From: Keith Henson (email@example.com)
Date: Fri 29 Oct 2004 - 02:29:40 GMT
At 07:00 PM 27/10/04 -0700, Scott wrote:
>I'm not sure about compatibility, but maybe there's
>something to be said for relevance between EP and
>If memes are sui generis floaters like the socifacts
>or collective representations of Durkheim, psychology
>per se is not relevant, including evolutionary
Pascal Boyer has a good deal to say about this with respect to religious memes.
In _Religion Explained_ he presents a list of religious stories and it is
easy to pick out the ones that are religions or could be from those that
Urban legends and rumors are other examples. Some stories spread well and
others not, and the ones that do can be quantified.
Like humans are genetically programmed to be receptive to learning
language, we are programmed to accept some memes far more readily than others.
The new idea I have been examining is that the kind of memes that spreads
well depends on the condition, particularly the psychological condition, of
the population that is host to the meme.
Incidentally, if you are in the Toronto area, I will be lecturing on this
subject November 15 (Sunday) at 1pm at the Unitarian Church at 175 St Clair
Ave W Toronto.
The talk will be about evolutionary psychology and the origin of war. I
will keep the talk short so there can be lots of interaction.
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 : Fri 29 Oct 2004 - 02:45:20 GMT