Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA22237 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 4 Jun 2000 03:56:54 +0100 Message-ID: <39397EB0.A1D2A418@mediaone.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 22:54:56 +0100 From: Chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival" References: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJMEJHEOAA.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
Richard Brodie wrote:
> Chuck wrote:
>
> > The way to falsify this particular
> > set of facts is to find a society now or in the past where reputation
> plays
> > the key role in the establishment of trust associated with a
> geographically
> > mobile population.>>
>
> [RB]
> > This is off topic, but I think Ebay fits that description very well.
>
> <<This is NOT off topic. I have given you a way to falsify my hypothesis and
> you
> say that's "off topic.">>
>
> Your hypothesis is off topic because it isn't memetics and this is a
> memetics list.
I thought that any behavior was a meme and therefore on topic for this list.
>
>
> << After all, you have complained several times that my
> explanations are circular. If you don't understand why the above is a way to
> falsify or you aren't sure what falsifying means, please let me know.>>
>
Ebay is not a counter example. Ebay is trying to build a capacity for a very
limited virtual reputation through formal methods. I am referring to the
informal methods of reputation that assess the person far more broadly than
strictly formal methods.
>
> Kind of odd for you to say that here after I have just found a neat
> counterexample.
>
> <<Do you see the relationship between the fact that Ebay is having a
> tremendous
> problem with fraud and that a lot of its efforts have already been directed
> at
> confronting this issue and that if it isn't resolved it could sink Ebay? All
> of
> this is directly related to what I am saying. Ebay must develop formal
> methods
> for countering fraud. It has to be formal because, among other things, there
> is
> no face to face interaction.>>
>
> Yep. And this is only the start. Memetic evolution is growing farther and
> farther from our genetic "survival machines." Nice try at begging the
> question but my counterexample remains and your theory is falsified.
No it isn't, but I understand why you think it is. I have to qualify more
precisely what I mean by reputation. A society where reputation is all important
has no anonymity. **Everything** you do outside of the privacy of your house is
part of your reputation that builds through your lifetime. Since these societies
are sedentary, kinship relations are very strong, and it is not only your
personal reputation that is important, but the reputation of your kin group. Any
smear to your reputation is also a smear to your entire kin group.
Compared with that, we have fragments of our lives that have reputation, and
even then, we have ways of what's called "starting a new life." Your Ebay
reputation is but a tiny fragment of your life and something that has almost no
consequence. In fact, you can just go to another on-line auction with an
entirely clean reputation.
So in one sense, all societies rely on some degree of reputation, but
traditional sedentary societies that **always** rely on reputation as their
primary source of law and order are quite different in some fundamental ways.
>
>
> [RB]
> > . I don't think understanding the nature of science is so
> > much about information as intelligence.
>
> <<I can't agree with that. Intelligence is only one part of it. People go to
> grad
> school for several years to get the feel for scientific method.>>
>
> People go to grad school for years and STILL don't get a feel for the
> scientific method.
>
Taking the worst example of anything and projecting it may be good rhetoric, but
it doesn't prove the point you want to prove. No one doubts that stupid people
can get degrees.
>
> <<As I have written a few times today, prediction is a small, but necessary
> part
> of a good theory. Prediction by itself is worthless.>>
>
> OK. You take an explanation of the stock market that doesn't predict, and
> I'll take an accurate prediction of the stock market that doesn't explain.
> We'll see which one is worth more. Game?
I repeat - time to read about scientific method.
===============================================================
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 : Sun Jun 04 2000 - 03:57:32 BST