Mantisdreamz wrote:
This term, meme - really IS vague. If it is a process by which trends are created & spread - can't we just chalk that up to people wanting to relate to and fit in with one another?

So, one person finds an idea that might fascinate others... others are fascinated by it, and the idea spreads through people like wild fire... because, it helps ourselves link to others by knowing that this certain idea really IS fascinating, and having others agree on that.

Well yes, but memes are supposed to expand on the mechanism behind that. As a direct comparison, speaking of ideas spreading because people like to fit in and relate to others, is like saying evolutionary traits spread because others in the species find them attractive or appealing. On one level, yes this is true, but evolutionary theory/memes want to explain the phenomenon on a deeper level - that is, exactly how are ideas formed inside a person and what causes it to change and what causes it to "outcompete" other ideas, in the same way we try to understand how genes compete.

Mantisdreamz wrote:The term meme seems to portray the idea of some sort of psychological virus that spreads amongst people. It seems to insinuate that people can 'catch' this virus of the meme, and carry it on.

Yes, the "virus" analogy is particularly annoying as it makes it seem like a passive process..

Mantisdreamz wrote:But meanwhile, it is just the instinctual behaviour of people to try to relate to one another - which there is no name for - it's just a reality of human behaviour.

Don't know if I am making myself clear.

Nats, would do you mean exactly when you say they are supposed to mutate? You mean - like, the more one can enhance an idea that has already spread - the more likely that the enhanced idea will prevail?

Mutation, in the form of ideas and concepts, actually is a real thing and it occurs through transmission fidelity. Basically, if I say, "A man walks into a bar and says, "Ouch!"", you might talk to your friend tomorrow and say, "I heard the funniest joke! Right: A man is walking along and suddenly he walks into a bar and it hurts!". Now, you have conveyed the same information, but you've changed it as a result of your recall (or perhaps as a result of a storage error). Most likely your friend will stare at you blankly and tell you it's an awful joke and that "strain" of joke will quickly die out. However, you might misremember it in a way that improves the joke, perhaps you extend on some part of it to draw the listener in, maybe you perform the action of hitting the bar, etc. and as it improves the joke it gets passed on it's in new form. This is mutation (and then culling/selection).

As I noted earlier, the actual process behind the vague concept of memes is a real thing. Information is stored in our brains with a varying level of fidelity (mutation), and the form that this information takes is culled or strengthened according to selection processes, and then the information that "survives" is passed on. So we do actually operate according to processes comparable to natural selection (of which the meme is supposed to be an analogy of), it's just that the way the meme was formulated was so vague, and even incorrect in some of its assumptions, that it was pretty meaningless - not to mention that the concept had already been formulated and refined by the behavioral sciences decades prior to when Dawkins suggested it.

katja z wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
not to mention that the concept had already been formulated and refined by the behavioral sciences decades prior to when Dawkins suggested it.

Aaargh, that's frustrating. Do you have to make me admit I've no idea what you are talking about? (That is, I suspect it's probably something more precise than the general idea of cultural evolution.)

Don't worry, the general concept hasn't strictly been formulated in the sense that memes are usually discussed but they clearly explain the same idea. The main one being cognitive-behavioral therapy, which uses this precise method of competing ideas, selection and culling etc (as it's a behaviorist theory, and behaviorism is natural selection over the individual's lifetime). Ideas, behaviors etc, or anything that operates on neurons is subject to selection by consequences as outlined by Skinner - with an abstract demonstration here. And then there's Edelman's neural darwinism, who basically said the same thing as Skinner. These ideas were then followed by Dawkins who, presumably, was unaware of these previous theories. The ideas of cultural evolution then operate on these theories (since they only apply to the individual).

As for memes the major problem as I perceive it is ideas would have to propagate for their own interests irrespective of the interests of the host. I am not convinced this happens. I see evidence of ideas propagating BECAUSE they are beneficial to a community of goal directed individuals (ie. ideas propagate because they provide a real or perceived benefit to the goals of the individual/group) but not much evidence of irrespective of the real or perceived benefits of the host/s.

katja z wrote:Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony is a good example.

I have two friends who constantly speak in this tongue... Gramsci...Hegemony...Gramsci... Hegemony...

katja z wrote:

natselrox wrote:

katja z wrote:Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony is a good example.

