Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA07086 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:35:51 GMT From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Subject: RE: "Smoking" Memes Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:17:45 -0500 Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAOEINCHAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3102A6D0D3@inchna.stir.ac.uk> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Good question...is it possible that some memes spread more widely than
others because the internal cognitive structures within individuals may or
may nor resemble each other much, or because some memes are designed in such
a way that they find/create less 'opposition' within individuals? E.g., the
'God' meme is crafted in such a way that even those who have anti-God
beliefs end up getting sucked into the meme, even if their only intent is to
denounce it. (Think of the linguisitic trap that is laid for the person who
replies to the God meme with the assertion "God does not exist.")
I don't find the notion that individuals are different cognitively and that
this has an impact on meme dissemination to be discouraging. Besides it
being a fact of life (IMO) and therefore good to recognize, I think it
merely ratchets up the technical requirements of successful memes, while
giving the individual better defenses against wholesale memes -- not a bad
thing until someone figures out how to ensure that only 'good' memes are
released. Left intact is your excellent question: what is it [given these
individual differences], that enables some memes to spread more widely than
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf
> Of Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:21 AM
> To: 'email@example.com'
> Subject: RE: "Smoking" Memes
> Not that I'm trying to criticise the line of the role of
> individuals in the
> process, but I do find it odd in a way to see such enthusiasm for
> this line
> of thought, since for me what's interesting is what makes some
> things spread
> across many individuals. In other words, taking the differences between
> individuals as given, why do some things seem to persist dramatically when
> others do not (e.g. fashion trends, blockbuster movies etc.). Perhaps one
> may find the answer to this, in reverse, if you like, by
> exploring why some
> appear "immune" to memes (similar to say studies of those people
> that don't
> become addicted to drugs, or compulsive behaviours like gambling and
> comparing them to addicts physiologically).
> I still don't see this as really that productive in terms of cultural
> selection, as opposed to natural selection. Technically, some would say,
> natural selection doesn't work at the level of individuals either,
> individuals organisms anyway, but it seems to me very clear that cultural
> selection is a social process not an individual one. Which isn't to say
> individuals aren't important, only that it's a different level of
> analysis.... IMHO.
> > ----------
> > From: Kenneth Van Oost
> > Reply To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:52 pm
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: "Smoking" Memes
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: salice <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: <email@example.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: "Smoking" Memes
> > >
> > > > << The latest scientific thoughts about this goes as follows,
> > > > it seems that each individual must be treated ' individualistic '.
> > >
> > > Yes, i think that is very important also to meme-theory. As of today
> > > people seem to be treated basically the same when considering
> > > spreading of memes or individual meme-handling. There might be some
> > > fundamental aspects which are the same for everyone but in most cases
> > > i think the selection varies between people.
> > << The line of thought is here that each specific cancer has a specific
> > out-
> > come in each and any individual, that due to our specific
> genetic/ memetic
> > built up.
> > The ways by which we re- present our organism into our brain is for each
> > and
> > everybody different.
> > Damasio describes this as positive tropism ( not sure of the term in
> > English)_
> > that would be than those functions and dispositions of an organism which
> > it can use to make for a specific behavior.
> > In a way, the idea of a possible memetical isomorphism takes form, IMO.
> > And as an additional consideration, we might find the answer why some
> > people are more than others succeptible for any type of meme in those
> > fundamental aspects of the individialistic- nature of everyone.
> > But I am not yet sure where to begin to search....
> > Regards,
> > Kenneth
> > > > I know, that some investigations were done in the area of the plague
> > and
> > > > aids. There too, science found, specific genes blocking the
> > development
> > > > of the pest and aids. I have to check my archives for more
> detail, if
> > you
> > > > want.
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
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 : Tue Oct 30 2001 - 18:41:25 GMT