The 'science' of memetics

[revol68]

Go on then phil show us where evolutionary theory is wrong, actually wrong! Not that it has it's roots within a bourgeois free market society, not that some people have attempted to use it as a model for understanding human interaction, actually show us another model of understanding evolution that is better.

Your a cretin

Seriously go read some Roy Bhaskar and learn something you muddle headed post structuralist theologist fuckwit.

 

[In Bloom]

but that is pure nonsense that implies some sort of teleology to human society. I don't think it's true that correct ideas will win out, afterall some god awful ideas have managed to exist for a generations despite the wreck and ruin they have brought eg nationalism, racism, homophobia and sexism.

But does memetics argue that the correct ideas will necessarily be the most successful? I can kind of see a similarity with Marxist ideas about how ideas develop (in reaction to the environment).

 

[phildwyer]

Your a cretin

Your a moran.

 

[kyser_soze]

herefore, I think memetics is a useful intellectual tool for thinking about cultural transmission of ideas, but a science it is not.

Never said it was a science.

but that is pure nonsense that implies some sort of teleology to human society. I don't think it's true that correct ideas will win out, afterall some god awful ideas have managed to exist for a generations despite the wreck and ruin they have brought eg nationalism, racism, homophobia and sexism.

'Good' and 'bad' don't come into it since they're value judgements on morality, not on the ability of an idea to continue to survive. While I don't want to plug the meme thing too closely to genes, what about parasites and disease carrying organisms which are wholly destructive (e.g. ring worms) to their hosts and environments - they are effective survivors but can be called 'bad' from the perspective of higher order animals.

The application of meme theory ideas of propogation, infection and transmission (I'll get on to epidemiology in a minute) are useful tools to find out HOW and WHY ideas move around society, how they change/can be changed and how to make the best use of 'positive' memes - such as tolerance, egalitarianism, more effective at settling in the mas psyche.

The bit on epidemiology is that in word of mouth 'phenomena' the patterns of knowledge distribution often mirror the patterns seen in viral outbreaks - again, these are models that can be used for specific purposes.

It's not like I, or anyone else, I making some kind of ultimate claim that meme theories are the be-all and end-all of HOW idea come to be, but they're a useful tool for showing how they spread and so on.

And a I've said, it works in this thing called 'the real world'. I've planned and used marketing strategies that are based on computer models of meme distribution and they've been successful at conveying complex messages to communities that are often ad-resistant (A group conservatives) that have reached the planned coverage numbers 2-3 weeks earlier than planned.

Phil, you might like to say that it's all a load of cock, but I've got real world experience of using the models and seeing them work. AFAIC that's something I'd call 'proof'.

 

[phildwyer]

And a I've said, it works in this thing called 'the real world'. I've planned and used marketing strategies that are based on computer models of meme distribution and they've been successful at conveying complex messages to communities that are often ad-resistant (A group conservatives) that have reached the planned coverage numbers 2-3 weeks earlier than planned.

Phil, you might like to say that it's all a load of cock, but I've got real world experience of using the models and seeing them work. AFAIC that's something I'd call 'proof'.

When people start referring to the marketplace as "the real world," and especially when they start defining what "works" in this "real world" as true, we know that we are dealing with a deeply indoctrinated capitalist. Kyser, what you say here is exactly my point. Memetics is a pseudo-science built to fit the ideology of market capitalism. Genetics and Darwinian evolution are ideological discourses built to fit earlier modes of capitalism. So its hardly surprising to find that you can use memetics to trick more consumers into buying the trash you peddle. THAT'S WHAT ITS FOR.

 

[kyser_soze]

When people start referring to the marketplace as "the real world," and especially when they start defining what "works" in this "real world" as true, we know that we are dealing with a deeply indoctrinated capitalist. Kyser, what you say here is exactly my point. Memetics is a pseudo-science built to fit the ideology of market capitalism. Genetics and Darwinian evolution are ideological discourses built to fit earlier modes of capitalism. So its hardly surprising to find that you can use memetics to trick more consumers into buying the trash you peddle. THAT'S WHAT ITS FOR.

*yawn*

I'm not jut talking about 'the marketplace' Phil - I've seen examples of meme modelling done on social issues, jokes and a dozen other non-commercial areas. This is what I mean when I say 'the real world' - it's not just about work for me. And as I have repeated several times I don't view it as a science, but as a useful tool.

 

[phildwyer]

*yawn*

I'm not jut talking about 'the marketplace' Phil - I've seen examples of meme modelling done on social issues, jokes and a dozen other non-commercial areas. This is what I mean when I say 'the real world' - it's not just about work for me. And as I have repeated several times I don't view it as a science, but as a useful tool.

Useful for what? As you put it: "conveying complex messages to communities that are often ad-resistant?" In other words, forcing people who are heroically trying their best to resist the constant barrage of advertizing you thrust at them to accept your "message" whether they want to or not. Is that a fair description of how it is "useful?" Memetics is nothing more than a propaganda technique, and as such I suppose it is worthy of study. The trouble is that lots of people who, like you, use it in the "marketplace" desperately want it to be considered as a "science," because it makes their perverse practices appear natural. Same with gene-based evolution, same with Darwinian evolutuion.

 

[kyser_soze]

Can you read or are you willfully choosing to ignore what I'm writing?

I even put some in bold to make it easier for you that I don't view it as a science.

And using it in advertising is one example I've given. Again, something I've written that you choose to ignore because it doesn't fit with your narrow view.

Either that or you don't understand what I'm saying.

 

[phildwyer]

Can you read or are you willfully choosing to ignore what I'm writing?

I even put some in bold to make it easier for you that I don't view it as a science.

And using it in advertising is one example I've given. Again, something I've written that you choose to ignore because it doesn't fit with your narrow view.

Either that or you don't understand what I'm saying.

I never said *you* thought it was a science. I said that lots of people claim it is a science because, as *you* said, it "works in the real world" (by which you mean "it enables me to sell crap to people who don't want it"). It seems that "working" in this "real world" is sufficient for something to be considered a science these days. And given the ideological blinkers behind which most of the scientists who appear on these boards labour, that's hardly surprising.