Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA03243 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:03:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.221.118] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:00:53 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F189jxe0ymQ1WE9ql2R0000896b@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Feb 2001 18:00:53.0199 (UTC) FILETIME=[918CD5F0:01C0990B] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
>Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:21:02 +0000
>
> > some blinking asshole said it wrong
>
>Yeah, that's true, but the 'why did it do so well' part is still
>interesting. I think the fact that the selective world is changing very
>fast is useful here, because some things survive despite the changes in
>circumstances (for instance, 'snafu' is dying out with the generation
>who used it, but 'play it again sam' isn't).
>
I'm trying to think of the last time I heard someone I know use the phrase
"play it again Sam". I can't off the top of my head recall this, but as a
caveat I don't get out much :-)
Has anyone else heard this phrase used? Is it popular within the so-called
"Generation X" entity? How prevalent is this phrase amogst various pockets
of societies world wide? Any hard data on this?
Maybe it was a matter of a non-apadtive change in the phrase from the
original being propagated at the expense of accuracy. Why would fitness be
necessarily involved or OTOH is fitness sufficient to cover "memetic"
phenomena?
>
>It all comes down to how
>effectively the thing (tune, idiom, whatever) taps into the generic
>themes of a culture. More generic -> more flexibility of application /
>less incompatibilities with resident memes (details) -> higher chance of
>long term success.
>
>
I could see how something previously compatible or even neutrally benign
might become incompatible with a shift in the "memetic" landscape. The
behavior of smoking tobacco in public places has shifted from "cool" or
fashionable to downright disgusting or offensive in some circumstances (nice
restaraunts), though I still find myself breathing in secondhand smoke in
bars or clubs.
Nonetheless, I think it a mistake to automatically shoehorn cultural
phenomena in analogous references to biological terms such as fitness,
heritability &c. BTW what's the story with "&c"? Why is "etc." preferred?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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 : Sat Feb 17 2001 - 18:05:41 GMT