Re: Memes Meta-Memes and Politics 2 of 3 (1988, updates 2002)

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Sun Feb 10 2002 - 22:29:57 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: ply to Grant: corporate behavior"

    Received: by id VAA07149 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:38:26 GMT
    Message-ID: <002a01c1b282$79508fe0$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer>
    From: "Philip Jonkers" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Memes Meta-Memes and Politics 2 of 3 (1988, updates 2002)
    Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 13:29:57 -0900
    Organization: Prodigy Internet
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
    X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
    Precedence: bulk

    > Why do these "replicating information patterns" jump from mind to
    > mind, sometimes setting off massive, and occasionally dangerous, social
    > movements? Memes that are good at inducing those they infect to spread
    > them, and ones that are easy to catch, simply become more common. Since
    > this is circular reasoning, I need to restate the question. What, in the
    > evolutionary prehistory of our race, has predisposed us to be a substrate
    > to memes that can harm us?

    Memes that have the highest persuasion potential for adoption will dominate
    over the less persuasive ones. As long as they don't kill off the hosts too
    much it is actually immaterial whether memes are good/useful or bad/harmful.


    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 : Sun Feb 10 2002 - 21:47:45 GMT