no theories here...

This discussion is making me hot!!

Discussions about memetics make me want to throw on some khakis, jump in my jetta, head to starbucks and listen to my ipod.

I just like listening to guys talk about stuffs I don't know anything about, especially when they have a good command of the english language. I dig nerds, what can I say? (Why do you think I hang with you all the time taco?)

Zhav, talking about desires is either misleading or wrong. It's the memes that are already there that determine whether a meme is of the right type/shape/fit (conceptually speaking) to fit into the meme complex that's already developed in a person. If by "desires" you mean the disposition of the meme complex, then okay, i agree, but then i don't know why we're talking about desires at all.

If you mean that the selection mechanism for memes is some sort of "desire" outside of what the environment (both in the person, and in that person's wider memetic environment [i.e. the news, community, etc.]) provides, then we're no longer talking about Dawkins's memetics, and i would certainly say that it deviates very heavily from the whole point of having memetics in the first place, namely that you could explain the behavior of human minds and behavior based on the emergent properties of the memes that a person has been exposed to (or to put it another way, people are more than the sum total of their experiences, because they have some sort of sway in what memes are kept or deflected).

Have you read Virus of the Mind by Richard Brodie? There is a site called memecentral.com that talks about his works. From their FAQ:

QUESTION: "Isn't memetics just a fancy name for _________ (fill in the blank with "cultural evolution", "behavioral psychology", "sociobiology", or anything else)? Why is this anything new?

ANSWER: "The breakthrough in memetics is in extending Darwinian evolution to culture. There are several exciting conclusions from doing that, one of which is the ability to predict that ideas will spread not because they are "good ideas", but because they contain "good memes" such as danger, food and sex that push our evolutionary buttons and force us to pay attention to them. "

(emphasis mine)

That last line explains what I've been going on about regarding "emotions / desires". Emotions and desires are in tune with our "evolutionary buttons". Danger... not starving... sex... these can evoke some of our most powerful emotions... and it is those emotions that cause memes to catch on.

Indeed, this time it's you who has not answered MY question: how do memes imbed themselves in individuals? Why do some people hear about Jesus and sign right up while others roll their eyes? You've stated that some memes will allow other to take hold, but this doesn't explain how the allowable memes actually take hold.

It warms my heart to know there are women out there who love nerds. If you ever need a paper proof-read, just drop me a private message...

Okay, first, you can't just make the leap from the quote you have there to desire being necessary for memetics.

Second thing is that you have cause and effect confused here. Drives to perform certain types of behavior ("Desires") are a result of evolution. Creatures that didn't have these drives would die, and thus not survive to pass their genes on. This does not mean that all traits give us drives to do things!!!

Likewise, not all transmitted information compels action. So i conclude from this that memes are not inherently "desirous". It is true that some memes probably incite action, but that is because that is the content of the meme, not part of the meme-ness of the meme.

As for how memes imbed themselves in indviduals, that's simply a feature of human psychology or whatnot. It's alittle difficult to discuss how memes interact when we don't know what a meme is :P all of this is argument by analogy in my opinion anyway. I'm fond of the idea, but it's not science yet.

And like i said with the Rev Bob example, the answer is the common sense one, people who "hear about jesus and sign right up" have been in an environment which is suitable for that meme to take root (adequate analogy to what they know, no prejudicial beliefs about christians) while people who "roll their eyes" probably have some sort of disposition against it due to their other beliefs, and experiences.

Well since I've laughed, my eyes have glazed over, I laughed again, and then my eyes glazed over again. I thought I would get back to the original intent of this thread and say


HI!

Welcome to the insanity.

Hi :-P

It's not a "leap". Desire is just another term for a strong emotion to posess something... perhaps physical like a particular car... or something more esoteric like "looking cool". Most of our desires are solidly rooted into our portfolio of basic hunter-gatherer emotions. We are social animals who want to be part of a group... wether that means having a particular tribal tattoo or carrying an I-pod makes no difference. Remember that we're physically no different from our cave-man ancestors.



Labeling something a "result of evolution" is always a sticky subject. However, I see where you are going with this and I want to assure you that we're talking apples and oranges. Evolution is simply the process that yeilded a humanity that is susceptable to memes.



Again, I'm afraid you're off in left field. It seems that your definition of memes is EXTREMELY narrow. You've taken the Dawkins model of the meme and ran with it. It's important, though, to see what other authors and thinkers have done with it. Richard Brodie is important to the field. If you really want to see someone who knows memes, but is none-the-less WAY out in right field, do an amazon search for "The Masculist Meme" by Alan Carr. Alan knows memes backwards and forwards, but I disagree with his conspiracy theory. I bring him up as he is the individual who I first saw rattle off the five criteria for a meme.



Not all memes are desirous. We aren't susceptable to EVERY meme that comes our way. What I have maintained through our exchange is that memes that appeal to emotions / desires are the memes that take hold in individuals.



It's not science, but I do take umbrage with this statement. I have given you a model for how memes take hold which you've written off as a "feature of human psychology". Or whatnot.

It is this so-called "feature of human psychology" that I have been TRYING to discuss with you for the past few posts. Our discussion has looked something like this:

Me: This is how memes take hold in people.
You: Accurate information regarding Dawkins' model of memes.
Me: I know that and I agree with you. This is HOW it happens.
You: No, no, no. We don't know that. More accurate information regarding Dawkins' model of memes.
Me: *in frustration... and sounding like Joe Vs. The Volcano* I'm not arguing that with you.



We cannot simply dismiss this phenomenon. (That's what bloggers do)

Doesn't it strike you as odd that a Christian will completely ignore well-tested laws of reality in favor of a certain Christian-based super-natural claim, but will completely DISBELIEVE an equivalent claim that DOESN'T conform to Christianity?

Take the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. It ultimately boils down to multiple eye-witness accounts and a few textual writings of those eyewitnesses (texts which were not penned until DECADES after the events in question). Christians look at this as being quite valid... so then why doesn't ANY event following the same criteria enjoy the same legitimacy in the mind of a Christian?

Memes are the answer. The stronger the emotion / desire the meme plays upon, the stronger the hold a meme will have.