Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA28810 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:42:40 +0100 Message-ID: <393B75A4.6E760F2@mediaone.net> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 10:40:52 +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 it good for? References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458A6@inchna.stir.ac.uk> 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
Vincent Campbell wrote:
> > You don't seem to be persuading anybody of your position,
> >
> > How do you know that? You yourself confess that you don't how to assess
> > the
> > effect of the media on people, so why do you think you got this one right?
> >
> Touche.
>
> I'd make a distinction, to some extent between media that allow for
> interaction, like e-mail, and those that allow little or none (TV, the
> press, films etc.). One of the interesting things is that very few media
> researchers study things like e-mail, or telephone use as media that have
> effects. With convergence the gap between media studies and
> telecommunications work is going to have to close.
>
> I haven't seen anybody going 'My god you're right, this memetics stuff is
> rubbish and a total waste of time!'
Of course not. People usually don't change that way, especially when they have
investments. In fact, very often when the make the change, they won't even see
it happening. They get sudden amnesia about how they used to think!
>
>
> Any of your references in the interest of furthering knowledge?
>
I presume you mean my publishing record. I have articles out there through the
years on various subjects. The common thread to most of it is sexuality.
Frankly, they aren't worth reading because they were originally done from a
purely cultural perspective -- which is entirely too narrow to understand much
of anything. I haven't published anything I would call significant since I have
discovered sociobiology around 1987 while I was at the same time trading with
the Brazilian indians. I am working on a book tentatively titled "Sex,
Technology, and Economy in American History." Unlike Richard Brodie, I have had
to work at finding the pop angle to my book. It seems to get right up to the
very top of the editorial board before they realize there is no preexisting
marketing niche. My "trouble" is that I can't stay bounded by the usual
discplinary lines. But -- I may have found the balance in this current attempt.
I am an odd person because I devote at least half my leisure time to the
behavioral sciences even though I left academia a generation ago. So I never
think up anything that doesn't either emerge from practical experience or get
tested by it. That's why you can't find my perspective replicated in its
entirety anywhere in academia. That is, besides the disciplinary lines they are
bound to respect to some extent, they aren't involved in a wide range of
practical experiences.
And so, that said, who are you?
===============================================================
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 : Mon Jun 05 2000 - 15:43:17 BST