Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:10:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Chew Hoe Khoo <jkhoo@engin.umich.edu>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #52
In-Reply-To: <199809080759.IAA01992@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk>
unsubsscribe
On Tue, 8 Sep 1998 fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk wrote:
>=20
> memetics-digest Tuesday, 8 September 1998 Volume 01 : Number=
052
>=20
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> From: "B. Lane Robertson" <metaphy@hotmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 22:26:58 PDT
> Subject: The Physics of a Meme: Metaphysics of Existence
>=20
> The basic metaphysic (linear model) of=20
> manifestation is: Chance, order, life, god (or=20
> self), safety, tribe, technology, tools, history,=20
> the ideal, the idea, mass-production,=20
> mechanization, and the "unique". =20
>=20
> Chance, as a divided energy, is characterized by a=20
> masculine/ feminine pairing (in a way that the=20
> characteristics referred to by the model might=20
> come to relate to what can be confirmed=20
> physically. This method also facilitates the=20
> attribution of examples to the representation=20
> according to qualities which might, in a broad=20
> manner, be considered masculine and feminine). =20
>=20
> Four manifest "states" are proposed in order to=20
> form a 4 point balance to the divided aspect of=20
> the "system" (thus, the *system* theorized can be=20
> said to represent the direction of the divided=20
> energies and balanced forces in the form of=20
> physical states). Of the 4, two complimentary=20
> states are feminine and two complimentary states=20
> are masculine. =20
>=20
> Each corresponding "pair" of states-- a *pair*=20
> consisting of one masculine and one feminine=20
> state-- have a cooperative arrangement (between=20
> the pairs, the complimentary arrangement of each=20
> divided half prevails). The 4 points therefore=20
> resolve complimentary and cooperative forces from=20
> a divided cosmology representing "chance" to a=20
> circular one representing freedom (on the first=20
> "level" of development). "Freedom" is the central=20
> "sum" (of chance and order) and refers to the=20
> "chaotic" behavior which allows this "replication"=20
> of chance TO order (*chaotic*, the energy radiates=20
> in all directions equally)=20
>=20
> The metaphysic implies that there must not only be=20
> chance but also order. This ordering (according=20
> to the characteristics of the cosmology) must=20
> begin with a characteristic (chance), balance=20
> convergent forces to chaos, and overcome chaos in=20
> a way which renames chance as order-- and which=20
> establishes this (thereby *natural*) ordering of=20
> the system as a re-configuration of the the=20
> original cosmology but on a higher level of=20
> development.
>=20
> The "sum" of the chaotic resolution of each=20
> cosmology shows a developmental incarnation of the=20
> original progression from chance to order in=20
> *levels* such that the original characteristic=20
> ("chance") and the replicate trait ("order") can=20
> be said to *ascend* (or evolve) according to a=20
> "law of replication" (the resolution of a=20
> cosmology incarnates an original characteristic as=20
> a chaotic behavior, and replicates it as an=20
> ordered trait). =20
>=20
> The metaphysic continues this potential ordering=20
> infinitely in decreasing energy "spirals"--=20
> circular, as suggested by chance, but also linear=20
> as suggested by order; thus overcoming the chaotic=20
> energy of the system according to a *complexity*=20
> of that which is neither incarnated through=20
> chance, nor which is manifest through chaos; but=20
> which might be said to be reflexively "revealed"=20
> according to level of order and subsequently=20
> "prophesied" (or theorized) according to level of=20
> chance-- as traits are diffused from the higher=20
> levels (those pre-determined according to the=20
> mechanisms of this metaphysic) DOWNWARD through=20
> levels of increasingly complex states to a=20
> physical level of *certainty* (or non-chaotic=20
> existence).
>=20
> (illus:
>=20
> http://www.tctc.com/~unameit/chainjpg2.gif )
>=20
> B. Lane Robertson
> LIST: mindrec-subscribe@makelist.com
> WEB: http://www.window.to/mindrec
> BIO:=20
> http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
>=20
>=20
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> From: Mario Vaneechoutte <Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be>
> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 08:44:16 +0200
> Subject: Re: Memetics or artefactics?
