
The term and concept of meme (pronunciation in International Phonetic Alphabet for English; from the Greek language word ''μνήμη'' for 'memory') is a neologism that first appeared in the 1976 book by Richard Dawkins, ''The Selfish Gene''. Though Dawkins defined the meme as "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation," memeticists vary in their definitions of ''meme''. The lack of a consistent, rigorous and precise definition of a meme remains one of the principal criticisms leveled at ''memetics'', the study of memes. Different definitions of the meme generally agree, very roughly, that a meme consists of some sort of a self-propagating unit of cultural evolution having a resemblance to the gene (the unit of genetics). Dawkins introduced the term after writing that evolution depended not on the particular chemical basis of genetics, but only on the existence of a self-replicating unit of transmission—in the case of evolution, the gene. For Dawkins, the meme exemplifies another self-replicating unit, and most importantly, one which he thought would prove useful in explaining human behavior and cultural evolution. [[Image:Madhappyfaceblob.gif|thumb|right|240px|The smiley exemplifies what some might consider a visual meme. Anyone who has seen a smiley can copy, reproduce, or modify it and then show it to others.]] In casual use, the term ''meme'' often refers to any piece of information passed from one mind to another. This usage more closely resembles the analogy of "language as a virus" than Dawkins' analogy of memes as replicating units. This definition has come into popular use on the Internet to refer to Internet phenomena such as André the Giant Has a Posse, "All your base are belong to us", Blogebrity and Icy Hot Stuntaz. ==Basic introduction== Though memetics do not not generally agree on a specific definition, one can roughly define 'meme' as any piece of information transferable from one mind to another. Examples might include thoughts, ideas, theories, practices, habits, songs, dances and moods. Memes supposedly have, as their fundamental property, evolution via natural selection in a way very similar to Charles Darwin's ideas concerning biology evolution, on the premise that replication, mutation, survival and competition influence them. For example, while one idea may become extinct, others will survive, spread and mutate—for better or worse—through modification. Note an important fact, however: not only the memes most beneficial to their hosts will necessarily survive; rather, memes supposedly spread best by functioning as the most effective replicators, which allows for the possibility that successful memes might prove detrimental to their hosts. ==History of the meme concept== The concept of ideas that spread according to genetic rules predates the coining by Richard Dawkins in ''The Selfish Gene''; for example William S. Burroughs asserted that "[l]anguage is a virus." John Laurent in ''The Journal of Memetics'' has suggested that the term 'meme' itself may have derived from the work of the little-known Germany biologist Richard Semon. In 1904 Semon published ''Die Mneme'' (published in English as ''The Mneme'' in 1924). His book discussed the cultural transmission of experiences with insights parallel to those of Dawkins. Laurent found the use of the term ''mneme'' in ''The Soul of the White Ant'' (1927) by Maurice Maeterlinck and highlights its parallels to Dawkins's concept: :Maeterlinck, in discussing theories which attempt to explain 'memory' in termites as well as the other 'social' insects (ants, bees etc.), uses the phrase "engrammata upon the individual mneme" (Maeterlinck, 1927, p.198). Webster's Collegiate dictionary defines an engram as "a memory trace; specif.: a protoplasmic change in neural tissue hypothesized to account for persistence of memory". Note that Maeterlinck explains that he obtained his phrase from the "German philosopher" Richard Semon. [http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/1999/vol3/laurent_j.html] Laurent suggests that the etymological roots of the term 'meme' may come from ''mimneskesthai'', the Greek term for 'memory,' rather than from Dawkins's root of ''mimeisthai'', "to imitate." Everett Rogers pioneered the "Diffusion of innovations" theory (formalised in 1962) which explains how and why people adopt new ideas. Rogers reflected some of the influence of Gabriel Tarde, who set out "laws of imitation" in his book of 1890 that explained how people decided whether to imitate behavior. Francis Heylighen of the Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies has come up with what he called memetic selection criteria. These criteria opened the way to a specialized field of applied memetics to find out if these selection criteria could stand the test of quantitative analyses. In 2003 Klaas Chielens carried out these tests in a Masters thesis project on the testability of the selection criteria. ==Memetics== Memetics, the study of memes, remains a controversial field among many scientists and skeptics. Memetics originated when Richard Dawkins reduced the process of biological genetic evolution to its most fundamental unit: the replicator (or gene). Dawkins, in a search for parallels and other things that he might classify as replicators, suggested that the information and ideas in brains—culture, for