Talk:Meme/Archive 1

message: If we imagine that the meme theory is both true and horrendously destructive, the concept of a meme is itself a meme, and carriers of that meme seem prone to defend it in the form defined by Dawkins because of its singular elegance.
Whether human moral criteria can judge memes "good" or "bad", in general or in specific, is simply not a question that an encyclopedia committed to a neutral point of view can even attempt to answer.  But, scientifically, to comprehend the significance of memes to cultural evolution, we must overcome human cognitive bias and culture bias by looking at other species.  The nearest human relatives, chimpanzees, according to researchers Roger Fouts and Jane Goodall, live in bands with complex relationships, have nurturing family lives, and substantial wild culture - but seemingly without memes at all.  They and other great apes seem to be simply immune to the process of making up words or phrases for "new ideas" - absolutely essential to the concept of a meme as defined by Dawkins et al.  They create no technologies, but also no wars or genocides, which seems strongly to suggest that so-called "cultural evolution" isn't happening - much.
:"the meme machine" by susan blackmore proposes that memes spread by the "good trick" of imitation. A creature with senses can observe and imitate another without necessarily involving language.
Ideas of evolution of societies that preceded the formal idea of memes, cultural evolution or the more specific notions of ethical evolution or moral evolution tended to emphasize the dual nature of knowledge - as both deadly danger and a means of leveraging labour to unheard-of efficiency.  It is entirely valid to look at the downside of meme propagation for those who carry the meme, and those who get too close to a meme carrier.
:As far as "meme" being a meme: "Even the idea that the concepts of memes is itself a meme has become a widely spread meme. However, the idea that the idea that the concepts of memes it itself a meme, is not yet a meme." What the hell does the second sentence mean? I mean, I get the sort of subtle humor in it but... :-\ --Tothebarricades.tk 18:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meme as meme 

