From: Dace (edace@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon 12 May 2003 - 19:13:57 GMT
> From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com>
>
> At 11:28 AM 07/05/03 -0700, you wrote:
> >An article on Bigfoot in the latest issue of Skeptic (Volume 10, No. 1)
> >provides a perfect illustration of the difference between ideas and
memes.
>
> I don't believe you make a case here. With rather rare exceptions, ideas
> *are* memes.
>
> >For Ray Wallace, Bigfoot was an idea. In the late 1950s tales of "Yeti,"
a
> >giant Himalayan humanoid, were circulating all over the world. Wallace's
> >idea was that a similar craze could be generated right here at home by
> >simply faking a few giant footsteps. He carved a pair of feet and walked
> >around on them at a construction site he was managing in northern
> >California. His idea circulated
> >throughout the region as fellow pranksters realized how simple it was to
> >generate "Bigfoot" excitement in their own hometown.
>
> Memes more often than not start as someone having an idea, like a new way
> to make shoes, or in this case "feet."
>
> The question you want to ask is: Did this idea spread out to other
> people? The answer in this case is yes, and that makes it a meme. (I
have
> a long history of UFO hoaxs).
Depends on how the idea travels. Does it travel according to human
volition, or has it taken on a life of its own (as in the Roswell myth)?
> >While the idea circulated, so did the meme. The Bigfoot meme propagated
so
> >effectively because it exploited the all-too-human desire to believe that
> >our wild ancestor is somehow still alive somewhere, still roaming free,
not
> >caged up and domesticated like us. Guilty at the thought that we killed
the
> >"wildman" within, we project his image onto the forests and mountains
around
> >us. On top of that, Rene Dahinden had another motivation to believe.
Since
> >he had staked his reputation on the authenticity of Bigfoot, the meme
could
> >maintain itself in his mind by exploiting his pride.
>
> Although *why* a meme spreads is of great interest to me (particularly
> reasons that derive from psychological traits selected for in our long
> history of living as social primates in tribes) a mechanism is not
required
> to make a meme. Did the "belief" in Bigfoot spread out to other
> people? If the answer is yes, that is also a meme.
Belief in Bigfoot is a meme, not because it spreads but in *how* it spreads,
i.e. through the exploitation of unconscious desires. It's a meme because
it's in control instead of consciousness.
> >Ideas are passive. They lack agency. It was human consciousness that
> >created the idea for Bigfoot, and this idea spread from one prankster to
> >another through normal conscious means. But before long the beast was
> >self-propagating among believers, based on its ability to exploit
> >unconscious desires. What is idea for one is meme for another.
> >
> >Memes are ideas that take on their own agency.
>
> Memes (same as ideas) are just information. If that information
> replicates, spreads out to more than the first person who has it, that
> makes it a meme. (All ideas, even those that never spread, are
*potential*
> memes.)
The Bigfoot idea became a meme as soon as one person believed in it. It was
a meme even in that one mind because it had the potential to spread *under
its own power* to other minds, preying on their weaknesses as it preyed on
those of the original believer. While an idea is exactly what it appears to
be, a meme carries an image of an idea-- "There's a big, hairy humanoid in
the woods"-- while in reality exploiting a weakness of the mind-- "You need
to believe that your wild self still somehow lives." So, a meme involves a
schism between reality and appearance, sabotaging conscious volition, while
an idea merely responds to conscious volition. Ideas are transparent; memes
are opaque.
> Near as I understand it, the entire point to using the word meme is to
> emphasize that information passed from human mind to human mind is subject
> to evolutionary selection.
Why not just include "subject to evolutionary selection" in the definition
of "information?" Why create a new term if it doesn't mean anything beyond
the old term? After all, evolution is a well-established concept, including
within the social sciences, which have developed complex, proven models of
information transferal and development.
> It is possible you intend to say the same thing. I don't understand your
> use of "agency."
It's shorthand for "causal agency." What has the power of determination?
Do we control our ideas, or do they control us? Only in the latter case do
ideas constitute memes.
> >This is why the Bigfoot myth
> >only gets bigger when it's definitively demonstrated to be a fraud.
>
> To say this, you have to specify a segment of the population. There are
> lot of people who figured Bigfoot was a fraud from the start. Then there
> are people who will believe anything.
I'm refering to the general population. In general, more people believe a
meme when it gets plenty of exposure, even negative exposure.
> >Memes don't depend on our capacity for rational thought.
>
> That is certainly true or religions would not thrive.
>
> >Any publicity, no matter
> >how bad, will help perpetuate them.
>
> Your point is not entirely accurate here. I use the example of phrenology
> to make the point that some widely held silliness does die out.
I see what you mean. There comes a point when the absurdity of the meme is
too much for anyone to accept. Memes are not indestructible. If you drive
a stake through its heart, it might just give up the ghost. I understand
garlic can be effective as well.
Ted
===============================================================
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 2.1.5 : Mon 12 May 2003 - 19:18:16 GMT