Re: Words and memes

From: Philip Jonkers (philipjonkers@prodigy.net)
Date: Sat Feb 09 2002 - 18:04:13 GMT

  • Next message: Lawrence DeBivort: "RE: Meta-memes?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA03085 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 9 Feb 2002 17:12:42 GMT
    Message-ID: <002e01c1b194$2f0c5ca0$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer>
    From: "Philip Jonkers" <philipjonkers@prodigy.net>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAKEMPCKAA.debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
    Subject: Re: Words and memes
    Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:04:13 -0900
    Organization: Prodigy Internet
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
    X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Lawrence:
    > I would like to take a different tack here.
    >
    > People are not stupid (oh, okay, not totally so). They have the automatic
    > capability to assess what is going on around them, including the flow of
    > language and symbols, and to judge what makes sense or doesn't, and what
    is
    > 'useful' to them or not.
    >
    > We all have hierarchies of values that come into play when we make these
    > judgments. If an idea floating out there seems to enhance the ability of
    the
    > individual to manifest these values (and especially the more highly held
    > ones) he or she will adopt it. (I am simplfying here a bit, and leaving
    out
    > other cognitive elements that also influence the adoption of ideas but
    serve
    > mainly as filtering mechanisms that reduce the number of ideas that are
    > going to be judged. Within these filtering mechanisms we also have the
    > ability to reshape the idea we are considering, to discard some of its
    > elements and keep others, or to add to it other elements from other ideas
    we
    > have, thus the mutation of memes within and by the individual.) Ideas will
    > only be taken up if the individual, rightly or wrongly, concluded that it
    is
    > useful to do so. Note that this allows for the adoption of ideas under
    > conditions of group pressure: for those who do it under these conditions,
    > conforming to group standards and all that flows from that is the
    immediate
    > value achieved.
    >
    > Memes cannot destroy or bypass this judgement-making mechanism: to be
    > adopted they must meet its criteria for adoption. This helps explain why
    > some memes are taken up by some people and not by others: our heirarchies
    of
    > values differ person to person, as do the levels of certainty that we
    > require within our judgment-making processes.
    >
    > Does this model help?

    It seems that your view and mine are on a par here, although I do not
    understand
    what you mean by the slogan '...as do the levels of certainty that we
    require within our judgment-making processes.'

    Philip.

    ===============================================================
    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 09 2002 - 17:29:58 GMT