example—could function as replicators as well. Computer software may represent another form of replicator with which evolution may eventually build grand things, whether socially as in the open source movement, or through the use of evolutionary algorithms . Memetics takes concepts from the theory of evolution (especially population genetics) and applies them to human culture. Memetics also uses mathematical models to try to explain many very controversial subjects such as religion and political systems, though principal criticisms of memetics include the claim that memetics ignores established advances in the fields (such as sociology, cognitive psychology, social psychology, etc.) most relevant to the claims and methodologies of memetics. The term ''memetic association'' refers to the idea that memes herding behavior. For example, a meme for bluejeans includes memes for trouser flies, riveted clothing, blue dye, cotton clothing, belt loops and double-sewn seams. The phrase ''memetic drift'' refers to the process of an idea or meme changing as it replicates between one person to another. Memetic drift increases when meme transmission occurs in an awkward way. Very few memes show strong ''memetic inertia'' (the characteristic of a meme to manifest in the same way and to have the same impact regardless of who receives or transmits the meme). Memetic inertia increases when the meme transfers along with mnemonic devices, such as a rhyme, to preserve the memory of the meme prior to its transmission. See Murphy's law for one example of memetic drift. Memeticists generate much memetic terminology by prepending 'mem(e)-' to an existing, usually biological, term or by putting 'mem(e)' in place of 'gen(e)' in various terms. Examples include: meme pool, memotype, memetic engineer, meme-complex. :''See also'' Memetic lexicon ==Memetic evolution== Memetic evolution, like genetic evolution, cannot happen without mutation. Mutation produces the essential variations, whereupon those variations that prove "better" at replication will become more common and therefore have a greater chance at replication again. However, unlike genetic evolution, memetic evolution has no separate underlying genotype. If, for example, a mouse loses its tail or a bodybuilder lifts weights, the DNA information in their genotype will remain unchanged, and when replicating again will not pass on these acquired characteristics. In memetics the phenotype serves as the genotype and therefore changes in the former will accumulate and get passed on as they replicate. Memetics therefore behaves in a Jean-Baptiste Lamarck manner, highlighting the irony of a great deal of effort and debate devoted to proving that genetic evolution does not function in a Lamarckian manner. Language most likely evolved from just a handful of primitive syllables, the original language phenotypes, into the modern wide array of dialects because of mutation. Further mutations of language include writing, Braille, sign language, etc. Even the oft-cited "All your base are belong to us" meme produced variations such as "all your vote are belong to us". Other lines in the originating videogame's dialogue such as "Someone set up us the bomb" also replicated on the Internet, but with less success. Researchers may employ search engines as an imperfect tool in measuring the popularity of various memetic phrases. ===Do cultures evolve?=== Dawkins observed that cultures can evolve in much the same way that populations of organisms evolve. Various ideas pass from one generation to the next; such ideas may either enhance or detract from the survival of the people who obtain those ideas. This process affects which of those ideas will survive for passing on to future generations. For example, a certain culture may have unique designs and methods of tool-building that another culture may not have; therefore, the culture with the more effective methods may prosper more than the other culture, ''ceteris paribus''. This leads to a higher proportion of the overall population adopting the more effective methods as time passes. Each tool design thus acts somewhat similarly to a biological gene in that some populations have it and others do not, and the meme's function directly affects the presence of the design in future generations. ===Propagation of memes=== Memes have as an important characteristic their propagation through imitation, a concept introduced by the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde. Imitation means to copy the observation behaviour of another individual. Typically imitators copy behaviour from observing other humans, but they may also copy from an inanimate source, such as from a book or from a musical score. When imitation first evolved in humans or in their ancestors, it proved itself a valuable skill for learning, which increased an individual's ability to reproduce genetically. Some have speculated that sexual selection of the best imitators further drove a genetic increase in the ability of brains to imitate well. Memes propagate by imitation, direct or indirect, of one individual by another, and thus depend on brains sufficiently powerful to assess the key aspects of the imitated behavior (what to copy and why) as well as its potential benefits. Researchers have observed memetic copying in just a few species on Earth, including hominids, dolphins