RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Feb 15 2001 - 13:26:18 GMT

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA25318 (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 13:27:06 GMT
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C73@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
    Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:26:18 -0000
    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
    

    >> Isn't it true that the last line is 'for the sake of...'?

            <Err... er... hmm. Dunno. Obviously I didn't think so...>

            You're probably right.

            <Anyway, back to the plot:

    > 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).>
    >
            I think these comments are very interesting Chris. On one level I
    see what you're saying, and the preponderance of phrases from films and
    songs (remembered correctly or not) in society is manifestly evident. What
    isn't at all clear is why those particular phrases (or mis-rememberings
    thereof) have spread so widely (others that spring to mind are 'You talking
    to me?', 'Show me the money!', 'I could have been a contender' etc. etc.,
    'Hello Mr.Braithwaite, have some tea?' sorry, that last one's for Bruce Lee
    fans). You offer some ideas along these lines, but what's not being
    identified here is the mechanism by which this occurs.

            For example, wanting to copy cool people is undoubtedly a
    psychological factor, but is copying cool people's phrases more likely than,
    say, copying their dress or mannerisms? Why has the phrase in any given
    case been the element that persists, and not other elements?

            The problem for memetics, perhaps, is that such things may be
    explainable simply in terms of individual and social psychology, with no
    need for memes at all.

            I suppose this brings us back to the perennial question on the list
    of what new/distinct explanatory insight does the meme concept provide in
    elucidating this kind of social behaviour.

            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 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 13:29:16 GMT