Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA25013 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:47:23 GMT Message-ID: <3A8BCF60.DA1A5D5E@bioinf.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:45:20 +0000 From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk> Organization: University of Manchester X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C70@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Isn't it true that the last line is 'for the sake of...'?
Err... er... hmm. Dunno. Obviously I didn't think so...
Anyway, back to the plot:
> The problem is what are the major aspects of the cultural environment that
> create selection pressures for memes ... how on earth do we identify why
> 'play it again, sam' prospers rather than the original line?
Because (I think) there is an issue of a sort of compatibility. I would
think that:
1) The fitter versions of these memes in some sense resemble more
closely something generic about what is already resident in the mind in
which they undergo their process of selection. Play it again Sam is more
compatible with our idea about the 'cool' lines 'cool' people utter
(effectively in this instance there has been a group rewriting of the
script to give the major character a major, punchy line).
2) This is a classic meme because it is fairly self sufficient. Even
without knowledge of Bogart or the film it implies a whole scenario to
most of us. A guy who is self-assured, who likes something enought to
want to hear it again but isn't overly excited/happy. There's a lot in
there, and yet only the most generic cultural features are exploited.
The point of a good meme in *this* sense is to be small, info packed and
self-sufficient (given simple culture-environs assumptions, kind of like
minimal growth media). "You feeling lucky punk?" is another (although
less used because of its threatening nature) again it contains much in a
little space, and makes few assumptions about prior knowledge because it
exploits what is generic about our culture. You don't have to have even
heard of Dirty Harry, you could just assume its something like that.
These sorts of memes are more like viruses in that they have almost
nothing to them (compare, say, Catholicism or elephants), yet because
they are fine tuned to their environment, they do very well. Hook lines
in pop song choruses are another (you rarely remember the relevant
verses).
This is the bottom of the meme size scale though, and unfortunately the
focus of most pop memetics. Higher order structures should not be
ignored (organisms, ecosystems).
Time I stopped warbling, Chris.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Taylor (chris@bioinf.man.ac.uk)
http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
===============================================================
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 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 12:49:26 GMT