Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA25121 (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 13:04:39 GMT Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:02:04 -0500 x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20010215130204.AAA23714@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.130]> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Chris Taylor -
>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.
In actual and vivid fact, the "how on earth do we identify why 'play it
again, sam' prospers rather than the original line?" problem is simple to
the point of completeness- some blinking asshole said it wrong.
Because, there ain't no 'right' fit in a land of constantly changing
sizes.
- Wade
===============================================================
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 - 13:06:51 GMT