Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Thu Mar 21 2002 - 20:08:49 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence"

    Received: by id UAA28406 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 20:06:27 GMT
    Message-ID: <000701c1d114$52c9ea00$a9a8eb3e@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes
    Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:08:49 +0100
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Steve Drew <>
    > My understanding of what stereotypes are is that it is the ability to
    > construct them which is Darwinian in origin, not the stereotypes that are
    > selected and used. There is, however, a degree of environmental
    > reinforcement of what constitutes the actual stereotype and a persons
    > reaction to it, so yes i agree up to a point.

    Hi Steve,

    Hm, ' construction ' is Lamarckian. We ' create ' the unbased
    by which the stereotype is known.
    Like saying all Marokkians are thiefs due to the fact that most armed
    robberies are execute by people of that origin...( just an example, though).

    If of course, you refer to the fact that we, with our brain possess lineages
    to ' construct ' patterns by which some stereotypical forms are the result,
    I agree, but that can be said of all our behavioral processing, though !
    Indeed, partial information, ignorance and blind stupidity gave rise,not
    only to stereotypical behavior, gestures, habits and traits, but also to
    stereotypical ways of thinking.

    OTOH, there is still no way of telling if or if not a Lamarckian charac-
    teristic lies at the bias of some stereotype_ it can boil down to the fact
    that people just don 't use ( the notion of disuse in Lamarckism) the
    inbedded Darwinian aspects of there being. They can be just unfriendly
    to strangers despite the fact that their genes say it otherwise.
    An introverted community can show such characteristics_ Darwinian in
    origin, yes ( genetics) but those can be Lamarckian expressed ( meme-
    tically). For example, there would be no hotels where strangers could
    spent the night, no restaurants where they could eat, no cars or houses
    to rent... just ignoring their presence.
    Racism may just be the " no- using " of inbedded Darwinian lineages of
    being nice to you neighbour...

    > For myself i am reasonably convinced of the applicability of Lamark to
    > memetics and i agree that the Darwinism (and biological allusion's as well
    > can be taken too far. But behaviours and ideas can be subject to Darwinian
    > pressure's, particularly if the idea is a stupid and dangerous one :-)

    This interests me, how do you see the application of Lamarckism in meme-
    tics !? Please eloborate !?

    Many regards,
    Sorry for the delay, a lot to do,


    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 21 2002 - 20:17:06 GMT