Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA22178 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:09:24 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000613124627.01e27d40@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:05:48 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades In-Reply-To: <B6E47FBD3879D31192AD009027AC929C368927@NWTH-EXCHANGE> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_446805701==_.ALT" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 12:10 PM 6/13/00 -0500, Bruce Jones wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Aaron Lynch [SMTP:aaron@mcs.net]
> > Subject: Cons and Facades
> >
> > At 03:49 PM 6/10/00 -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote (in Imitation or
> > transmission
> > thread):
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >Because calling, as Aaron has mentioned, "paraphrasings of existing
> > >marketing science", memetic engineering, is, just as he also said, the
> > >facade of a con.
> > >
> > >- Wade
> >
> [BJ] For a con to work you first have to have a recipient that is
>easily led. Second you have to have a master at
> manipulation. And third you have to have a popular misconception
>based on a lack of knowledge.
Bruce,
I am not sure you need any of these conditions. First, if no recipients are
easily led, it just means that pulling off a con is not easy, not that it
is impossible. Second, why do you need a "master of manipulation" rather
than someone who is simply good enough at manipulation to fool some of the
people some of the time? Third, popular misconceptions are not hard to
find: they only need to be popular enough to support a con by way of some
of the people falling for it some of the time.
> As I see it none of these exist in memetics.
<snip>
We really cannot seriously discuss whether cons have happened in memetics,
because that would violate our list policy against "allegations." However,
you have only been posting here for about 1/6 of the history of this list.
Therefore, you may have missed the variety of suspicious products and
claims that came up earlier, before it became apparent to many of us that
public listserver discussions of specifics tended to degenerate into
unproductive hot air. Bear in mind, however, that no one on this list needs
to have fallen for a con in order for cons to have been perpetrated using
"memetics" jargon. Perhaps no one on this list has bought the expensive
"Speed Seduction" tapes and courses, for instance, but that does not mean
that such a line of business has not been profitably run with the help of
"memetics" jargon. We did have listerver discussions on "Speed Seduction,"
but they degenerated in a predictable manner. Once someone promotes "Speed
Seduction," they of course have reason to defend it in order to defend
their own credibility. Once someone criticizes it, they too have
credibility reasons to stick to their guns. So such a discussion perhaps
cannot be effectively handled by listserver debate. Yet to say that if no
one even off this list has been fooled with pseudo-memetic jargon is
equivalent to saying that "Speed Seduction," among other things, really was
the product of honest science. Speed seduction is, IMO, just one item on a
very long list of facades, cons, and attempts at such that I have observed
in my 22 years in memetics. But I certainly will not attempt to again
debate "Speed Seduction" or even mention the other cases of cons, facades,
and attempts at such by listserver--not after learning how such a
discussion tends to progress.
I think that we should keep Wade's comments in mind. Perhaps all we can
effectively suggest by listserver is that the possibility of facades and
cons be recognized, along with the possibility that they may do real harm
by competing with the products of honest work. That is not to say, however,
that hard honest work never produces errors. We should also bear in mind
that the discovery of an error does not amount to the identification of a
con. Lack of agreement on many issues, as you say, likewise does not
indicate a con, but is a normal state of scientific discourse. We also have
many disagreements about what a "meme" is or how it is detected. These
disagreements again do not indicate con jobs. (They might, however,
indicate that the word "meme" is not as helpful in communicating as many of
us once thought, but that is a tangential subject.)
I agree with Wade that Einstein argued with his opponents. However, I am
not convinced that those opponents included such a heavy load of con
artists as in the thought experiment I suggested. The question remains of
whether, or how quickly, the Method wins out over the false when the false
includes a heavy load of cons and facades along with honest disagreements
with and misunderstandings of real relativity.
>None on this list has
>indicated a propensity to being led ANYWHERE. Second none on this list has
>been able to manipulate any other person on this list. Third since we on
>this list seem to be the only ones interested in memetics the only thing we
>have is an understanding of a lack of cohesive knowledge about the subject.
>The only facade then is the person or persons that intimate a vast knowledge
>and/or understanding of the subject. <snip>
You have to be careful about making such a statement. The apparent reason
Vincent Campbell brought up Einstein was because Einstein was generally
recognized as really having great knowledge and/or understanding of the
subjects he covered. We also recognize that Einstein held such vast
knowledge and understanding of relativity even before most of his
colleagues acquired similar knowledge and understanding. Einstein did more
than merely intimate that he held such knowledge, too: he definitely let
the world know about it. But it was not a facade: it was the real product
of talent and hard work. This does not, however, mean that Einstein thought
himself too good to ever make a mistake or his theories too perfect to ever
be revised. So if you really mean that anyone who intimates infallibility
is putting on a facade, then I would agree with that.
--Aaron Lynch
===============================================================
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 : Tue Jun 13 2000 - 20:10:11 BST