Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA26561 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 11 May 2000 15:38:04 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB17E@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: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:36:08 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
It's not about providing examples that fit your theory but dealing with
those that don't. The point I made was that if you argue that the basis of
all social interaction is utility, then when you get a behaviour that
doesn't have any obvious utility functions you use the catch-all function of
'social utility'. This is cultural relativism whether you like it or not.
What use is it to you to remember the jingle for a product from 20 years ago
that you never used? Are you really going to get any social utility from
that?
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chuck Palson
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:35 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
>
> It's exactly opposed to cultural relativism (much to my relief). Here is
> how it
> works from the ecology up. The types of groupings and behaviors of a
> society
> are, by necessity, tailored to the environment. A hunting/gathering
> society only
> survives if it has the personalities and social organizations appropriate
> to
> hunting and gathering. That goes for any society - the mode of social and
> biological reproduction must be appropriate to the ecology of that
> society. The
> big scare word here is 'determined.'
>
> Thus, people don't do simply 'weird' things, but things within the
> appropriateness to survival in a particular environment. Let me know if
> you want
> examples and what type.
>
> Vincent Campbell wrote:
>
> > The problem with that is that this is cultural relativism all over
> again.
> > People do weird things because it means something to their group. How
> does
> > this help us understand human behaviour? We want to know why those
> specific
> > things like sock colour become important to groups and individuals.
> > > ----------
> > > From: Chuck Palson
> > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 9:30 am
> > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Vincent Campbell wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK Chuck I think I've got a situation I think shows the flaw in the
> > > > 'usefulness' argument- fashion trends.
> > > >
> > > > In particular trends in what colour of sock is considered de riguer.
> In
> > > the
> > > > UK, in the early 1980s, white socks were seen as 'cool', whereas now
> > > they
> > > > are seen as very 'uncool', but what is the relative utility value of
> > > white
> > > > as opposed to say black socks? [let's assume that the black and
> white
> > > socks
> > > > are made from the same material]
> > >
> > > Nope. Fashion is notoriously group specific. People want to dress
> > > according to a
> > > certain status so they can be easily identified by others of the same
> > > group.
> > > That has lots of utility which I can expand if you want to. It's not
> > > simply some
> > > abstract notion of group cohesion.
> > >
> > > However, in the US, during times of great fluidity of class - like the
> > > last 5
> > > years or so - the status signs tend to break down temporarily. So you
> can
> > > get
> > > very expensive designs in discount stores, and you find very well off
> > > people
> > > shopping in Walmart to make sure they get the bargain! I'm talking
> about
> > > people
> > > who make millions who trifle over $50! It's bizzarre but
> understandable
> > > when you
> > > take into account other aspects of American ideology. But I should add
> > > that the
> > > fact that discount stores can get up to date design because of some
> > > accidents:
> > > 1) recent advances in technology make it possible to bring things to
> > > market in
> > > about half the time it used to take and very cheaply, and 2) the
> fashion
> > > at
> > > present is not prints - which would be much harder to bring to market
> so
> > > fast.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Blackmore gives the example of a hunter who happens to be more
> > > successful
> > > > than another, and amongst their differences are the colour of their
> > > arrow
> > > > feathers. That difference is copied alongside the successful
> hunter's
> > > other
> > > > attributes, but it is not consequential.
> > >
> > > I don't know if that actually happens, but let's assume it is. Copying
> is
> > > part
> > > of group dynamics - like which emerging leader you are going to
> follow.
> > >
> > > > One of the points that Dawkins
> > > > makes, I believe in 'Unweaving the Rainbow', or it might have been
> > > Michael
> > > > Shermer in 'Why Do People Believe Weird Things' (editor of The
> Skeptic
> > > > magazine), is precisely that humans do have apparently illogical and
> > > strange
> > > > beliefs because our perceptual systems are actually far from
> perfect.
> > > So,
> > > > we make associations that can't possibly be true- such as rain
> dances
> > > and
> > > > astrology.
> > >
> > > "True" in the literal object sense is hardly important. I have
> mentioned
> > > this in
> > > relation to Dawkins critique of religion. It doesn't matter that there
> is
> > > no
> > > objective proof that god exists. Religion is used to establish and
> respect
> > > laws
> > > for the purpose of cooperating to survive.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Let me ask you a question. Can you find a utility reason for every
> > > single
> > > > thing you do in your life, and for everything you have?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes. But in order to do that, I have to get past the automatic
> > > self-deception
> > > that is built into our system. A useful way to do that is to look at
> other
> > > people's behavior first, understand it well, and then find the
> elementary
> > > building blocks inside yourself that would replicate the same
> behavior.
