Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA27977 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:14:12 GMT From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: addendum to mysticism etc. Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:11:17 -0800 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJOEJNFLAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745AFE@inchna.stir.ac.uk> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Vincent wrote:
<<I don't individual philanthropy makes much difference, I think society
needs
to address these issues collectively by recognising the impoverished as
victims of the social system, whihc is all our responsibility, not of
personal failings.>>
You think other people need to do something about the problem, not you. Huh.
Maybe everyone else feels the same way.
<<I'd agree that people often think bad feelings = something's wrong. But
what I'm saying is that often we are encouraged to have good feelings about
bad situations. Clear thinking is precisely what's needed for people to
recognise this, but recognition may be all that some are in a position to
possess (as in the untouchables who know they're treated like dirt but can
see no way out of their position).>>
I don't get your point here. I was expecting you to argue that feeling good
is harmful but you didn't.
<<The USA is an excellent example where the individualist meme continues to
work despite the evident barriers to personal development for people who
aren't white, male and straight.>>
They are not evident to me. In all my time at Microsoft we would kill for
minority and female applicants but there was always a shortage. Homosexuals
have a much higher average income than heterosexuals in the US (172% was the
last figure I saw). Blacks dominate the extremely high-paying positions in
professional sports. We have had race- and sex-blind admissions to colleges
for decades. You must realize that there is not universal agreement about
your "barriers" and you cannot conclude causality from statistical
correlations.
<< This is the central element of my point.>>
A very weak element.
<<There are plenty of people who would argue that success and well being are
not in (at least not exclusively) in our own hands. The notion that anyone
can be President, for example (not that the job amounts to a zenith of well
being), in the USA is so patently false, it's embarassing. Many other
facets of US (and I should add, of course, other developed Western nations,
before I sound too much like an Anti-American and have Menwith Hill taping
my phone calls) show evident inequities that no amount of high spirits will
dissipate.>>
There are plenty of people who would argue that you can beat the house at
roulette by following betting systems. People who are personally accountable
for the results in their own lives are more successful than people who look
at themselves as victims, regardless of the reality of the situation.
<<Middle-class well-being may come from a change in one's outlook on life,
and
a different attitude towards oneself and others, but that's within an
inherently secure socio-economic position. The options for self-development
in other socio-economic groups is much more restricted, and this situation
alone, for me, leaves claims to well being rather hollow.>>
As Jesus said, there will always be poor. Help them if you want to, but the
fact of their existence does not lessen the importance of the lives of the
rest.
<<Interestingly the sheer extent of misrepresentation (demonstrable by
wanton
mis-use of statistics- Glassner is well tooled up with all sorts of data and
references in his analysis), raises the question so central to my interest
in memetics of why so much of the media, both factual and fictional, are
full of wildly inaccurate material. Why do we buy into images of issues
that we often know are rubbish?>>
Memes spread for many reasons. We tend to pay attention to "crisis" memes.
We believe ideas that fit easily into our existing mindset. We trust our
authorities. We believe memes that get repeated several times, especially
from multiple sources. "Truth" is not a strong selector for memes.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.liontales.com
===============================================================
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 : Fri Nov 10 2000 - 19:16:19 GMT