From: Scott Chase (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat 09 Aug 2003 - 00:31:04 GMT
>From: "Scott Chase" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Defining the word "replicator" (was Re: Silent memes)
>Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:13:34 -0400
>>From: derek gatherer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>Subject: Re: Defining the word "replicator" (was Re: Silent memes)
>>Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:11:49 +0100 (BST)
>>Drift would be another factor. OTOH, why couldn't so
>>called memetic variants be neutral? Could there be a
>>neutral theory of cultural evolution to parallel that
>>of molecular evolution?
>>Of course, for instance see:
>It's good to see somebody considering non-adaptive aspects of cultural
>change. From the POV of the organism, I'm a little more cautious about
>gene's eye view arguments, so meme's eye arguments are a bit harder to
>fathom. From the standpoint of individual or gene selection, a good bit of
>the transitory ideas that spread around a population could have negligible
>impact either way. There's lots of superfluous fluff that could act kinda
>like neutral allelic variants or "junk" DNA and just tag along atop whatver
>adaptive social structure exists in a culture and fluctuate in frequency
>stochastically veering towards fixation or extinction.. I don't know how
>much clarity looking at this fluff as selfish memes would be, just like
>neutral allelic variants or non-genic regions of DNA may not themselves be
>selfish (though there is an apt argument for "selfish DNA").
>Your treatment of irrational versus rational behavior confused me a little.
>You start off by defining an irrational behavior saying it's at best
>neutral to the agent then a little later say it could act in the agent's
>I'm not sure status seeking would perfectly parallel with rational
>behavior. If a high status mate were to have other attributes that made
>them less of a long term asset to a mate, it may be in the best interests
>of the mate to choose a lower status individual without these other
>attributes (say if they had lost their gonads in a hunting accident or were
>misogynistic to the point of spouse abuse or what have you). OTOH if status
>seeking comes from some handy dandy module that emerged from the EEA and
>was selected for, the tendency for status seeking could arise from a
>non-rational instinctive level or may be an irrational impulse more than
>something that is consciously (or rationally) calculated by the seeker. I
>suppose it could be said that the behavior is "raional" from the gene's
>POV, but this could be excluded for the purpose of cultural simulation.
>I don't know if "what's your sign" could ever be rational, unless maybe the
>context is that one lives in a society that is under the sway of
>superstition to the point that the only way to find a mate is to join in
>the astrological (or religious) zeitgeist. How rational would it be to buck
>the system to the point of total ostracism spending one's weekends alone
>and mateless while everyobody else is at the local palmistry convention
>hooking up and having a good ole time.
>Your contagion versus common pool contrast was interesting.
>I'll have to think more deeply about your various models.
To add an afterthought, in the context of a society where astrological sign seeking is the norm, status could be a matter of being an astrological guru. The best horoscopist would have a higher status and it may be then be a matter of status seeking for someone to attempt pairing with them. If they happen to have the same sign, would this intersect of what's your status and what's your sign be rational or irrational? People who don't follow the norm of sign seeking would have lower status, wouldn't they?
Maybe there's a society ruled by Capricorns and this sign has the highest
status...OK I'll quit for now.
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
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 2.1.5 : Sat 09 Aug 2003 - 00:36:02 GMT