> > > And
> > > frankly, there are times I wish I didn't do this sort of analysis, but
> I'm
> > > a
> > > driven person on this matter for historical reasons.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, I must admit that jingles do sometimes get stuck! It's
> > > pretty
> > > rare, though.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > From: Chuck Palson
> > > > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2000 1:50 pm
> > > > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > > Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Brodie wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Chuck wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > << when you get any belief structure that is widespread, it's
> > > because
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > useful.>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think few would agree with this.
> > > > >
> > > > > As someone else said at this site, popularity doesn't determine
> > > scientific
> > > > > accuracy. It is true that many social scientists have very little
> idea
> > > of
> > > > > how
> > > > > belief structures are related to practical reality. But you give
> me a
> > > > > belief
> > > > > structure, and I'll show you its use.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's do this: You obviously don't believe it. You believe that
> memes
> > > can
> > > > > exist
> > > > > without a useful function. How about I will give you $1.00 for
> each
> > > such
> > > > > meme
> > > > > you can find up to, say $100. If you can't find even one that
> doesn't
> > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > useful function, you owe me $100. If you are right, it's certainly
> an
> > > easy
> > > > > way
> > > > > to make some quick money, no?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > << As I keep saying, religions only change as a way to adapt
> > > behavior
> > > > > > (really, the body of law that governs behavior) to the new
> > > conditions
> > > > > > introduced
> > > > > > by the technology or economic arrangements. I know next to
> nothing
> > > about
> > > > > > Buddhism, so I can't comment on that, but I know that
> Christianity
> > > has
> > > > > > changed
> > > > > > through the years (See"The History of God" by Karen
> Armstrong).>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And this change benefits who? The religion, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In what sense do you mean that? The functionaries of the religious
> > > > > structure?
> > > > > Yes, I suppose they benefit in the same way that the salesman for
> a
> > > > > revolutionary new invention benefits. But he can only sell the
> product
> > > if
> > > > > people
> > > > > perceive benefit. The short of it is this: the most important part
> of
> > > > > religion
> > > > > is its law giving function, whether that law be formal or
> informal,
> > > > > implicit or
> > > > > explicit. Religious laws express the idea that these laws are
> quote
> > > > > literally
> > > > > above any one individual, and religion introduces all kinds of
> rituals
> > > > > that
> > > > > induce the sense that law is 'above' us in every sense of that
> term.
> > > From
> > > > > a
> > > > > broader perspective, these laws are what make cooperative behavior
> > > > > possible --
> > > > > which happens to be the essence of human ability to survive. Today
> we
> > > have
> > > > > formal governments that do much of the work, but religion for many
> > > people
> > > > > is
> > > > > still a necessary supplement. If you want to get a more detailed
> sense
> > > of
> > > > > how
> > > > > Christianity does this, read Max Weber's works on it - they are
> quite
> > > > > detailed.
> > > > > His only error was that he got it wrong - the religion doesn't
> come
> > > before
> > > > > capitalism, it comes as a way to adapt to emerging capitalist
> > > structures.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [RB]
> > > > > > Dawkins named the meme,for which you can love or hate
> > > > > > him, and generated good controversy with his essay "viruses of
> the
> > > > > mind."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <<Is this readily available on the net?>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a link to it at Meme Central, www.memecentral.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <<Give me ANY belief system and I will
> > > > > > show you how it has material consequences. I'm quite serious.
> Give
> > > me
> > > > > > anything,
> > > > > > and I'll demonstrate it.>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You'll get no argument on this one. But "material consequences"
> is
> > > not
> > > > > the
> > > > > > same as "useful," is it?
> > > > >
> > > > > OK - useful material consequences.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <<It might be relevant here to say that Grandpa DOES use the
> > > internet
> > > > > now.
> > > > > > Now he
> > > > > > does new repetitive behaviors - like writing e-mails all the
> time
> > > about
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > that interest him -- and are useful. The reason Grandpa does it
> is
> > > > > because
> > > > > > he has
> > > > > > a lot of time to learn computers now, and it is, after all,
> useful
> > > to
> > > > > > communicate across distances despite what poor Ms. Blackmore
> feels
> > > about
> > > > > it
> > > > > > :).>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then how do you explain the fact that seniors are the slowest
> group
> > > to
> > > > > adopt
> > > > > > computers?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You haven't kept up with the stats. It has changed very rapidly.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 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 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 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 : Thu May 11 2000 - 15:38:44 BST