality in this way because it is
convenient and comfortable. It seems to offer a shortcut to understanding a
piece of behavior AND an explanation for some of the disquiet we all feel with
modern society. But a truly adequate understanding of human behavior takes a lot
more conceptual work than memeic studies implies.>It seems to me that people who
call themselves memologists make this
>
> It is a "short hand" as Sue herself pains to point out in her book. It is
> akin to saying "selfish gene." Are genes self-interested jerks? No! It is
> just a way to see that they are out for their own replication. They dont
> have an agenda or plot. They just replicate. The other added terminology
> is to better explain the concept to us folks who do think and try to
> understand.
But I think you don't get into the down and dirty of life to figure things out.
Your notion that you are the ones who think and know and are simply cool
observers doesn't work very well in human behavior. Skinner snuck in all kinds
of conceptual stuff underneath his black box veneer which accounts for the
limited success he did have. If I am observing others, I get very suspicious if
I get to the point where I think only those being observed have X
characteristic; that is, if I can't locate what I am observing in some part of
myself, I suspect I am just projecting. Except in extreme stuff - like serial
murderers, etc. - I am always correct in that assumption. So memetologists can
come up with the entire concept of the useless or even near useless meme because
they don't care to do the kind of in depth investigation to figure out the
reasons people choose this or that meme. It's a critique of society, not a
science. There's nothing wrong with that in any ultimate sense. I suppose there
isn't even anything ultimately wrong with masquerading as science. People often
love it. I personally don't care for it because such critiques fade into history
pretty fast and you have to scurry around for the next fad. But people do make a
living at that sort of thing.
> I am pretty sure that no one is making a serious ontological
> claim as to the status of our friends/enemies the memes. It is just a way
> to understand the picture. Models are never the real thing. They just
> represent.
>
Perhaps you are right. But I didn't get that impression with Blackmore. It looks
to me like her interest in Budhism got the best of her.
> I hope this answers a few points on the matter Mr. Palson or at least gives
> you a glimpse of what some of the rest of us see as answers to your points.
>
> Mark
>
Yes, it did answer a few more points. Thanks for your thoughtful response.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Wed May 10 2000 - 13:37:22 BST