>=20
> Britta Waschgler wrote:
>=20
> > Please remove us from your mailing list
> >
> > thank you
> > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Mario Vaneechoutte <Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be>
> > An: memetics@mmu.ac.uk <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> > Datum: Montag, 7. September 1998 15:58
> > Betreff: Memetics or artefactics?
> >
> > >Mario wrote:
> > >
> > >> Studying artefacts will learn us nothing if we can't look inside the
> > >mind. E.g.,
> > >> cave paintings of females by Cro Magnon people have been interpreted
> > >as
> > >being
> > >> part of fertility rites, while another more recent explanation says
> > >that it might
> > >> be just as well porn graffitti of male adolescents. What do artefact=
s
> > >learn you?
>=20
> Why do they always pick on me?
>=20
> Mario
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> From: Mario Vaneechoutte <Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be>
> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 09:06:42 +0200
> Subject: Secret ideas. Was Re: On Gatherer's behaviourist stance
>=20
> Bill Benzon wrote:
>=20
> > >and now Aaron:
> > >
> >
> > >Rationalist Association). Anyway, I don't see that mind virology
> > >necessarily provides any novel critique of religion, and certainly
> > >serious theologians simply ignore it. In my Zygon article I try to
> > >make the case that the mind virology critique of religion is the moder=
n
> > >manifestation of a similar critique (superstition =3D an infection) th=
at
> > >goes back to 17th century non-conformist sects such as the Diggers, th=
e
> > >Levellers and the Ranters.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >to 'irrational responses', but among the theologians there is scarcely
> > >a word of comment. I had a lot of trouble persuading the editors of
> > >Zygon that a reply to Dawkins was actually warranted. They simply
> > >didn't think that such a crass argument merited a response. I got the
> > >article published because they liked the parallels I drew between
> > >Popper and Averroes in a memetic context - but that's another matter.
> > >[Zygon 33, 203-220]
> >
> > Derek--This is marvelous stuff. I too worry that memetics as it actual=
ly
> > is devotes entirely too much effort to critiquing religion and cults in=
a
> > rather tired way. Makes you wonder whether or not these memeticists
> > aren't, in fact, trying to defend themselves from ideas they find secre=
tely
> > attractive.
> >
> > Bill B
>=20
> Dear Bill: one of the things I learned when studying memes and human psyc=
hology
> is that we ALL have hidden agenda's and are defending our own world view,=
we
> sometimes kill for it. We stick to our world view and it is difficult to
> convince one another that one or the other is wrong at some points (since
> giving up on one point might eventually undermine the complete, carefully
> constructed world view). Reasoning about why we are so attached to our o=
wn
> ideas is the kind of stuff I would like to see studied in more detail.
>=20
> >
> >
> > William L. Benzon 201.217.1010
> > 708 Jersey Ave. Apt. 2A bbenzon@mindspring.com
> > Jersey City, NJ 07302 USA http://www.newsavanna.com/wlb/
> >
>=20
> - -
> Mario Vaneechoutte
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> From: BMSDGATH <BMSDGATH@livjm.ac.uk>
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:20:45 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: Gatherer's behaviourist etc
>=20
> This message should have been posted yesterday, but I sent it to Paul's=
=20
> personal account instead of the list by mistake.
>=20
> First we have Paul:
>=20
> On Sat, 5 Sep 1998 11:09:47 +0100 Paul Marsden
> <PaulMarsden@email.msn.com> wrote:
> > A Brief Reply to Derek Gatherer's
> Behaviourist Stance.
> >
> > Ok Derek, I hope to have the chance to answer more fully in a commentar=
y
> on
> > your stimulating and provocative paper but I'd like to make a couple of
> > points partly because both Richard and Aaron (in an aside on software
> > authorship) have weighed in on this one, but mostly because I think you
> have
> > touched on THE critical issue currently facing memetics - how to
> > operationalise the paradigm - i.e. stop talking about it, and start doi=
ng
> > it.
