Date: Mon Jan 07 2002 - 06:31:25 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "Re: CRASH CONTAGION"

    Received: by id GAA29654 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 06:35:30 GMT
    From: <>
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 01:31:25 EST
    Subject: Re: CRASH CONTAGION
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Content-Language: en
    X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113
    Precedence: bulk

    In a message dated 1/6/2002 8:58:46 PM Central Standard Time, Keith Henson
    <> writes:

    Hi Keith.

    Good to see you working on these very current issues. I agree that biological
    advantages of social attention-getting behavior play a major role in making
    humans susceptible to such ideas as plane crashing. And mating drives are
    crucial in that regard. My specialization remains with the contagion of the
    ideas that contribute to behaviors such as this, (as well as more benign and
    ordinary behaviors.)

    Without intention of getting into an extensive listserver discussion, I will
    offer some material I have already written. In the October 14 edition of my
    newsletter Thought Contagion News
    ( , I give a short discussion of
    some of the ideological and sexual angles of the September 11 attacks:

    " ... In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many people
    around the world are wondering how the violent ideologies of Al Qaeda and the
    Taliban could have propagated in Afghanistan and various other countries.
    Many also wonder how the extreme danger presented by those movements could
    have been underestimated by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

    The events of September 11 clearly show the problems with the earlier
    prevailing wisdom that a suicidal terrorist would only be someone desperately
    poor, uneducated, without family, and lacking opportunity. Missing in the
    earlier prevailing wisdom was recognition of the power of extreme ideologies
    formed through evolutionary contagion. Many planners prepared for such things
    as biological hazards, deadly chemicals, and so forth, but not enough
    attention went to the underlying ideological hazard.

    While thought contagion theory usually does not foretell future events in
    detail, it often does help to show what kinds of dangers lurk in the world
    and what evolutionary forces create those dangers. The following is an
    excerpt from a talk titled "Human Destiny and the Evolutionary Epidemiology
    of Ideas" I presented at the Foundation for the Future Workshop on Cultural
    Evolution, May 18-19, 2000, Bellevue, WA. It illustrates that some of the
    evolutionary forces leading to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in
    the United States could be understood more than a year in advance: "... The
    evolutionary maintenance and growth of religious fervor now contribute to the
    risk of nuclear war in India and Pakistan. Belief in special afterlife
    treatment for martyrs [in Islam] heightens the risk. If such a war happens,
    it could have devastating consequences not just in the region, but also for
    financial markets and the world economy as nations react by trying to create
    terrorist-proof boarders and curtailing civil liberties. The World Trade
    Center bombing illustrates very clearly that there are groups who would use a
    nuclear weapon on a large city if given a chance. ..." ("World Trade Center
    bombing" referred to the 1993 attack.) Sections of the book Thought Contagion
    also discuss evolutionary causes of jihad, religious martyrdom ideas, and
    religiously inspired acts of war and violence in more general terms.

    Evolutionary thought contagion theory may thus help us to answer the
    otherwise baffling question of why so many people who have money, education,
    families, and residency in a modern Western country are willing to kill
    themselves in order to kill people they regard as infidels. In thought
    contagion theory, the idea of violent "martyrdom" can be regarded as a fatal
    thought contagion: lethal to both the hosts of the thought contagion and to
    many more non-hosts. The spread of this idea in the modern world creates a
    new kind of ideological hazard. Those who hold ideas of violent "martyrdom"
    need to be educated that there is no real martyrdom, only senseless death
    from an extremely virulent thought contagion.

    Because the Taliban and Al Qaeda ideologies threaten death to people who
    spread alternative belief systems such as Christianity or moderate Islam,
    they also propagate the way Nazism did in pre-war Germany. In this mode of
    transmission, adherents of an extremely intolerant and violent ideology
    intimidate non-adherents into silence. When adherents of the ideology express
    their intolerant, angry, and violent ideas, any non-adherents present are
    faced with two choices. They can either express their disagreement and risk
    being injured or killed, or they can remain silent and thereby surrender the
    conversational “air time” to those expressing the hateful ideology. With all
    the “air time” surrendered to adherents and people pretending to be
    adherents, any non-adherents who might be persuadable end up hearing only one
    side of the issue. [note 1]

    Making matters worse, the non-adherent of the ideology may be intimidated
    into pretending to be an adherent to further reduce his or her personal risk...
    So adherents of the ideology may not even know when they are talking to
    people who disagree with them. During this process, the false beliefs that
    arouse the most intense rage may be the ones least likely to be corrected by
    people who have more accurate information. Most people reckon that it is
    better to knowingly lose an argument than to risk losing their lives. Few
    people want to risk contradicting an armed person who is enraged about the
    things he believes. The most enraging and erroneous beliefs can thus
    out-propagate more accurate and benign ideas in many settings.

