> Generally, I see the greatest use in explaining why we do things that aren’t
> necessary, beneficial, or even of any consequence.
If a meme isn’t beneficial in some sense, how could it propagate? If the analogy with genetics is supposed to work, ideas should propagate only because they are beneficial in some sense. If all memetics says is that ideas float around at random with no restrictions, that’s just treating ideas as molecules in a gas. If there’s supposed to be some analogy with genetics, there has to be some sense in which some ideas are more beneficial and hence will propagate faster.
Not at all; genes can be quite harmful, and spread very effectively. An example; a fairly common mutation in some insects results in a gene appearing in males, that kills all eggs not carrying that gene; which naturally includes all females in the same batch. Since it kills all it’s rivals it spreads very effectively; but it is ultimately purely destructive, even to itself.
In order to spread, a gene ( or meme ) only has to be good at spreading itself; not good for the host. Like an urban legend that spreads simply because it appeals to people’s prejudices or desires, despite being incorrect or even dangerous. Or a religion that spreads by systematically killing unbelievers, and/or kidnapping their children and raising them in the faith.
Like I said, a gene has to be beneficial in some sense, even if it’s only beneficial to itself. If memes merely wandered around randomly, there’s no analogy with genetics. There has to be some sense in which a meme is better than other memes, even if all that means is that the better gene can propagate itself faster. You need a theory of which memes are more likely to propagate, or else there’s no sense in which memetics is similar to genetics.
I don’t recall claiming anywhere to be any less fad influenced than anybody else.
Except, of course, that genes don’t propagate because they’re beneficial, they propagate because they can. Think back to the first self-replicating molecules – they weren’t beneficial to anyone or anything, and yet, they propagated, evolved, and now we’re here discussing that.
We’re arguing here about the definition of “beneficial.” To me, it means the same as “It can.” A gene propagates more than other genes because they create conditions in which they propagate more than other genes. Hence they are beneficial to themselves, at least in the short term.
If you’re just as prone to fads as other people, why should we listen to your arguments for memetics? How do we know that memetics isn’t just a fad? Are you claiming to be making a rational argument for memetics? If you’re not, are you saying that we should pick up the meme for memetics unconsciously?
Well, I’m not one to throw around dictionary definitions, but that’s not really what that word means to me. But anyway, I suppose this means we agree, then? Or are you contesting the notion that memes propagate?
I’m trying to make as well-founded an argument as I can, I guess that’s really all I can do. And if memetics turns out to be just a fad that has managed to propagate itself without having any actual content and usefulness, then well, that’d be quite something in itself.
Memes and genes have a different method of being replicated. A meme can be communicated from one person to another at any time. A gene is dependent on the host surviving until reproduction. Therefore they have different constraints and different requirements for being beneficial to the host.
If a meme is too un-beneficial then it won’t go far (e.g. “A freeway carpool lane is a great spot for a picnic”), but generally it seems like it wouldn’t take much benefit (if any) for a human to propagate a meme.
It seems like the reasons for meme’s to propagate can be difficult to determine due to the complexity of the human brain, but it also seems like studying this at a higher level is valuable. You can find patterns/categories/etc. of popular meme’s and their relationship to a specific cultures.
Are you saying that there are evolutionary pressures in the OP’s fridge? or are you saying that there are evolutionary pressures on a farm?
I mean evolution in Darwinian terms, genes, mutation.
That is a great observation - and very true. For example, when I, with my engineering memes talked with my daughter who had behavioral economics memes, the mixture gave me a new way of seeing things, and led to two very nice papers.
As has been pointed out, technology is not there yet. What you are asking for is not unlike an opponent of Darwin in his time demanding to see some physical representation or explanation of the unit of natural selection. Be patient
I guess what I’m saying is there is a world of useful ideas that live somewhere between “hard science” and “hooey.” I don’t think you will find anyone arguing that mimetics is exactly as scientific as mechanical physics. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some useful ideas or isn’t worth investigating further.
Ideas arising in many brains independently, perhaps? Probably the same kind of thing that can prove natural selection wrong would also prove memetics wrong. No fossil record or DNA to study, alas, so those things that can prove evolution in general wrong don’t work.
If memes are, as Dawkins states, actual living entities, then, ya, I’d want to see some physical structure.
Ah, the “The Technology Isn’t There Yet” gambit. What if it never gets there? What if the problem lies not with the technology, but with the theory; how would you know? How do you differentiate between the two?
A theory with no mechanism, with no ability to actually measure what it purports to measure, is not much of a theory. IDists make similar claims regarding “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” - we may not be able to measure them yet, but someday for sure!
What I am asking is that “memes” be considered as nothing more than what they are: ideas, spread as a consequence of language. No language, no memes. Being able to communicate is what gives rise to the ability to spread your ideas to someone else. You spread your ideas because you are selfish, not because your ideas are. You want to be remembered, to be liked, to be respected. You pass on joke e-mails because you think they are funny, and you hope that your recipient will transfer the idea of “funny” from the email to you. Or, you just want to make them happy because it may benefit you. Or you may have other reasons; either way, I suspect the answer is to be found in psychological research, not with quasi-evolutionary analogies.
And, on a completely separate note, there is no “unit” of natural selection. NS is a process, not a “thing”.
Again: ideas do not spread themselves. There is no mechanism for them to do so. They do not exist without brains. They do not exist without language. They are spread because people want them to spread, for a myriad of reasons.
So, you’re saying the meme “jinx, you owe me a Coke” proves meme theory wrong?
====
Just so everyone knows what I am and am not arguing:
Arguing for:
[ul]
[li] Memes exist, in the form of ideas, concepts, etc.[/li][li] They are analogous to genes in that they perpetuate through a cultural population, and thereby that culture can “evolve”, in the vernacular sense of “change”.[/li][li] Memes exist as a natural consequence of language and communication. [/li][/ul]
Arguing against:
[ul]
[li] Memes as actual, living entities (or even as physical entities)[/li][li] Memes “want” to perpetuate themselves[/li][li] Memes are even able to perpetuate themselves[/li][/ul]
The “meme analogy” works, to a degree, in explaining cultural / societal evolution and the spread of ideas. What it does not do is create a viable biological theory for such. The analogy, like most, is imperfect, and should not be taken literally. Unfortunately, it is all too often taken literally, and that’s when you start flirting with pseudo-science (and possibly crossing the line completely).
It’s pretty clear that the reason you think memetics is hooey is because you haven’t actually bothered to learn anything about memetics. Your OP is full of misconceptions, exaggerations, and outright falsities regarding the subject. Maybe you can repurpose your strawman to scare away some crows.
No one in the field claims they are living entities. Strawman.
They are as physical or nonphysical as ideas are. You choose.
No one in the field claims they have wants or desires. Strawman again.
No one in the field claims that memes have agency. Strawman again.
Obviously memes reproduce (perpetuate) - that’s the very nature of communication. But your assertion that all memes reproduce solely by human intention is absurd. Even in a perfectly rational world, some memes would be more likely to reproduce than others, by the quality of logic. But in the more human not entirely rational world, memes can be more likely to reproduce for other reasons such as “being catchy” or “playing on our fears”, or being bundled with other memes, etc.
Sure, a saavy ad exec with training and insight can use his knowledge of what factors make memes more likely to catch on to create a popular meme. But not all memes are created so consciously. The factors that make memes popular will help perpetuate any meme, whether it was intentionally created or not.
Laypeople misunderstanding a discipline does not make the discipline itself unscientific.
I find this statement kind of amusing, because you yourself are mysticizing the process of actual biological viruses. Real viruses don’t ‘seek to reproduce themselves’ either. They don’t have brains, goals or intentions. They are merely populous because they are chemically more likely to reproduce than less populous viruses. And you could easily say that “If a virus manages a successful attack on a cell, that says more about how the cell works than it does the nature of the virus itself”. In any system there is an input, an algorithm, and an output. The output depends on both the input and the algorithm. Especially so in systems where the inputs and algorithms start to become indistinguishable from each other.
Actually, I think it’s believed that the underlying mechanism of meme perpetuation is merely learning by imitation, for which you don’t need language (though it makes things easier).
And what do you mean by ‘there’s no mechanism’? Seems to me that the evolutionary algorithm ought to be perfectly sufficient as a means of meme perpetuation, or not?