I have two friends who constantly speak in this tongue... Gramsci...Hegemony...Gramsci... Hegemony...

It's not their fault; the meme wants to find new host brains.

I was vaccinated at an early age though.

katja z wrote:@Mr. Samsa: Whew, this wasn't as bad as I feared Thanks for clarifying. But correct me if I'm wrong, don't ideas of cultural evolution have their own, erm, evolution beginning in the 19th century within the general framework of theorising culture/society rather than the behaviour of individuals? At least in the form(s) I met them, they didn't seem to build on any scientific understanding of the cognitive/behavioural mechanisms you mention. I've understood Dawkins' idea as an attempt to bridge this gap, although I do agree that the concept of meme doesn't exactly do the job.

To be honest, I don't know too much about current theories on cultural evolution (although I can guess at the general form they probably take). I only really know about individual behaviors/thoughts and how they work - so I don't really know of any cultural evolution theories which take this into account, but they should. The process I've described would give a basic idea of how ideas propagate within a population, but when we start looking at that level of analysis I imagine we'd find effects that are unique to groups and can't be understood just by looking at the parts (which is why I just chucked in a vague "then cultural evolution does the rest!" comment ).

katja z wrote:

Lazar wrote:As for memes the major problem as I perceive it is ideas would have to propagate for their own interests irrespective of the interests of the host. I am not convinced this happens. I see evidence of ideas propagating BECAUSE they are beneficial to a community of goal directed individuals (ie. ideas propagate because they provide a real or perceived benefit to the goals of the individual/group) but not much evidence of irrespective of the real or perceived benefits of the host/s.

Umm, religious fundamentalism? Although yes, it works if you add "perceived benefit".

I think the bit about ideas or behaviours propagating "irrespective of the interests of the host" was one of the most interesting points Dawkins raised, but of course it had been addressed before; Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony is a good example.

Well religiosity provides a clear real benefit as is evident in higher levels of well-being

Lazar wrote:
Well religiosity provides a clear real benefit as is evident in higher levels of well-being

And it helps you get into heaven whilst the wicked sinners are sentenced to an eternity of punishment

katja z wrote:
Ah, cultural evolution as a deus-ex-macchina?

Shut up!

katja z wrote:Well I've mostly thought about language evolution, and afaik this works well enough without considering much how individuals function - though this would probably help theorise the influence of substrates and superstrates and such in more rigorous terms. In fact, in this particular field the tendency has been to locate a deus ex macchina in the individual brain ... er ... need I say the magic word?

I just think it's necessary to understand how neural networks work and how ideas are processed before you can get a good picture of how cultural evolution works. To me it's like looking at evolution without knowing about genes, in which case you have things like Darwinian theories and Lamarckian theories both as viable options.

katja z wrote:Afaik, models of sociocultural evolution function on a level that mostly doesn't take into account the individual's psychology (at least not in much detail); but admittedly I haven't (yet) looked into sociobiology. (It's on my reading list - the trouble is that the reading list is increasing exponentially while time is linear. Or something.)

Well sociobiology is basically interchangeable with evolutionary psychology. As such, I say skip it.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Mantisdreamz wrote:
This term, meme - really IS vague. If it is a process by which trends are created & spread - can't we just chalk that up to people wanting to relate to and fit in with one another?

So, one person finds an idea that might fascinate others... others are fascinated by it, and the idea spreads through people like wild fire... because, it helps ourselves link to others by knowing that this certain idea really IS fascinating, and having others agree on that.

Well yes, but memes are supposed to expand on the mechanism behind that. As a direct comparison, speaking of ideas spreading because people like to fit in and relate to others, is like saying evolutionary traits spread because others in the species find them attractive or appealing. On one level, yes this is true, but evolutionary theory/memes want to explain the phenomenon on a deeper level - that is, exactly how are ideas formed inside a person and what causes it to change and what causes it to "outcompete" other ideas, in the same way we try to understand how genes compete.

Nats, posted a blurb from Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, and the first example was that of the songbird. In that, it was found that the song that a male bird sings isn't put forth because of it's genetics... but, has to do with mimicry. And a new song can be formed out of accidentally mutating the original song. The mutation comes straight from the originator, for whatever reason - but might be seen as more appealing, and hence catches on.