message: Resistance to science and technology has been a common meme (or anti-meme).
The Internet, perhaps the ultimate meme vector, seems to be hosting both sides of this debate.  Although it would seem to a naive observer that no adult user of the Internet could oppose its use by other adult, that does in fact happen, based on any number of criteria from ethics to intent to ability to resist hacking or pornography.  Can we restrict the most dangerous memes to the wisest people?  And who are "we" to decide?
----
All right, there are clearly multiple theories (or "memes" if you must) competing for space here.  And it can't fit in one article, and probably shouldn't.  I don't object to moving the stuff above, however I do object to having it called "nonsense".  Frankly, we need better words to describe other people's work than "vandalism" and "nonsense" and "crap".  However if this is the standard, I shall follow it rigorously, and dominator culture vandalism, Karl Popper's nonsense, and artificial intelligence crap will be subject to a rather intense rewrite to reflect the neutral point of view of the three billionth person on Earth on the socioeconomic scale...
So, a truce proposal:
How about we leave meme more or less as it is, using religion as its prime and controversial example, and the above can be rewritten as part of a more general article on meme theory following roughly what was done with w:gaia theory - thus differentiating the first Meme Hypothesis of Dawkin, Susan Blackmore, from any more specific ideas of testable Meme Theory that propose to falsify the meme hypothesis itself - I will let someone else write those as I don't think the thesis is amenable to falsification.  It is at presently seemingly just a metaphor to make "cultural evolution" seem as real as genes - in which case Dame Thatcher's response is appropriate, as are those of the Marxist critics.
:There is no such thing as "meme theory".  The word "meme" has entered popular culture, so it needs to be covered.  But even Dawkins calls his use 
:: google yields 654,000 hits.  Of all levels of credibility.  I wasn't reporting what *I* think of Thatcher but how many scandalized academics (who study "society") saw it... that she clearly was aligned with some idea of other things evolving and then only emerging as culture.  I like Thatcher's view better than yours:  she was populist enough to see that the public did not trust academic ideas of "society" or its 'peer reviewed journals', etc..
:of the word speculations and musings, because it is.  He's a real scientist, and doesn't dignify his musings by pretending that they are real science--he 
::historians, journalists, and others must be trusted to make an encyclopedia work - and so must professional researchers who understand these theories for purposes of commerce or politics.  Many people *have* asked the scientific questions about the "meme" - especially Gabora - and the human archaeological record and Goodall's chimp culture observations cast significant light on it.  Hell just "ape meme" got 1580 hits - much of it on memetics lists, etc. - some of it associated with new tribalists.  This alone is a phenomena - that many people believe that the useful memes for humans can only be seen in apes, and not in humans any more, who are so deluded by such junk memes as academia and encylopedia and dictionaries contain, that they forgot where they came from.  This is, I claim, a *MAINSTREAM* view - that of National Geographic in particular - but they do not discuss this in peer reviewed journals because it's a cultural thesis.  So Dawkin's view is irrelevant now.
:keeps the two separate. It's not his fault that the press and people in general foam at the mouth to hear about the speculative stuff instead of the real science.  Everything in this field is speculative, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia except as the briefest introduction and pointers to more info.  If there are other theories and speculations, add them as links to other articles.  There's simply no need for anything else here. 
:: I don't object to keeping this short, linking and moving general debate elsewhere - but if there is "gaia theory" or "string theory" (and there is) then there is also "meme theory".  Science itself has trouble with things that are too big, too small, or too fast-moving - as these three things are.  The protocols by which these three types of "theory" are debated vary drastically - you will find gaia theory debated in pagan and green and peace movement and theology circles, string theory in peer-reviewed journals and papers, and meme theory mostly on the Internet.  That's a consequence of the ways those theories evolved.  I submit that meme, gaia, and string theory are all at about the same level of viability, having recently crossed from protoscience and now having competing theses that *can* be tested... even if some (like meme theory) are tests that memes do not exist at all.
:If you absolutely must cover someone else's conception of the term, then title the articles very specifically: "X's theory of memetics" or "Y's theory of culture evolution", etc.
:: google yields 654,000 hits.  Yes, it's complex, but if you find people who embrace that complexity, at the conferences, in the movements, etc., you find it is *not* all speculative and that several important theses do exist regarding memes - and evidence.  Can they be validated as "real"?  Maybe not.  Can they be said to support or sustain academia?  Oh, most definitely.
::once you have defined "memetics" as "the study of memes" and granted Dawkins a "royal monopoly" (from LDC, HRH, a "King" in the chess sense) on the definition, it is quite pointless to refer to other theories of memes, such as Liane Gabora's, which refuse to be categorized as "memetics".  A slight difference in the definition makes a vast difference in the overall view of evolution, culture, society, values, and bodies which results in the end.  That's why this is political:  each of "our" articles here is *some kind of* meme.
The larger meme theory article will deal with the controversy sparked by memes, the way most people encounter memes or understand the concept naively (as the above text does fairly well I think), memes about memes, and contrast with more detailed theories of evolution (proposing multiple threads or tracks of it), social capital theory (notably Paul Adler's totem article "The Good, the Bad And the Ugly"), and creativity theory (notably Liane Gabora).  I'd also like to know what the consensus is on http://www.lucifer.com and http://www.memecentral.com as sources - they seem to be making good progress on exploiting the meme meme to further the warning aspect of it.
Also, it would be good for editorial reputation (those of you who care about this, pay attention) if string theory, meme theory, and gaia theory got exactly the same even-handed treatment and did not assign any one researcher, even the originator, of such short-word theories a monopoly on what they mean.  If someone wants to define a four word phrase like cognitive science of mathematics into existence and "own" it for a while, fine, that does little harm if his views fit into what people understand by cognitive science, by philosophy, and how cognitive science purports to replace philosophy in some contexts.  However, if someone wants to nab a pre-existing word like "string", an ancient proper name like "gaia", or a mnemonic rhyming new word like "meme" <-- which seems to just call attention to itself, i.e. "me!  me!", we should be more willing to let other strange theories attach themselves to those short convenient words than we would to muddy the waters on longer phrases.  A simple stupid standard might apply to invert the relationship between brevity of a concept and ownership:  a four or five-letter word could require the treatment of at least four opposing views, a six- or seven-letter word could require three, eight or more only two each.  We can tolerate dualism with respect to long phrases of possibly no meaning - I doubt we can keep English alive if we permit its short and convenient words to be dominated by small cliques of researchers who don't talk to each other.
In other words, it's our 'job' to ensure that Paul Dawkins, Margaret Thatcher, Susan Blackmore, Liana Gabora and Paul Adler are all mentioned in at least one file, so that people can see various perspectives on this broad thing called "meme" - and do not have to accept "cultural evolution" first...
:I agree with this last...all those people should be mentioned, perhaps by adding a link at the bottom of the page to an essay, or their home page, or the names of books they have written.  Our readers want to know where they can find Thatcher's ideas in her own words--they don't give a damn what you or I think about them, and they shouldn't.  --LDC
::some detailed comment on all the rest would be valuable - we aren't going to get far if you want to assign all four-or-five letter words as property to their first user.  For instance if I write the first paper on "ape theory" do I get to define apes?  Clearly not...
----
Since I can't conceive of a principled distinction between stuff to put in meme and stuff to put in memetics, I propose that we merge the two. I propose the merged article be called "memetics", because that seems a more encyclopedic name. Objections? Please respond at Talk:Memetics. --Ryguasu
I have merged the two articles, but in "Meme", rather than "Memetics". See my comment in Talk:Memetics for the reason why. -- Anon.
----
I cut the following:
:As with most success traits, what distinguishes ideas as memes from other ideas that get passed from person to person
is that the likelihood of a meme's being passed on is affected by some property of the meme itself, rather than just by the nature of the people passing it on. For example, tool designs can clearly affect the efficacy of a tool independently of the habits of the different people using them. Legends and myths, for example, often teach a moral lesson or explain a mystery, so they are more likely to be retold to serve different speakers' purposes than other similar stories without those elements. 
because it just doesn't make sense.  Yes, the article must explain the difference between memes and non-memes, but this doesn't do it.  According to Darwinian theory, success is a consequence of both the structure of the trait and the selective environment.  This is true for thumbs, and it is true for hammers (to use the example of the above text).  Tool designs do not affect the efficacy of a tool independently of the environment; what constitutes a good tool design is determined by the environment i.e. by how people will use it and in what contexts.  Look at all the different kinds of nails or hammers -- as with finch beaks, different kinds of hammers have evolved because different environments (jobs) select for (favor) different designs.  The above paragraph seems to be trying to make an analogy with organic evolution, yet misunderstands Darwinian theory. Slrubenstein
----
I removed this paragraph:
:Further to the social model of memetics, which is oft focussed upon, is the area of Individual Memetics (IM). Essentially the model of IM stipulates that the transferrence of an idea to an individual mind acts in such a way that it might be likened to a virus in that the adopted idea (should it be adopted) will act to perpetuate its own survival within the organism of the human mind in much the same way that the model of evolution theory postulates the idea of "survival of the fittest". If one were to attempt to transfer an idea such as "Hey Bob, this is a good sandwich" then the viability of transfer is determined by the receptivity of the potentially "infected" individual to that idea. If Bob has had bad experiences with sandwiches then the meme of "This is a good sandwich" meets memetic conflict at the gates of the psychological filtering process. In this way we can see that there exists a complex array of memetic social sets and systems. What differentiates IM from modern psychological theories is that it posits the idea (meme) that each individual thought, idea or experience is as an individual animal is in an ecosystem--both are attempting to survive in their environment, to the best of their abilities relative to the nature of the environment and the competing memes or animals respectively.
It may well be that there's something to say here, but I don't really see any important content here that isn't already covered in the article in a more clear and understandable way. If the author of this paragraph can give me an idea what he's tryong to say, perhaps we can figure out a clearer way to integrate that into the article. LDC
----
Some note is made of the idea that belief systems which include concepts such as 'Thou shall not kill' contain an increased chance of survival within a group that adopts them. No note is made of the counterargument -- that such basic approaches to human living such as 'killing is usually bad' are instinctual and that as a result belief systems that contain memes such as 'thou shall not kill' are actually using these instinctual arguments as a buttress to the less substantial memes within the set, as they have several memes that are very hard to argue/defend against.
To put it in simpler terms, whether a priest says 'you shall not kill' or not makes little difference to the number of killings that occur (if any), but it does grant credit by association to concepts like 'repent and be baptised and you will live forever', which is a bit more of a stretch, and 'premarital sex is evil' which is a REAL stretch.
Whereas, if a belief structure that contained the concepts of 'repent and you will go to heaven' and 'premarital sex is evil' were paired instead with a concept like 'kill your closest neighbours because elbow room is holy' the meme set would be much harder to spread :Dodger
----
Ok, I think we need a section that explains the differences, or lack therof, between a narrative from postmodernism, a structure from structuralism and poststructuralism, and the common meme.  They all look the same to me.
Note:  I'm not in the know about this.
:Reid 06:57, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can memes be resisted? 