and birds which learn how to sing by imitating their parents. One could argue however that there exist examples of less complex memes in other species—for example, scientists have artificially induced imitative behavior in cephalopods and in rats. Zoopharmacognosy (the use of drugs by animals) may conceivably examplify an animal meme. Observers have noticed that some species ingest non-foods, such as toxic plants or charcoal, to ward off parasitic infestation or poisoning, respectively (for an accessible description of several examples, see ). Both genes and memes can survive much longer than the individual organisms that carry them. A successful gene, such as a gene for powerful teeth in a population of lions, can remain unchanged in the gene pool for hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. A successful meme can propagate itself from one individual to another long after the original form of the meme perished with its carrier. ==Biological analogies== In much the same way that the selfish gene concept offers a fruitful way of understanding and reasoning about aspects of biological evolution, the meme concept allegedly can conceivably assist in the better understanding of some otherwise puzzling aspects of human culture (and learned behaviors of other animals as well). However, if one cannot test for "better" empirically, the question will remain whether or not the meme concept counts as a philosophy of science scientific theory. Memetics thus remains a science in its infancy, a protoscience (although critics sometimes label it a pseudoscience). ===Thoughts as discrete units=== Although memeticists speak of memes as discrete units, this need not imply that thoughts somehow become quantized or that "atomic" ideas exist which one cannot break down into smaller pieces. The meme as a unit simply provides a convenient way of discussing "a piece of thought copied from person to person", regardless of whether that thought contains others inside it, or forms part of a larger meme. A meme could consist of a single newly-coined word, or a meme could consist of the entire speech in which that word was first uttered. The "word itself" meme will most likely survive many more generations (after transmission alone or in other sentences) than the "speech in its entirety" meme will survive (due to errors of memory, abridged versions, etc.) This forms an analogy to the idea of a gene as a self-replicating set of code. The gene in this definition does not consist of a set number of nucleotides, but simply a collection of nucleotides (possibly in many different locations on the DNA) that replicate together and code for some set of behaviors or body parts. ===Evolution of memes=== Evolution requires not only inheritance and natural selection but also mutation, and memes also exhibit this property. Ideas may undergo changes in transmission which accumulate over time. Generations of hosts pass on these changes in the "phenotype" (the information in brains or retention systems). In other words, unlike genetic evolution, memetic evolution can show both Darwinian and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck traits. For example, folk tales and myths often become embellished in the retelling to make them more memorable or more appropriate and therefore more impressed hearers have a greater likelihood of retelling them, complete with embellishments. More modern examples appear in the various urban legends and hoaxes—such as the Goodtimes virus warning—that circulate on the Internet. A behavior, idea or usage distinguishes itself as a meme when some property of itself influences the likelihood of adoption. For example, tool designs affect the efficacy of a tool independently of the habits of the different people using them. Legends and myths often teach a moral lesson or explain a mystery, so they are more likely to be retold to serve different speakers' purposes than other similar stories without those elements. ===Evolutionary forces affecting memes=== A gene or a meme's success is determined only by the number of copies (and where the copies reside) that are extant. There exists a strong (but not complete) correlation between genes that do well and genes that have a positive effect on the organism which contains those genes. And if we restrict attention to memes normally interpreted as statements of fact, then a correlation emerges between those memes that do well and those that reflect reality. However, some genes and memes do survive which owe their success to other factors. Similarly, a correlation exists between successful memes of a technological/economic nature and those that help the economy. A gene's success in a body may stem from its attempt to bypass the normal sexual lottery by making itself present in more than 50% of zygotes in an organism. Some genes find other ways of having themselves transmitted between cells. Hence multiple factors influence the evolution of genes — not just the success of the species as a whole. Similarly the evolutionary pressures on memes include much more than just truth and economic success. Evolutionary pressures may include the following: #''Experience'': If a meme does not correlate with an individual's experience, then that individual has a reduced likelihood of remembering that meme #''Happiness'': If a meme makes people feel happier then they