Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA10897 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:22:29 GMT Message-Id: <email@example.com> X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:18:34 -0500 To: email@example.com From: Keith Henson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Words and memes: criteria for acceptance of new belief or meme In-Reply-To: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAOENECKAA.email@example.com> References: <002e01c1b194$2f0c5ca0$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
At 12:25 PM 09/02/02 -0500, "Lawrence DeBivort" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Memes cannot destroy or bypass this judgment-making mechanism: to be
> > > adopted they must meet its criteria for adoption. This helps explain why
> > > some memes are taken up by some people and not by others: our
> > >hierarchies of
> > > values differ person to person, as do the levels of certainty that we
> > > require within our judgment-making processes.
> > >
> > > Does this model help?
I would argue that memes *can* destroy or bypass judgment-making
mechanisms. They do this by inducing behavior such as the "love bombing"
and isolation as done by the Moonies. ". . . Molko v.Holy Spirit
Association (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, in which the California Supreme Court
held that the First Amendment did not bar civil causes of action for fraud,
intentional infliction of emotional distress and restitution when a cult
used deception to cause an unsuspecting individual to expose himself to
brainwashing techniques and suffered damage as a result."
Both capture-bonding and attention rewards can act directly on the brain at
the same level that addictive drugs act.
These conditions may not be as rare as we think. PR and advertising are
often so aimed below the level of conscious thoughts.
Under other conditions, memes tend to be accepted on the basis of how well
they fit with already resident memes.
To give an example, the meme that humans are susceptible to capture-bonding
(also known as the Stockholm Syndrome) because we have evolved
psychological mechanisms--triggered by capture--is extremely easy for
psychologists who have even a slight familiarity with the concepts of
evolution to accept.
This particular meme fits in or "makes sense" to those who don't really
have a good explanation for such things as the Patty Hearst kidnapping story.
> > It seems that your view and mine are on a par here, although I do not
> > understand
> > what you mean by the slogan '...as do the levels of certainty that we
> > require within our judgment-making processes.'
> > Philip.
>Sorry for the poor phrasing.
>By this, I mean that different people will require (consciously or
>unconsciously) different levels of 'proof' or certainty before they will
>accept a new belief or meme. For example, some will want total proof that
>leaves no room for uncertainty. Others will accept a belief that contains
>some ambiguity. (Colloquially, we refer to this phenomena by saying that
>someone is 'hard to convince', or 'gullible', or 'stubborn'.)
>Does this clarify the phrase?
>Further, our criteria for acceptance of a meme can also vary with the source
>of the meme. Some people accept memes that come from authority figures,
>others will want to see demonstrations, others will want to hear an
>explanation that 'makes sense' given their prior knowledge. People can even
>change a belief they have because they come the conclusion that it is not
>serving them and look for an alternative.
>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 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 - 20:35:31 GMT