> >
> > First of all, it seems to me that you are objecting to only one part of
> the
> > thought contagion metaphor - the THOUGHT part. The contagion metaphor
> > remains central to your (and most other memeticists, I believe)
> > conceptualisation of the paradigm. Let's not throw out the baby with t=
he
> > bath water. The contagion metaphor is good.
>=20
> Contagion phenomena are too apparent for contagion to be dismissed. To
> dimiss contagion completely would be to deny the evidence. So yes, I
> hope we can keep a firm hand on the baby while vigorously up-ending the
> bath.
>=20
> > Your key point is to restrict memetics to behaviour - which renders
> > memetics
> > SYNONYMOUS with behavioural contagion research is social psychology.
> (This
> > is not necessarily a bad move, there's a wealth of empirical data to
> exploit
> > out there - but a critical one.) This is implicit in your paper but no=
t
> > underlined as THE "take home message".
>=20
> Yes, I do propose this for two reasons:
> a) social psychologists have lots of data, and closer we can align
> ourselves with the social psychology approach, the more accessible the
> data will become.
> b) an occasional tendency surfaces in memetics to insist that we have a
> 'paradigm shift' that renders previous social science irrelevant. A
> post a week or so ago said something about 'the ingrained errors of the
> established social sciences' (I don't quote exactly). This is another
> potential baby and bathwater situation. (Speculatively, I think the
> anti-social sciences tendency comes from the fact that many
> memeticists have backgrounds in biology or other even 'harder'
> sciences, which tends to produce a kneejerk reaction against social
> sciences).
>=20
> But I add the caveat that social scientists will have to be willing to
> adopt a more evolutionary stance.
>=20
> > Your reason for restricting memetics to behaviour appears to be due to =
a
> > healthy scepticism of homuncular cognitive psychology which attempts to
> > explain behaviour in terms of putative internal states. Whilst
> > deconstructing REAL homuncular intentionality is entirely laudable (I'd
> hope
> > nobody on this list believes in real irreducible individual
> intentionality),
> > it doesn't stop us from using intentionality as a heuristic device, or =
a
> > Dennett puts it taking the Intentional stance (because the evolutionary
> loop
> > of the Darwinian algorithm will give behaviour an "as if" intentionalit=
y.)
> > The best way for me to accurately predict your behaviour, (or that of a
> > chess computer) is to posit intentions, either by asking you what they
> are,
> > or by simply assuming the chess computer "wants" to win - but of course
> > there is no such thing as REAL, OBSERVABLE INTENTION THINGS in your
> brain -
> > it is just a STANCE that helps me understand, explain and predict your
> > behaviour. Now my point is this: Rather than adopting the intentional
> > stance for individuals (X did Y because X wanted to do Y), memetics ado=
pts
> > the intentional stance for the intention itself (X did Y because Y want=
ed
> X
> > to do Y). Natural selection operates on these heuristic devices "as if=
"
> > they want to spread. Now, granted this is taking a representational
> theory
> > of mind to a second order - but we should not confuse *real*
> intentionality,
> > with as if *intentionality*. Representational theory of mind is a
> heuristic
> > device for explaining behaviour and nothing more, your intentionality i=
s
> my
> > construct, not the other way around.
>=20
> I suppose I am a 'methodological pessimist' in this regard. While
> accepting the reality of subjective states and intentionality in the
> Brentano-esque sense, and also accepting their importance in causing
> behaviour, I am pessimistic about our abilities to quantify them.
>=20
> > The proof of the memetic pudding will be in its eating, if memetics can
> > explain and predict certain aspects of, and yes you are right, HUMAN
> > BEHAVIOUR better then homuncular psychology. The whole point of posit=
ing
> > internal states in psychology is to predict and explain behaviour -
> nothing
> > more. But these internal states are heuristics and NOT REAL in any nai=
ve
> > sense.
>=20
> Here I am less of a behaviourist than you are. I say they may be real,
> but in any case are intractable material for the kind of quantitative
> science we want to do. I am a 'soft' behaviourist in this respect.
