From: "Paul Marsden" <paulmarsden@msn.com>
To: "memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Fw: astrology-talk behaviour
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 16:27:41 +0200
>>'Talkativity' as such is surely a behavioural strategy module, and one
>which
>>has rich inclusive fitness rewards. 'Talk astrology' is cultural rather
>>than genetic, yes, but it would also have to have a modularity to it, in
>>order for selection (cultural in this case rather than natural) to get
some
>>purchase on it.
>
>>In short, 'astrology talkers' would require to be more successful than
'any
>>subject talkers', and they'd have to be imitated.
>
>Yes - and hold onto me as I lean over the Lynchian precipice - this is
where
>Durham's Primary (sociobiological "attractors" to use Sperber's language)
>and Secondary (sociocultural) values may be useful. If phenotypic
>plasticity allows for the local fixing of behavioural goals, biased of
>course by a logic inclusive fitness enhancement, then information relevant
>to these locally fixed sociocultural secondary goals is likely to be
>appropriated. Therefore semantic continuity/relevance may be a good
>*heuristic*, or at least better than folk psychology for predicting the
>success and consequent selection of astrology talkers. (Rescue
>meeee.............)
>
>Paul
>
>Paul Marsden
>Graduate Research Centre in the Social Sciences
>University of Sussex
>
>P.Marsden@sussex.ac.uk
>PaulMarsden@msn.com
>ICQ 35642304
>Tel (44) (0) 958 733 414
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gatherer, D. (Derek) <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl>
>To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk' <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Date: 20 May 1999 15:16
>Subject: RE: astrology-talk behaviour
>
>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Paul Marsden [mailto:paulmarsden@msn.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 12:46 PM
>>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>>Subject: Re: astrology-talk behaviour
>>
>>>But interpreting it as a strategy for enhancing inclusive fitness allows
>>one
>>>to view the verbal behaviour in game theoretic terms - no? Where one
>>verbal
>>>behaviour will be selected instead of another based on its resultant
>>>efficacy. In my genes' limited experience, astrology-talk beats
meme-talk
>>>with potential mates anyday. ;-)
>>
>>and perhaps both would beat no talk at all (that's where Dunbar's theories
>>come in). What I'm driving at is... to what extent can astrology-talk be
>>considered a meme? In order for it to spread horizontally by cultural
>>selection, it needs to have a certain 'unit-ness', it would have to be a
>>behavioural module. Otherwise, it would be subsumed in the general
>>selection for 'tendency to talk about something to a potential mate, as
>>opposed to merely attempting to mate' (which is almost certainly genetic).
>>'Talkativity' as such is surely a behavioural strategy module, and one
>which
>>has rich inclusive fitness rewards. 'Talk astrology' is cultural rather
>>than genetic, yes, but it would also have to have a modularity to it, in
>>order for selection (cultural in this case rather than natural) to get
some
>>purchase on it.
>>
>>In short, 'astrology talkers' would require to be more successful than
'any
>>subject talkers', and they'd have to be imitated.
>>
>>Derek
>>
>>===============================================================
>>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 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