have a greater likelihood of remembering it #''Fear'': If a meme constitutes a threat then people may become frightened into believing it. The memes "if you do not do this you will burn in hell..." and "...do this and you will go to heaven" provide common examples #''Censorship'': If an organisation destroys any retention systems containing a particular meme or otherwise controls the usage of said meme, then that meme is put at a selective disadvantage. (Note that "Censorship is wrong" is a meme. It is interesting to speculate that this meme may have prospered by increasing the wealth of those nations that enforced it, thus increasing the influence of that meme itself.) #''Economics'': If people or organisations with economic influence exhibit a particular meme, then the meme has a greater likelihood of benefitting from a greater audience. If a meme tends to increase the riches of an individual holding it, then that meme is likely to spread because of imitation. Such memes might include "Hard work is good" and "Put number one first." #''Distinction'': If the meme enables hearers to recognize tellers (as leaders, intelligent people, insightful, etc.), then the meme has a greater chance of spreading. The erstwhile receivers will want to become themselves tellers of the same meme (or an evolved/mutated version). Thus elite knowledge can provide a promotion to elite status. A meme, like a gene, does not purposely do or want anything—it either gets replicated or not. Memes don't mutate in an exclusively passive way. The brain inhabited by a meme system performs a sort of active modification of a meme. One could draw a possible analogy with a cell's error-correction systems, but that becomes subtle. In essence, people create and modify memes almost continuously. One can manipulate, modify, and create meme systems in thought, for instance through internal dialogue. As soon as one opens one's mouth and says something (or does something) that one has not slavishly copied (but that others can copy), one has unleashed a novel meme. Meme-spreaders perform the role of a memetic engineer. Perhaps everyone functions as a memetic engineer to one degree or other. In modern society, the scientific and philosophical realms make this especially evident. It has become standard practice for scientists and philosophers alike to assemble memetic systems and to question their philosophical and emperical integrity. On perceiving a flaw, one may seek philosophical (thought experiments/logic/analysis) or empirical (experimental/observational/[questionably] mathematical) resolution. This happens in large part due to the influence of some of the more "modern" philosophers of the past. Over the last few hundred (or thousand) years, a "philosophy" or paradigm has evolved and developed which benefits the societies which embrace it. That philosophy includes the scientific and moral obligation to take nothing for granted and always to question any new information one perceives. People following this tradition have transformed the memetic base of modern science and philosophy. These people include (just to name a scant few) Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Marx, Benjamin Franklin and Karl Popper. Science accepts nothing as true unless empirical evidence and observation suggests such truth strongly and consistently. This entire procedure adheres to a meme system that has evolved in the direction of rejecting almost anything as fact. This meme system now includes such novel analytical paradigms as the scientific method and "John Dewey's decision making Model" (among many other meme-based systems) to help distinguish useful or truthful meme systems from [bad] ones. Essentially, people modify and fabricate memes consciously, even intentionally (though some argue that the intention comes from the memes). This would help to explain how rapidly, extensively and usefully memetic evolution has functioned in and for culture. People apply many ever-evolving meme-based systems of analysis and error correction to all information coming in and out. Just as genetic material has developed a gene-based error-correction model, memetic systems have found it favorable to permit the influence of a meme-based modification system. One could view the process as that of a meme-based modification system taking advantage of an extensive computational system (the human brain), programming it to produce and modify memes, and thus to modify the memotypic soup which largely dictates our thoughts and actions (and of course to create very useful, but still likely erroneous memeplexes). In early social development, people influence and are influenced by memes just like developed individuals. People later may become aware of this influence and begin to consciously filter what influence the meme systems have on them as well as what influence they have on meme systems (arguably in response to memeplexes programming their thoughts). In later, possibly somewhat esoteric stages, people become more acutely aware of the meme systems flooding their existence, and many people have begun to reach a more complete comprehension of these memes through a novel memeplex which evolves to explain them. One does not necessarily need to know of meme theory to realize the situation exists. Eventually, many see the potential to fabricate or modify meme systems consciously for specific ends, based on conscious plans and logical foresight (all aided by interacting memeplexes which arguably constitute thought), such that the memesphere becomes a cluttered canvas of interconnected variables which everyone influences. At this point the memetecist (or the meme artist) manifests in society to create symbolic culture at an ever-accelerating rate. Many of the world's most successful religions, and arguably all religions, show themselves subject to sentient memetic modification throughout time. Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism and Islam (and their offshoots) — just to name a few in that family—all arose (presumably) through modification and memeplex-recombination from a common one or few ancestors. (Zoroastrianism appears to have functioned as an important and widely-share memetic ancestor, contributing to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and their many derivative religions.) Those ancestors presumably resulted from extensive memetic engineering themselves, possibly more impressive than the modification of their descendants (as early religious memes likely fabricated much from little). Cultural materialism holds that the evolutionary pressures of economy and ecology explain many aspects of human culture. For example, the food taboos, sometimes enshrined in religions like the concepts of sacred cows or kosher and halal, would have prospered because they allowed the believing population to (say) live more hygienically and thus survive longer than non-believers in their environments. A migration or a change of the economic infrastructure could render the taboo neutral or even adverse. ===Memetic virus exchange?=== One controversial application of this "selfish meme" parallel results in the idea that certain collections of memes can act as "memetic viruses": collections of ideas that behave as independent life forms which continue to get passed on—even at the expense of their hosts—simply because of their success at getting passed on. Some observers have suggested that evangelism religions and cults behave this way; so by including the act of passing on their beliefs as a moral virtue, other beliefs of the religion also get passed along even if they do not provide particular benefits to the believer. Others maintain that the wide prevalence of human adoption of religious ideas provides evidence to suggest that such ideas offer some ecological, sexual, ethical or moral value; otherwise memetic evolution would long ago have selected against such ideas. For example, most religions urge peace and cooperation among their followers ("Thou shalt not kill") which may possibly tend to promote the biological survival of the social groups that carry these memes. A tendency exists in memetics to disparage religious memes. However, some speculate that traditional religions act as mental immune systems to suppress new and potentially harmful memes. Interestingly, we can compare this scenario with the action of a virus (here a religion — a "bundle" of religious memes) proving ineffective and maladaptive if it kills its host(s). For example, popular Christianity forbids both murder and suicide (an idea from Augustine of Hippo's ''The City of God''), and its precise definitions of heresy ensure that "properly" educated Christians cannot accept new religions which advocate such actions. One could make a case (as Susan Blackmore [http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/awaken.html has done]) that the study of Zen meditation in itself comprises a process of meme "pruning," i.e., a means to remove experiential clichés that reduce the value of life. This has not exempted Zen itself from serving as a source of highly mobile memes, such as "the sound of one hand clapping" or "Mu (negative)." It may surprise many memetics advocates to learn of meme-like concepts described long ago, and prevalent in Sufi teaching. Muwakkals rank as separate beings, elementals, that make up human thought (compare Gottfried Leibniz's monads). (Note that the framing of this whole discussion may mislead. If humans, as seen rigorously from Dawkins' perspective, comprise a collection of the extended effects of our various genes and memes, then the question of what counts as "valuable to the individual" cannot readily become separated from what benefits their genes and/or memes. Since one cannot easily determine the "ecological, sexual, ethical or moral value" of a meme coutside of the context of the memes of the determiner, memeticists can easily misuse the idea of "meme" or of a "meme virus" to reject others' positions in a pseudo-scientific way. For example, insofar as you agree with me—i.e., we carry the same memes—I call your ideas "ideas"; insofar as I find your ideas wrong—i.e., you fail to transmit your memes to me—I can call them "memes" and brand you as "infected with a meme virus".) Dawkins notes that one can distinguish a biological virus from its host's normal genetic material by the fact that it can propagate alone, without the entire genetic corpus of the host being propagated—or half of it, in the case of diploid sexual reproduction; thus, a virus can "sabotage" the host's other genes. This applies to memes in the sense that a meme that requires the success of its hosts has a greater likelihood of favouring the interests of these hosts than a does meme capable of succeeding even if each host quickly dies. For example, the commonplace meme encouraging people to wash their hands after they use the bathroom or before handling food, and to remind others to do the same, is not at all harmful. In contrast, a cultish meme telling people to quit their jobs, abandon their families, and run around spreading the meme seems quite virulent. Memetics offers maximum explanatory value in cases where one cannot demonstrate the truth of the contents of the meme. For example, one can readily show that washing hands helps to prevent illness, so the best explanation for the widespread popularity of this practice is that "it works," though memetics still helps explain the rate of spread, and details such as why the practice of washing hands before surgery took so long to catch on. Memetics though excels in explaining the spread of certain value judgements ("chastity is important"), preferences ("pork is icky"), superstitions ("black cats are unlucky") and other scientifically unverifiable beliefs ("Allah is the one true God"), since one cannot easily account for any of these phenomena in terms of their truth-value. Calling someone's ideas/beliefs/action a "meme" therefore does not constitute an insult, but saying that it is "just a meme" does. ===Non-natural selection=== How "naturally" does this type of selection occur? Perhaps as naturally as sexual attraction or as ethical habits. The relationship of the meme to other ideas of evolution, e.g., those that separate ecological, sexual, ethical and moral factors and reserve no special or separate role for "culture" beyond these, seems to resemble that of a "pretender to the throne"—pretending to explain these more specific ideas of evolution and culture—but without any model to test. This causes quite a few scientists and others to scoff at culture as any kind of factor in human life. A famous observation of this type came from Margaret Thatcher, who bluntly stated: "there is no such thing as society"—evidently she saw "it" as a set of survival, seduction and moral choice factors specific to individuals, couples and families, and not as a unified "culture" or "society" in any sense. ===Reproductive isolation in meme "speciation"=== In traditional population genetics the normal genetic variation, selection, and drift do not lead to formation of a new species without some form of "reproductive isolation"; i.e., in order to split a single species into two species, the two subpopulations of the original species must ultimately lose their ability to interbreed, which would normally maintain their heterogeneity. However, once separated, natural selection and/or just genetic drift acting on the normal genetic variation in the two subspecies will eventually change enough characteristics of the two subgroups that they can no longer interbreed, which by definition means that they will comprise two different species. Examples of reproductive isolation include geographical isolation, where a 'suddenly' appearing mountain range or river separates the two subgroups; temporal isolation, where one subgroup becomes entirely diurnal in its habits while the other becomes entirely nocturnal; or even just 'behavioral' isolation, as seen in wolf and dog: they ''could'' interbreed, biologically speaking, but normally they do not. A similar phenomenon can occur with memes. Normally, the population of individuals having a meme in their consciousness is heterogeneous and mixes enough to keep the meme intact although it covers a wide range of variations. Should that population become split, however, without sufficient contact for the two different subgroups of variations of the meme to equilibrate, eventually each group will evolve its own version of that meme, differing sufficiently from that of the other group to appear as a distinct entity. One example of this occurring on the Internet is the ''Kellerman'' meme. A search of the web and/or Usenet for the word 'Kellerman' will turn up a large number of citations, describing at great length the behavior of a 'Dr. Arthur Kellerman', who, with the willing assistance of the Centers for Disease Control and the public health lobby purportedly fabricated studies in order to implicate firearms (and by extension their owners) as a menace to public safety, for the purposes of statist control of the population which the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution—the right to keep and bear arms—would otherwise thwart. The authors of these pages and postings describe purported machinations, "junk science," a subsequent recantation by Dr. 'Kellerman', and the use of his work by gun control proponents. In reality, no "Dr. Arthur Kellerman" exists, at least not in any connection with the above description. There is, however, a Arthur Kellermann (with ''double'' n), who has indeed published several papers estimating the overall impact on the public health of firearm availability and various aspects of firearm storage, as part of a career in public health and emergency and trauma medicine. As in any such series of studies, Kellermann's work has strengths and weaknesses, which pundits rigorously debate both in the literature and online. However, even after eliminating matters of opinion and statements which are not fully supported, the remaining verifiable facts of Kellermann's studies and career remain virtually unrecognizable in the negative descriptions of 'Kellerman.' The original meme of Kellermann and his work on gun-related violent injury has generated a new meme, "Dr. Kellerman is a evil lying gun-grabbing enemy of freedom," by the classic genetic phenomenon of a mutagenesis. The sub-population involved had strongly negative attitudes towards Kellermann's work as well as a lack of first-hand familiarity with his studies and career. Because of the "reproductive isolation" caused by the total non-intersection of the results of searches for "Kellerman" and "Kellermann," the 'Kellerman' meme drifted even further in the direction of negativity, unchecked by facts related to the real Kellermann. As this group encounters new individuals of similar general outlook, they introduce new recruits to the 'Kellerman' lore only, and go on to produce their own websites and postings furthering the rapid progress of this meme. This phenomenon also demonstrates two other features of memes — the "meme-complex," a set of mutually-assisting "co-memes" which have co-evolved a symbiotic relationship, and the [http://www.istop.com/~ggrant/memetics/memelex.html "Villain vs. Victim"] infection strategy. ==Forms taken by memes in the brain== In 1981 biologists Charles J. Lumsden and Edward Osborne Wilson published a theory of gene-culture coevolution in the book ''Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process''. They pointed out that the fundamental biological units of culture must correspond to neuronal networks that function as nodes of semantic memory. Wilson later adopted the term 'meme' as the best existing name for the fundamental unit of cultural inheritance and elaborated upon the fundamental role of memes in unifying the Natural science and social sciences in his book ''Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge''. ===The "be happy" and "make others happy" memes=== Some spiritual practices such as Buddhism clearly promote ecological and moral goals recognizable to most people, i.e., The Noble Eightfold Path emphasizes limited consumption, reduced cruelty, no delegation of violence or participation in violent systems, and a withdrawal from sexual and ethical processes that have no clear ecological or moral value to the practitioner—regardless of the value they may have to others. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic "Western" religions, however, focus more on devotion to a transcendent deity and to moral codes of behavior, including social and ethical codes affecting every aspect of life from public behavior to commerce to sexual expression. Such religions strongly encourage people to devote themselves to the needs of others. The contrast between "be happy" and "make others happy," although not as stark in practice or theory as the traditional debate suggests, may satisfy constraints of different ecological or sexual norms in some non-obvious way. But it seems entirely likely that they are valuable to the believer. At least, the majority of people on Earth believe so. ===Religion=== Some (such as Dawkins himself, see [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/quotes.shtml]) consider religion itself a meme—or, more exactly, a memeplex or group of memes. To observers infected by a different set of memes, it appears that some fundamentalist evangelical movements act only to add to their own numbers. The movements in question devote what appears to their opponents as an inordinate amount of time to evangelical activity, and therefore may seem to unsympathetic observers to serve no other function. This makes it possible to characterize them as self-serving, and in some cases as a particularly virulent virus. On the other hand, for the meme to continue to propagate, it must provide some spiritual or emotional good: catharsis, a release from worry and guilt, a sense of salvation, happiness, moral energy, etc. The American Religious Right has a unified message built around religious dogma. By attaching conservative political views to Christian religious evangelism (meme piggybacking), they have associated a set of political ideas/memeplexes with a set of religious ideas/memeplexes that throughout history have "replicated" very effectively. That is, Christianity has won converts for centuries; now in many cases a religious conversion also becomes a political conversion. Similarly, the scientific method offers a body of social and experimental techniques which, given certain preconditions—a free press for the circulation of information, a large number of people predisposed to see the world as a mechanism subject to general rules which can be discovered through repeatable experiments—acts highly virulently, spreading quickly through an educated population. By demonstrating its success at making predictions, science as a practice can make itself more attractive to converts. Ideas and attitudes which are not necessarily verifiable by experimentation, but which tend to be held by scientists or feel aesthetically pleasing in combination with scientific discoveries, can propagate themselves in societies where science has a high status by the same process of "meme piggybacking." ===Meme resistance=== Karl Popper advocated this in the strongest possible terms: "The survival value of intelligence is that it allows us to extinct a bad