>=20
> > We just posit intentions with intention. To reiterate - for
> > me, the
> > beauty of the memetic stance - as I call it, is to explain human behavi=
our
> > not by positing intentionality (historically and forecast) to
> > individuals
> > but to intentions themselves. Of course there is no such thing as a
> thought
> > contagion, but if it helps me predict your behaviour then all well and
> good.
> > Thus a meme is not a REAL object itself, it is a heuristic device, that=
we
> > use to explain behaviour. In other words it is a functional object, no=
t a
> > real object.
> >
> > One way to keep every body happy in this debate would be to use not the
> > behavioural contagion metaphor, nor the thought contagion metaphor, but
> the
> > SOCIAL CONTAGION metaphor - which implies neither bare-foot behaviouris=
m
> or
> > universally rejected 19th century introspectionism. The SOCIAL CONTAGI=
ON
> > metaphor would include the spread of both internal states (beliefs,
> > thoughts, attitudes and intentions, and, critically, their resultant
> > behaviour between individuals i.e. it is a social process. I know this
> > seems a wishy washy middle point between you, and that happy couple Aar=
on
> > and Richard - but I think by looking at memetics as an explanatory
> framework
> > with an innovative heuristic device might prove to more useful, rather
> than
> > becoming to pre-occupied over the unanswerable question over the
> ontological
> > status of a meme.
> >
> > I know I have not addressed all the important points you raised - but I
> > wanted to add my thoughts for what I think is THE central debate in
> memetics
> > at the moment.
>=20
> Thanks Paul.
> Derek
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> From: "Paul Marsden" <PaulMarsden@email.msn.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:36:03 +0100
> Subject: On Gatherer's behaviourist stance
>=20
> Mario said
>=20
> >To the opposite, a little information about the ideas of people, as we
> >can gather through asking questions, immediately provides a lot of
> >information on the objects they make or dances they perform and often we
> >realize that our interpretation - based on our cultural background
> >interpretation of the artefacts or dances - was completely wrong.
>=20
> This is what social scientists - social psychologists, market researchers=
,
> sociologists etc. have been doing for over a century - how does your
> interpretation of memetics differ from standard social science?
>=20
> Paul Marsden
> Graduate Research Centre in the Social Sciences
> University of Sussex
> e-mail PaulMarsden@msn.com
> tel/fax (44) (0) 117 974 1279
>=20
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission:
> http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> From: "Paul Marsden" <PaulMarsden@email.msn.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:35:52 +0100
> Subject: On Gatherer's behaviourist stance
>=20
> Aaron responding to Paul on Gatherer's behaviourist stance
>=20
> >Sure, I take the term "meme" to
> > refer to an information replicator in the brain, after Dawkins's 1982
> > definition.
>=20
> So Aaron, how does this differ from standard social psychology of influen=
ce
> whose central goal is to show how information spread between individuals =
and
> groups affects beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviour (i.e. how
> information (not people) affects these things)?
>=20
> Even if you do see your approach differing from that of social psychology=
of
> influence (please tell me how) your approach would be just as valid, and
> open to significantly reduced amount of criticism if you changed your
> definition to
>=20
> ......Sure, I take the term "meme" to refer to an information replicator,=
that
> I posit as a heuristic device, in the brain to help me understand human
> behaviour, after Dawkins's 1982 definition
>=20
> Paul Marsden
> Graduate Research Centre in the Social Sciences
> University of Sussex
> e-mail PaulMarsden@msn.com
> tel/fax (44) (0) 117 974 1279
>=20
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission:
> http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> From: "Paul Marsden" <PaulMarsden@email.msn.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:36:46 +0100
> Subject: On Gatherer's behaviourist stance
>=20
> And now to defend memetics. Bill said
>=20
> >That, alas, is my feeling about much mental/homuncular memetics, that it=
is
> >advancing substantial claims about the human mind without having read mu=
ch
> >of cognitive and neuropsychology, much less literary theory, music theor=
y,
> >etc.
>=20
> Agreed.