message: It is also a very silly thing to put for the main picture for this article.  :-)  can we come up with something better? - Omegatron 19:57, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree that AYBABTU might be an example of a meme, but I don't think it is a very strong example. I doubt it will last out the decade, whilst other memes have survived for centuries. We should be able to find a better example for a main image. How about a nursery rhyme picture? -- Solipsist 20:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  All your base are belong to us is a well known meme for internet users 

message: [For the main image] can we come up with something better?
:The best main image would be a visual meme. That is an iconic image which is easy to draw and compelling enough to pass on to other people. I would suggest one of
 which has 3000 years of longevity and is still powerful 
or 
 which is more current, and has better viral qualities.
:Any other ideas -- Solipsist 20:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Visual Memes

message: "Statement X is true. Statement X tells us: If you believe X, you will go to heaven. If you do not believe X, you will go to hell. Therefore, it is your moral duty to convince everyone of the truth of X." 
Sorry, but this really only applies to Christianity.  The only other religions that fit the same Heaven-and-Hell bracket are Islam and (kinda-sorta) Judaism, and they demand a lot more actions and behaviors of their adherents than just "believing Statement X," as in Christianity.  And other religions do not share the same concept of Heaven and Hell.  I say cut this Meme from the list and replace it w/ another statement about religion.
Oh, and I think that listing "All your base are belong to us" alongside Religion and Legends is just a bit off.
User:Fishal
:oh?  Can you give any specific reason for not listing one or the other?  I fail to see what is "off" about a list of relevant examples.. --Steinsky 03:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion