Subject:
|
Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Mar 2000 21:52:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1316 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Franks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Erik Olson writes:
> > I loathe the term "meme." It seems to focus on form to the exclusion of
> > substance, as if ideas were magical incantations that just take over and
> > needn't be analyzed very deeply.
>
> Consider the following bits of everyday information:
>
> * Tanoy message in the subway stating that all trains westbound are delayed
> * The release date for a software package is May 2000
> * Street Preacher (Manic or not) telling you that your soul will only be saved
> by reading the good book.
> * A windows message telling you that you MUST restart windows NOW. (Again)
> * A pop star claiming he wants to fight another pop star in a live televised
> event.
> * Larry claiming that he doesn't make misteaks.
> * A news report claiming that Dictator W is torturing X people in country Y,
> during recent conflict Z.
>
> My challenge for you is to reorder this list, so that the bit of information
> that should be considered the most accurate comes first, and the least accurate
> comes last.
>
> Then put in a dividing line between useful information and useless information.
>
> Everybodys list and line will be different - in any one instance they might be
> all wrong, in another they might be all right.
>
> My point is that we do accept memes everyday, whether we are aware of it or
> not. They are as useful and un-useful at the same time, the degree to which
> depends on how analytical the person is I guess.
Right off, I'm not able to recall much from reading Dawkins (it was
half my lifetime ago.) So anything I take issue with doesn't refer to
his book. I'd probably benefit from reading it now! (But I've got a
pile of new Stephen Jay Gould and Loren Eiseley and Lewis Thomas to
work through.)
Now your exercise: I agree everybody will sort it differently.
"Usefulness" is dependent on the individual's purpose. Accuracy...
well, that is complicated. Now I guess that you suggest these two
criteria as an approximation to a fitness function. After all, to be
considered a meme, it is only fitness for reproduction that matters.
Meme is analogous to gene. Dawkins wrote in the 70s when it seemed
likely that 98% of our genetic material was inactive. Leftover junk,
like those buckets of unwanted Lego? We had a lot to learn, clearly.
Now from the perspective of the gene or meme, there is the bit of
information and there is the host, and all that matters is that the
host lets the meme or gene reproduce. In evolutionary terms, the gene
must contribute to the fitness of the individual, hence the
application of the term "fitness function."
But fitness prevails only on the rather long time scales, so the
fitness function can only be seen by hindsight. And there is seldom a
reckoning event for whether a different gene determines an organism's
fitness, so there are many that just ride along. (Therefore it once
seemed plausible that 98% of genes were inactive, useless junk.)
On a small scale you can anchor the gene theory with easily observable
cases of propogation: genes from one unique ancestor will sneak
through a population. For memes: well, people will repeat the latest
equivalent of "Schwing!" until it loses popularity. Fitness is not
really involved. *Here is where Dawkins' concept pays off: if the gene
(or meme) multiplies, from its point of view there is success, whether
or not the organism has been made more successful!
So I don't dispute the phenomena. Memes are everywhere. Things
proliferate and disappear. Somehow.
Now some people get hold of "meme theory" and act as if it identified
an atomic unit. They start to use "meme" as a synonymn for "idea".
They get physics envy: they want their (social) science to have a
veneer of mathematical rigour. This to me is the sign of a bankrupt
intellectual with nothing to offer, one who admits that their
profession can't even define its basic terms. (Most philosophy
professors live in this pit. For company they have most of the other
social sciences and even a few physical scientists.)
When a cultural pundit starts to believe everything is a meme, this is
where the emphasis marks a telling shift. Meme focuses on
reproducibility (which could equal popularity.) I think it only makes
sense to apply the concept of meme in a situation which calls for it:
for instance, when what you want to study is the process of
propopgation! How catchy is a tune? How did some myth spread? Still,
the focus on propogation is just one avenue of research.
Artistic expressions are clearly memes--they're designed to appeal,
and can make their impact in one presentation. I grow uneasy with
applying "meme" to more abstract concepts, which can't be transmitted
by immediate perception. For instance, moral precepts. They are ideas
first, memes second. As ideas they exist within a larger framework of
philosophy or religion. They bear directly on the fitness of the
individual. Sure, they spread within populations--but not without
underlying causes. A popular concept in morality, for example the
acceptability of divorce, makes a sudden breakout because people are
faced with a desparate problem and see it as a solution. It's not as
if the idea is manipulating them!
Meme theory is especially applicable to contexts where truth and
accuracy are irrelevant, but some other fitness function obtains. This
is a further reason why I wince when someone like Stanley Schmidt
suggests that we could propopgate memes like the Ten Commandments or
whatever by posting more copies in public places. It's like, he is
saying that truth and accuracy are irrelevant-- just propogate them,
dammit, it's our only defence against suicidal maniacs! And that is
out of touch.
Anyway, it's time to wrap up this essay. I think there is a time to
label something a meme, but only when you want to emphasize its
propogation and nothing deeper.
-Erik
ObLego: at any one moment, 98% of my Lego collection is useless junk,
and I don't have enough of the other 2%.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