>=20
> >The claims it makes about the mind are simplistic and ill-informed
> >and the whole enterprise seems to rest on faith than introducing the
> >concept of replication into the mix is going to work wonders.
>=20
> Again I would agree with the first part of this phrase, naive realism of
> mental memetics (to coin a phrase) as exemplified by Aaron's approach may
> lead us down that path, but the rest does not follow for those of us who =
are
> concerned with human activity. The reason I think you are wrong is becau=
se
> memetics, if properly constructed can add an evolutionary dimension to th=
e
> study of influence and more generally socialisation, by using the
> evolutionary loop of variation, replication and selection. This also ope=
ns
> the door to allow us to draw from evolutionary psychology, helping social
> science drop the ridiculous notion of the mind as tabula rasa (or RAM) an=
d
> in so doing memetics might identify the propensity for certain types of
> culture to be objectified - and passed on - with varying degrees of
> fidelity.
>=20
>=20
> Paul Marsden
> Graduate Research Centre in the Social Sciences
> University of Sussex
> e-mail PaulMarsden@msn.com
> tel/fax (44) (0) 117 974 1279
>=20
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission:
> http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> From: "Paul Marsden" <PaulMarsden@email.msn.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:36:20 +0100
> Subject: On Gatherer's behaviourist stance
>=20
> Richard said
>=20
> >I want to understand: How are ideas influenced by other ideas. How are
> attitudes towards these ideas formed and
> >changed. How are emotions influenced by ideas (why do people kill and
> torture or
> >want to die for abstract concepts like 'Nation' and 'God', why do they
> quarrel
> >about the word 'meme'?), etc. etc. A whole bunch of intriguing insights =
is
> within
> >reach.
>=20
> Richard, unlike (some) other(s), you have bothered to research the
> literature of social psychology, which,as you know, has made these proble=
ms
> its central concern. Whilst your book was in part inspired by Dawkins an=
d
> memetics, it also drew on and extended the work of the social psychologis=
t
> Cialdini, Influence (1988, 1993).
>=20
> I suspect your point is a rhetorical one - but in case it was missed on
> others - You will find the answer to how ideas (beliefs, values, and
> attitudes) spread in society in the literature of social psychology.
>=20
> >Behaviours and material artefacts will learn us little about this.
>=20
> The act of war, persuasion, and torture and conversion are all behaviours=
=2E
> The ONLY way of finding out what "idea" you might want to attribute to a
> particular brain is for that "idea" to be behaviourally represented - i.e=
=2E
> Behaviour. VERBAL BEHAVIOUR IS BEHAVIOUR.
>=20
>=20
> Suggested reading
>=20
> Petty and Caccioppo (1981) Attitudes and Persuasion (especially their ELM
> model - which is just crying out for an evolutionary or memetic spin)
> Rajecki (1990) Attitudes
>=20
> Paul Marsden
> Graduate Research Centre in the Social Sciences
> University of Sussex
> e-mail PaulMarsden@msn.com
> tel/fax (44) (0) 117 974 1279
>=20
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission:
> http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> From: BMSDGATH <BMSDGATH@livjm.ac.uk>
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:38:57 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: Nothing succeeds like success
>=20
> On Mon, 07 Sep 1998 19:06:14 -0400 Michael Best <mikeb@media.mit.edu>=20
> wrote:
> =20
> > The behaviorist, as exemplified by Gatherer, are
> > overly pessimistic about the progress made on the neuroscience front.
> > Real progress in neuroethology and indeed neuroecology now allows
> > researchers to trace certain behavioral states at the neuronal level in
> > animal models.
>=20
> That _is_ the kind of evidence that would knock me off my perch. Do=20
> you have any references?
>=20
> Derek
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> From: "Paul Marsden" <PaulMarsden@email.msn.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:39:31 +0100
> Subject: Research in Memetics
>=20
> Paul said
>=20
> >I think you have touched on THE critical issue currently facing memetics=
-
> how to
> >operationalise the paradigm - i.e. stop talking about it, and start doin=
g
> >it.
