From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: malicious gossip
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 22:03:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.990706210233.14241A-100000@wolfe.umd.edu>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Lawrence H. de Bivort
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 9:16 PM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: malicious gossip
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, Aaron Agassi wrote:
>
> >repulsive to others. Further more, the meme also endows the host
> with some
> >sense of who will respond with the strongest reinforcement, and who not.
> >Thus the meme encodes the host for the most efficient vectorization of
> >memetic transmission.
>
> Yes, I think that a well-constructed meme would be likely to carry with it
> some instruction for its further dissemination.
In other words, behavioral patterns.
>Perhaps one of the key
> differences between an undesigned meme and a designed one is the
> specificity of its further dissemination instructions.
>
> We've wrestled with the design required for a meme to _only_ disseminate
> itself to a target population and no further.
>
> >> It would have to be a pretty powerful meme to be considered
> defining (or
> >> more appropriately re-defining of a personality). It does happen --
> (snip)
>
> >I did not speak of such a powerful meme. I spoke of the preexisting
> >personality. Would you agree that any person can be a better
> host or vector
> >for some memes than others?
>
> This poses two questions, I think. First, is there a type of personality
> that is more vulnerable to memes?
We are all more permeable to some memes and less permeable to others. And
which is which varies, from host to host.
>I think there must be, but I am so
> sceptical of personality 'typing' models that I shy away from trying to
> specify what it might be. I do believe that no one is impervious to memes.
> To the extent that there is a personality type that is more impervious,
> then the meme would simply have to be better designed. War, between the
> 'aggressive' meme and the 'defenses' of the individual or culture explosed
> to the meme.
>
> The second question is whether, everything else being equal, a person
> might more resistent to one meme than to another. Yes, I think this is
> clearly the case: the readiness of a person to accept a meme will depend
> in part on how they generally 'take in' new information, and then in how
> well the meme fits in with their existing beliefs. (This does not refer as
> much to the content of the meme as its architecture and its phraseology or
> symbology.) Again, the better the design of the meme, the better it will
> be 'noticed' by the person (or culture) and accepted.
A malicious person readily notices opportunities for evil gossip, and
threats of exposure. It is a conspiratorial meme.
>
> I'll offer a provocation: no one is beyond the reach of _any_ meme, if it
> is designed well enough.
Shall I offer a meme design challenge?
>
> Lawrence de Bivort
> The Memetics Group
>
> |---------------------------------------------|
> | ESI |
> | Evolutionary Services Institute |
> | "Crafting opportunities for a better world" |
> | 5504 Scioto Road, Bethesda, MD 20816, USA |
> | (301) 320-3941 |
> |---------------------------------------------|
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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