    The extreme and violent repression of women also contributes to a hostile,
    jingoistic culture. Perhaps removing one of the main possibilities for gentle
    relationships leaves people spending more of their time thinking and acting
    in terms of violence and force. In any case, connection between sexual
    repression and violence has been explored by social scientists at least since
    the work of Margaret Mead. The ideas behind the sexual repression have their
    own modes of thought contagion: people impart repressive ideas to their
    daughters in order to prevent even the remote possibility of an unmarried
    birth. This propagation motive is described in the Sexually Transmitted
    Belief chapter of Thought Contagion.

    Various interventions can limit the spread of hateful, intolerant ideologies
    and misbeliefs. One straightforward way to help the more educated adherents
    is to discuss with them how hateful ideologies can cause their own
    propagation. Recognizing such an ideology as an infectious, pathological
    condition may help as a first step toward a careful re-examination of the
    ideology’s tenets. Ultimately, we must address the ideologies of violence if
    we are to make the world a safer place. ..."

    --Aaron Lynch

    > I agree with Aaron, this is a clear case of contagion, and his post is
    > explanation what happened and how the idea was transmitted.
    > My focus of interest in the realm of memetics has moved on to the&quot;why&
    > quot; question. Why do humans have the psychologicaltendencies to do
    > something so clearly counter survival?
    > From<A HREF="">>
    > <x-tab> </x-tab>&quot;Thegoal
    > of research in evolutionary psychology is to discover and understandthe
    > design of the human mind. Evolutionary psychology is anapproach to
    > psychology, in which knowledge and principles fromevolutionary biology are
    > put to use in research on the structure of thehuman mind. It is not an area
    > of study, like vision, reasoning, or socialbehavior. It is a way of thinking
    > about psychology that can beapplied to any topic within it.
    > <x-tab> </x-tab>&quot;Inthis
    > view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines that
    > by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by ourhunter-gatherer
    > ancestors. This way of thinking about the brain, mind,and behavior is
    > changing how scientists approach old topics, and openingup new ones. This
    > chapter is a primer on the concepts and arguments thatanimate it.&quot;
    > &quot;designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced byour
    > hunter-gatherer ancestors&quot; is the key statement.
    > A clear example of psychological traits natural selection left us with
    > Stockholm Syndrome, exemplified by the Patty Hearst kidnapping andspouse
    > abuse. This capture-bonding or social reorientation whencaptured from
    > one waring tribe to another was an essential survival toolfor a million
    > or more. Those who reoriented often became ourancestors. Those
    > who did not became breakfast.
    > This is easy to understand, but what could people have done in the
    > tribaldays that translates today into strapping on explosives as they do
    > inIsrael or crashing airplanes into buildings? You have to grokWilliam
    > Hamilton's concepts about inclusive fitness for this to makesense. Bees
    > kill themselves defending a hive because shared genesto do so become more
    > common in their relatives when they do so ..
    > The same is true of humans. Hamilton once figured out that genesfor
    > saving more than two brothers or more than 8 cousins at the cost ofdeath
    > should spread in an environment where such choices happened. We presume
    > such was the situation for a million years or more.
    > Of course, leading a charge into a group men armed with sticks and
    > not the sure thing of crashing into a building, but you can see wherethe
    > willingness to die would come from. And it may well be that thegenes of
    > the suicide hijackers and similar cases are doing wellthrough enhanced
    > reproductive opportunities for their relatives.
    > The other factor is that some degree of social status was (and still is)an
    > essential condition for reproductive success. In male YanamanoIndians
    > social status comes with being a killer. Killers in thatculture have
    > several times as many children as non killers.
    > Social status clear back to the chimpanzees is measured by the level
    > ofattention an individual gets. There is no doubt that Ben Ladin hashad
    > one hell of a lot of attention put on him in recent months. Sorting out
    > positive attention from negative is something that a lot ofpeople (many on
    > the net) never get right.
    > A 15 year old in a tribe 100k years ago would have led an attack on aparty
    > from another tribe and (if he didn't get killed) chances are hewould have
    > gotten lots of attention and maybe laid that night as areward. Crashing
    > a light plane into a building just gets him dead,but you can see where the
    > behavior comes from in response to exposure tothese memes showing how to
    > attention.
    > I have an article in draft that goes into this in more depth. It
    > isabout ten pages if that is not too long for this list.
    > Keith Henson
    > (practical memetics at)
    > <A HREF=""></A>

    ===============================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 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 06:41:59 GMT