Re: memetics/memics/mimetics

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Tue 27 Jan 2004 - 01:33:05 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: meme as catalytic indexical"

    >From: Keith Henson <>
    >Subject: Re: memetics/memics/mimetics
    >Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:45:16 -0500
    >At 07:09 AM 26/01/04 -0500, jeremy wrote:
    >> >> every few months somebody comes in here and for some
    >> >> reason tries to redefine "meme." I or someone else
    >> >> generally pipes up, if only for the record.
    >>Given the current displeasure about definitions, I have to ask: Which
    >>is more correct for the study of infectious ideas, "memetics" (as has
    >>the convention),
    >137,000 hits on Google. Adding "meme" brings it down to 21,700
    >Category: Science > Biology > Sociobiology > Memetics
    >>"memics" (after Dawkins, 1986/1991, p.158),
    >68 hits on Google, most of them not related to memes.
    >>or "mimetics"
    >>(after Dawkins, 1976, p.192)?
    >18,400 hits. But adding "meme" drops it to 274 (many of which look very
    >(Also Category: Science > Biology > Sociobiology > Memetics)
    >So from usage memetics comes out ahead by on the order of 100 to one (at
    >this time).
    >Commenting on the rest of your interesting post will take more time than I
    >have now. Will try to get to it this evening.
    What sort of criterion is hits on google beyond being a popularity contest? Does popularity translate to validity?

    _________________________________________________________________ Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed experience.

    =============================================================== 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 : Tue 27 Jan 2004 - 01:44:41 GMT