>=20
> And Mike said more elegantly
>=20
> >So finally, here is my call to arms: To the neural folks please go find
> >some neural representations and study their dynamics and report on your
> >findings. To the behavioral or artifact folks, please go model some
> >behavior or artifact or whatnot and report those findings. I would love
> >to learn from both camps.
>=20
> In blunt terms, Mike is asking us to stop producing hot air, and start
> producing some results.
>=20
> Now for reasons not entirely unrelated to our pre-occupation with the
> exclusive production of hot air and quaint anecdotes - the academic fundi=
ng
> empirical memetic research is a problem issue. However what we can do NO=
W
> is the following
>=20
> 1) Provide reviews on memetic related empiricalresearch
> 2) Draw from empirical research and provide meta-analyses of data.
> 3) Seek commercial funding.
> 4) Invite empirical researchers involved with the spread of information (=
qua
> behaviour or however mental memeticists think information is mediated
> non-behaviourally) to provide a precis of their research with its
> implications for memetics in the JoM
>=20
> To these ends:
>=20
> I have a second interview with Europe's largest retail bank next week,
> regarding the funding for a memetic analysis of their new "super" brand.
>=20
> I have submitted a primer on the findings of social contagion research to
> the JoM, and hopefully it will be published shortly - if not - it will
> appear in Sociological Research Online.
>=20
> I am also putting together a primer on the empirical findings of the
> psychology of social influence and will be submitting this at the end of =
the
> month.
>=20
> A colleague at the Free University of Brussels and I are developing a mar=
ket
> research tool that uses hyperttext to evolve consumer memetic maps
> (attitudes, values and beliefs)
>=20
> Is anybody else interested in doing memetic research?
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Paul Marsden
> Graduate Research Centre in the Social Sciences
> University of Sussex
> e-mail PaulMarsden@msn.com
> tel/fax (44) (0) 117 974 1279
>=20
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission:
> http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> From: BMSDGATH <BMSDGATH@livjm.ac.uk>
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:45:51 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: On Gatherer's behaviourist stance
>=20
> On Mon, 7 Sep 1998 15:20:21 +0000 Hans-Cees Speel=20
> <hanss@zondisk.sepa.tudelft.nl> wrote:
>=20
> > I would say that the Calvin theory goes in this direction. However,=20
> > even i he is right, and areplicating kind of neuronal thuoghts exists=
=20
> > we still cannot work with them as long as we cannot experiment with=20
> > them.=20
> > This will not happen for a long time if ever, so experimenting by=20
> > using the brain as meme data provider will not work.=20
> >=20
> > What is possible of course is to use interviews etc. and memes on=20
> > paper. The second ones fall under your behaviormemes, and the others=20
> > don't I think?
>=20
> The first would constitute verbal behaviour, which might generate some=20
> rough per capita statistics, in the manner of opinion polls. As with=20
> political opinion polls, we would always have to beware of the=20
> insincerity of the respondents.
>=20
> The second is difficult, as the only person you can assign a written=20
> artefact to is its author, so there is no per capita element. But you=20
> could study the text in its own right (a la Best). Here you would have=
=20
> frequency of textual elements per text fragment etc.
>=20
> This is what I mean when I say there is no population memetics, since=20
> these two ways of collecting memetic statistics don't refer at all to=20
> the same entity. They are not 'loci' in any 'memome', but essentially=20
> independent ways of looking at change in culture over time.
>=20
> Derek
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> From: "Paul Marsden" <PaulMarsden@email.msn.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:57:33 +0100
> Subject: Empirical Evidence for Memetics
>=20
> For those people who are interested in empirical research on how human
> beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviours affect each other, there is a
> wealth of evidence at:
>=20
> http://www.public.asu.edu/~kelton/
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Paul Marsden
> Graduate Research Centre in the Social Sciences
> University of Sussex
> e-mail PaulMarsden@msn.com
> tel/fax (44) (0) 117 974 1279
>=20
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission:
> http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> End of memetics-digest V1 #52
> *****************************
>=20
>=20
===============================================================
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
