Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA07980 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 11 Feb 2002 02:35:31 GMT Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:30:08 -0500 Subject: Re: The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> Message-Id: <44443FD0-1E97-11D6-A54A-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Sunday, February 10, 2002, at 09:12 , Keith Henson wrote:
> Which just demonstrates that humans are not driven by entirely rational
> analysis. Keith
And that entirely rational analysis will fail to predict human behavior.
So, where do we put the irrational in memetic analysis?
And, how does one put the irrational into any analysis?
Or, does memetics give us a way to pattern, with some predictability,
what appears to be the irrational?
How rational is culture, after all?
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 Feb 11 2002 - 02:45:24 GMT