The thing is - ideas aren't formed from out of nowhere - they are just minor upgrades on what already exists. So, to say that we want to find out how ideas are formed inside of people.... can't we just say that they are formed by looking at what already exists, and tweeking it a bit to something that is either more efficient, more appealing, more humorous, or etc... which is the reason that they do out compete what's already out there. Whether it be accidental, in the songbirds case, or done with purpose - as in our case, a lot of the time.

I still don't see why there has to be a name for this process. It's just a gradual process to better what already is out there. So, I'm still sort of thinking that the word meme really isn't necessary. Instead of saying that it is a meme that caused the change of an idea that exists, why can't we just say that the idea changed because someone took it, and refined it - and that's just what the mind does over time, as it becomes more intelligent.

As for trying to understand why or how the mind has become more intelligent and more apt to be able to understand things and add to it - well, that's a really deep thing to try and understand.... which I would think has more to do with the fundamental biology of the mind... and that when children are born, their neurons connect together at a fast rate, and are able to form pieces and patterns more quickly because their parents or teachers have brought them up to speed with what they know. In the next generation, the next child's teachers or parents will have even more information, so that child's neurons are connected together to form even MORE pieces and patterns than the previous child. But, I am pointing out the obvious here...

So - then ideas are brought to the table because of someone with the ability to see things in another way - maybe due to a higher intelligence - or whatever else.

But then once the new ideas are brought into the open, and spread - people latch onto them because they can associate themselves with it - and then are able to relate to others with it, with also knowing that it is an improvement on what's already out there.

So can't it just be said that - people generate new ideas because they can see something that another person might not see; that this new idea will naturally compete with an older ideas and generally put the old idea to it's death; that people like the idea of relation to another person or group; and that a person's mind is naturally drawn into the idea of upgrading itself via new ideas, or concepts.

Isn't that just the way it is? And the way that the mind works... without having to bring in words or terms for it.

I think I probably have to do more research into what exactly is meant by the term meme.

Can I please please start a thread on songbird neurobiology? Will you guys be answering all the stupid questions I'll be asking? I have been dying to do this!

Mantisdreamz wrote:The thing is - ideas aren't formed from out of nowhere - they are just minor upgrades on what already exists. So, to say that we want to find out how ideas are formed inside of people.... can't we just say that they are formed by looking at what already exists, and tweeking it a bit to something that is either more efficient, more appealing, more humorous, or etc... which is the reason that they do out compete what's already out there. Whether it be accidental, in the songbirds case, or done with purpose - as in our case, a lot of the time.

I still don't see why there has to be a name for this process. It's just a gradual process to better what already is out there. So, I'm still sort of thinking that the word meme really isn't necessary. Instead of saying that it is a meme that caused the change of an idea that exists, why can't we just say that the idea changed because someone took it, and refined it - and that's just what the mind does over time, as it becomes more intelligent.

I think that - in the sense you speak of ideas - memes have practically nothing to do with ideas. Dawkins' idea is that memes spread by imitation; in the beginning they are just empty forms, phrases, slogans, appearances, rituals, etc. The bird song is just an example how animals - humans included - teach their offspring. Imitate behavior first, understand ideas later (if ever).

The meme concept is an ingenious idea, IMO. OTOH it's difficult to understand. It may be metaphysical. Anyhow it's worth to be taken seriously.

Rilx wrote:
I think that - in the sense you speak of ideas - memes have practically nothing to do with ideas. Dawkins' idea is that memes spread by imitation; in the beginning they are just empty forms, phrases, slogans, appearances, rituals, etc. The bird song is just an example how animals - humans included - teach their offspring. Imitate behavior first, understand ideas later (if ever).

The meme concept is an ingenious idea, IMO. OTOH it's difficult to understand. It may be metaphysical. Anyhow it's worth to be taken seriously.

Hmm, thanks Rilx. What do you mean by metaphysical?

I know that ideas can be transmitted due to mimicry of a more ingenious idea or notion... but, am I right to suppose that it's the accelerated transmission of an idea that is what seems curious and why the term meme came into play? --> We are trying to understand why some ideas (some which may not even be that good - but, just a trend), are spread because even when they may not be worth spreading? So, we call it a meme? (For example - the popularity of the iPhone).

^I hope that makes sense.