Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990731145315.0075a744@popmail.mcs.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 14:53:15 -0500
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net>
Subject: Re: Parody of Science
This is a second copy of the message I sent about 2 hours earlier. Marsden
has tried inserting extra spaces, deleting a colon, and changing a
preposition--all moves that tend to get messages missed by people following
the discussion using the threaded web archive.
At 05:55 PM 7/31/99 +0200, Paul Marsden wrote:
>Aaron
>
>>"The [baby dolls for girls] meme may also have emotional effects lasting
>>long after childhood, INCREASING WOMEN'S DESIRE TO HAVE REAL BABIES. During
>>girlhood, the baby doll provides a source of comfort and make-believe
>>attachment. As the girl grows up, she learns that she is too old to play
>>with dolls anymore. But the desire for comfort and attachment remains, and
>>TRANSLATES into desire for a real baby. Seeing other women enjoy comfort
>and attachment from a real baby heightens the desire still further, to a
>point sometimes called "baby lust" in contemporary America.
>
>>I describe the baby dolls for girls meme as *a* contributing causal factor
>>to women's desire's to have children. Nowhere do I make the statement you
>>attribute to me that "This is what lies behind the phenomenon of 'baby
>>lust'."
>
>
>Your argument is as follows
>
>A causes B, which is amplified by C resulting in D.
>
>Where
>
>A is the baby doll meme
>B is desire for children
>C is exposure to women enjoying comfort and attachment caused by having a
>baby.
>D is baby lust
>
>Whatever way you look at it, A according to your argument lies behind D,
>which is what I said.
You are now removing your actual statement and replacing it with something
different. For the benefit of readers, the only statement I make about the
popular phrase "baby lust" (but not the only statement I make about desires
for children) reads as follows:
"Seeing other women enjoy comfort and attachment from a real baby heightens
the desire still further, to a point sometimes called "baby lust" in
contemporary America." (p. 57)
Your JASSS statement, in full, reads:
"Why do women want to have children? "As the girl grows up, she learns that
she is too old to play with dolls anymore. But the desire for comfort and
attachment remains, and translates into a desire for a real baby". This is
what lies behind the phenomenon of "baby lust". (p. 57)"
I leave it to readers to decide for themselves whether the sentence "This
is what lies behind the phenomenon of 'baby lust'" is falsely attributed to
me or has a distortional effect.
>We could do this with all the points made in the review of your book - but I
>think people would find it all very tedious. Your book can be bought from
>www.amazon.com and the review can be read at
>http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/2/2/review4.html and in addition your
>reply will soon be published in the Journal. Lets leave the verdict to the
>readers, I am certainly not the person to objectively defend my own review
>of your book. I would suggest that mutatis mutandis, the same may apply to
>you.
>
>Is it not time to move on from navel gazing involved when there really is no
>fact of the matter here. You have your interpretation of your book, I was
>asked to give mine. Let's now work together and move on to developing
>substantial arguments and producing convincing evidence for memetics.
Fine. And towards that end, I recommend that we all try to stay with
careful, conscientious, and honest representations of each other's
statements so as to minimize the need to write articles focused mainly on
correcting misrepresentations. Scientists correcting each other on a few
misattributions is to be expected, but I would rather not have to write
another piece such as the one I sent to JASSS--even though it addresses
more important misrepresentations that the one about "baby lust." We all
have more important work to do than correcting large piles of mutual
missattributions, misquotations, etc. and then arguing about the corrections.
--Aaron Lynch
http://www.mcs.net/~aaron/thoughtcontagion.html
===============================================================
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