Re: memetics-digest V1 #1329

From: Dace (
Date: Fri 09 May 2003 - 19:52:56 GMT

  • Next message: Van oost Kenneth: "Memetic- acts !? ( Performance meme)"

    As I've stated before, Joe is clearly diagnosable with a personality disorder. The diagnostic criteria are listed on page 633 of the DSM-IV:

    A. An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates from the expectations of an individual's culture, as manifested in two (or more) of the following areas:
      1. cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other people, and events)
      2. affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of emotional response)
      3. interpersonal functioning
      4. impulse control B. The enduring pattern is inflexible C. The pattern leads to distress or impairment in social areas of functioning. D. The pattern is stable and of long duration. E. The patern is not better accounted for as a consequence of another mental disorder. F. The pattern is not due to a drug of abuse, a medication, or a general medical condition (e.g., head trauma).

    > From:
    > > > From: "Wade T. Smith" <>
    > > >
    > > > Memory is a dynamic process of the mind, not just a library of
    > > > experiences, but one of the toolkits of the imagination.
    > >
    > > Yes, and the fact that memeories are not statically stored, either in
    > > genes or in brains, strongly suggests that the whole foundation of
    > > reductionist theory is rotten.
    > >
    > And woo-woo fields are healthy as hell, right? (snicker!)

    This comment reveals criterion A-1 (cognition). Now, this is obviously pointless ad hominem. I was talking with Wade about memory storage in the brain. Joe chimes in with an insulting and ignorant comment on fields (an established concept in both physics and developmental biology). What's interesting is not so much that he's unaware of how faulty his comment is, but that he never stops to think that the people on this list are smart enough to see through his childish invective. Not only does he believe unconditionally in his own innate "rightness," but he expects everyone else to blindly follow him in this belief. That he never changes or learns from this mistake reveals criteria B (inflexibility) and D (stable and of long duration). His history of difficulty with other lists reveals criterion C
    (impairment of social functioning). I assume he's not schizophrenic or merely suffering from a head injury (E and F).

    > > > What you _were_ heralding, remember it or not, was the concept of
    > > > 'morphic fields', which are part of Sheldrake's lunatic explanation
    > > > of nature.
    > >
    > > And I will continue to defend Sheldrake as long as other listmembers
    > > keep bringing him up. (The very first time I discussed Sheldrake on
    > > this list was after Scott brought him up. This pattern has continued
    > > right up to the present post.)
    > >
    > Cause Sheldrake's Dace's MAN! His Messiah and Muse. The fulcrum
    > of his onlist existence.

    This comment reveals all four areas of criterion A. Again, there's a clear-cut cognitive deficit here (and not just because I comment on a wide variety of topics and authors). Late last September I had to explain to the list moderator, Bruce Edmonds, that I'm not the one who keeps bringing up Rupert Sheldrake. No matter what topic is under discussion, if I disagree with something Joe Dees says, he comes back with an insulting comment on Sheldrake. Then I'm forced into a position where I must correct Joe's errors. As soon as I'd posted this observation, Joe came back with yet more invective against Sheldrake, nicely proving my point. Now he's proving it again. It simply never occurs to him that his anti-Sheldrake comments make him look defensive and hostile. He assumes that everyone will see him exactly the same way he sees himself-- as a paragon of reason and good sense. He also reveals here a strong affective component (2), as well as interpersonal (3) and impulse control deficits (4).

    Joe's comments in the following exchange can only be described as High Nuttiness:

    > > > > > And very few manuscripts here ARE solicited; I
    > > > > > simply reposted it to demonstrate that I had more than
    > > > > > anticipated the line of argument which Dace proferred, and that
    > > > > > perhaps he was even inspired to it by my paper, the substance of
    > > > > > which I cannot fail to notice that Dace fails to comment upon.
    > > > >
    > > > > You're a case study, Joe. Keep up the good work!
    > > > >
    > > > As always: no answer.
    > >
    > > Because you're beyond the pale, Joe. Just look at your statement
    > > above. What happened was that Keith offered his observation that
    > > communism was much like a religion. This reminded of something
    > > Toynbee said, so I dug it up. Then you come along with this truly
    > > bizarre revision of events. It just goes to show that your brain runs
    > > on hallucination instead of glucose, like the rest of us.
    > >
    > Dace STILL will not comment upon my paper, because to disparage it
    > would be to disparage the remarks he made which prompted my
    > reposting of it, since they resemble each other so much, and he cannot
    > bear to praise it, because it is mine. Those who can't produce original
    > work either criticize or embrace the work of others - Dace's eternal
    > modus operandus.

    Again, I simply responded to something Keith said with a useful quote from Toynbee. Joe then posts (for the second time!) a veritable dissertation that no one wants to read and is then incensed when I fail to comment on it. Poor thing! Keep in mind that a personality disorder is essentially the ego of a six-year-old in the body of an adult.

    > > > One of the reasons that Dace disparages the
    > > > work of others must be jealousy,
    > >
    > > According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
    > > (Fourth Edition), the belief that other people are jealous of you is a
    > > symptom of narcissistic personality disorder. This is odd, because I
    > > had you pegged with antisocial personality disorder. Well, live and
    > > learn. Of course, what you really need is six months alone with a
    > > therapist, so you can get an accurate diagnosis.
    > >
    > What Dace needs to do is furnish his psychological credentials, instead
    > of indulging in a dilettantish perusal of psychology, as many such as he
    > do who know something is wrong with their neuronal firing patterns, but
    > can't quite grok what it is. Might I suggest, considering his propensity
    > slavishly endorse pseudoscientific claptrap, that a stiff regimen of
    > antipsychotics might benefit him? I sincerely doubt if talk therapy would
    > help his case; this list has long tried that route with him with a notable
    > lack of success.

    Whatever I say in regard to him-- no matter how well thought out-- he simply throws it back in my face, only ten times more viciously. It doesn't matter how many times it's revealed that he tends to thoughtlessly attack people. He sees himself in such a positive light that it never occurs to him that other people might see him as a bully.

    But he's right about one thing: I'm not a licensed mental health practitioner. While it certainly doesn't take a license to spot a personality disorder, Joe should indeed see a professional. And it won't take six months for his therapist to diagnose him. One or two sessions should suffice. Unfortunately, people with personality disorders almost never seek help or recognize that they have a problem. The problem is always with the other guy.

    All of this is highly relevant to memetics. The pathological ego is crucial in the mutation of idea into meme. Memes exploit our unconscious needs. Rene Dahinden maintained his ludicrous position on Bigfoot because he was a narcissist (one of ten varieties of PD) and couldn't admit that he'd been taken. The meme perpetuated itself in the face of contrary evidence by exploiting his pride. The striking feature of the disturbed ego is the capacity to believe one's own lies. This makes PD's far more convincing than they would otherwise be. All it takes is one fanatic like Dahinden for a whole group of eager believers to form up around him. Pathological memes can spread to individuals who lack a pathological ego only in the context of a group. The classic example is Scientology. Once the group is in place, its pathological memes keep it intact even after the death of its founding narcissist (in this case, L. Ron Hubbard). Of course, not every PD is able to extend his personal pathology to the level of a group, as demonstrated by Joe's inability to con the memetics list.


    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 09 May 2003 - 19:59:12 GMT