memes in minds, or memes in media?

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 31 2000 - 15:44:37 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: chimps at Blair Drummond"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA19421 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:46:48 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174596B@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: memes in minds, or memes in media?
    Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:44:37 +0100
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Hiya everyone,

    I've just been catching up on the debate generated by Derek Gatherer's
    questioning of thought contagions, mind viruses etc. etc. on the journal's
    website.

    As a media academic, who tends to study the external phenomena of media
    content (particularly journalism), I suppose my sympathies lie with Derek,
    since his views take the subject more into my territory than other models
    that lie more in neuroscience, psychology that consider thigns like what
    constitutes (if anything) differences between information and beliefs.
    After all, I have encountered all sorts of religious beliefs, some I know
    more about than others, but being an openly 'militant atheist' (I love that
    phrase), I don't believe any of them.

    However, it is in the commentaries, that I found a point I thought worth
    developing.

    In Paul Marsden's commentary emerged the idea of how one can operationalise
    memetics, and he linked to a piece about suicide and the media. I want to
    say something briefly about this, because I think it demonstrates this
    internal/external problem of memetics.

    Marsden cites Phillips' research into the relationship between incidences of
    suicide and media reporting of suicides (and other similarly structured
    studies). Marsden acknowledges some of the criticisms of this research, but
    not the most obvious and glaring problems.

    The problems I refer to stem from one of the first rules of social science-
    correlation does not equal causality. Let's look at the claim in essence-

    findings- suicide rates go up when the media report suicides more frequently

    conclusion- media reporting of suicides lead to more suicides.

    Let's ask some simple questions of this conclusion:

    How many of the suicides were committed by people known to have encountered
    media communication about suicides before they committed suicide?

    How much of a time lag exists between when a person encounters suicide
    information through the media and then commits suicide?

    Assuming that mediated communication about suicide is what directed these
    people to commit suicide, then why didn't everyone exposed to that
    communication commit suicide also?(Or, to put it another way, since this
    communication reached many people, but only a few of them committed suicide,
    what were the characteristics of the people who committed suicide that
    differentiated them from everyone else?)

    Assuming that mediated communication about suicide is what made these people
    commit suicide, what was the nature of that communication? (e.g. did the
    reports say 'good news- another person did the right thing and killed
    themselves' or 'bad news- another selfish idiot left his family feeling
    greif and guilt after killing themselves'?)

    Phillips, and other like him have produced all sorts of studies showing
    these relationships, but they are clearly non-causal, not just because of
    the methods used, but also because none of the above questions are
    answerable (or quite often even considered) in the terms of such research.

    I do not therefore think that such work offers a means to operationalise
    memetics, and (hopefully bringing this back to the problem Gatherer raised
    in the first place) the problem is that the effects of any meme are
    context-sensitive, and the context in which memes operate includes the
    context of individuals' memes.

    If these things have been discussed at length previously on the list, feel
    free to ignore (or perhaps be so kind as to direct me in the direction of
    some good material on the matter).

    Vincent

    ===============================================================
    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 Jul 31 2000 - 15:47:41 BST