idea, before the idea extincts us." Resistance to science and technology has formed a common meme that can guide human cultural and cognitive evolution away from disastrous paths—for instance the US and USSR stockpiled but did not use nuclear weapons in the Cold War period. Ignorance has been in some cultures considered a virtue—in particular, ignorance of certain temptations that the culture believes would be disastrous if pursued by many individuals. The Internet, perhaps the ultimate meme vector, seems to be hosting both sides of this debate. Although it would seem to a naïve observer that no adult user of the Internet could oppose its use by other adults, that does in fact happen, based on any number of criteria from ethics to intent to ability to resist hacker or pornography. Principia Cybernetica holds a [http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMLEX.html lexicon of memetics concepts], comprising a list of different types of memes. It also refers to an essay by Jaron Lanier, ''[http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier/lanier_p1.html The ideology of cybernetic totalist intellectuals]'', which criticises very strongly "meme totalists" who assert memes over bodies. ==Examples of memes== Crudely-stated versions of some common memes include: *Technology: cars, paper clips, etc. Technology clearly demonstrates mutation as well, which memetic (or genetic) progress requires. Many paper clip designs have emerged throughout history, for example, with varying degrees of longevity, fecundity and copying fidelity (i.e., memetic "success"). An often-cited example of "technology as meme" involves the building of a fire. *Jingles: advertising slogans set to an engaging melody *Earworms: songs that you can't stop humming or thinking. "It's a Small World After All" is a common example. *Jokes: or at least those jokes popularly considered funny *Proverbs and aphorisms: "You can't keep a good man down." *Nursery rhymes: propagated from parent to child over many generations, sometimes with associated actions and movements. *Children's culture: games, activities and taunts typical for different age groups. *Epic poems: once important memes for preserving oral history; writing has largely superceded them. *Chain letters: "You must send this message to five other people, or something bad will happen to you." *Conspiracy theories *Luck: "I am a lucky person. Here are some stories of my luck. If you believe in good luck, you can become lucky like me." (and its obverse) *Fashions: especially clothing styles such as blue jeans. *Medical and safety advice: "Don't swim for an hour after eating" or "Steer in the direction of a skid." *Movies: very memetic given their mass replication, movies tend to cause people to replicate scenes or repeat popular catch phrases such as "You can't handle the truth!" from ''A Few Good Men'' or "Alllllllrighty then!" from ''Ace Ventura'', even if they have not seen the movie themselves. *Religions: complex memes, including folk religion beliefs; can even spread virally (such as The Prayer of Jabez). *Popular concepts: these include Freedom, Justice, Ownership, Open Source, Egoism, or Altruism *Group-based biases: everything from anti-semitism and racism to cargo cults. *Longstanding political memes that suppress democratic notions and activity, such as "mob rule" and "republic, not a democracy." *Programming paradigms: from structured programming and object-oriented programming to extreme programming. *Internet phenomenon: Internet slang and Internet humor such as "All your base are belong to us." *Wikis: the proliferation of collaborative editing systems following the Wiki example in their multiple incarnations. Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc. *Moore's Law: this meme has a particularly interesting form of self-replication. The conviction that "semiconductor complexity doubles every 18 months" became considerably more than a predictive observation; it became a performance target for an entire industry once it was extensively believed. Manufacturers now strive to make the next generation of semiconductor technology recreate the performance growth of the previous generation, and so maintain belief in Moore's Law. *Consciousness and the self: Susan Blackmore theorized that a "self" merely comprises a collection of memetic stories which she calls the ''selfplex''. *The concept of memes itself comprises a meme. Even the idea that the concept of memes is itself a meme has become a widely spread meme. However, the idea that the idea that the concept of memes is itself a meme is not yet particularly common as a meme. (Not to mention that, at this stage, the idea makes most people's heads hurt.) The ''Memetic Lexicon'' lists meme attributes compiled by Glenn Grant under a "share-alike" licence. The thoughtful examples it offers help to focus the concept for readers unfamiliar with memetic thinking. The Lexicon has circulated since the early 1990s, and evolved into its version 3.5 memeplex in 2004: [http://www.istop.com/~ggrant/memetics/memelex.html A Memetic Lexicon] ==Common misconceptions== A very common misconception about memes represents them as very special, rare kinds of thought or as some special trick of public relations gurus. Generally, memes can comprise any piece of information that can possibly transfer between two minds — idea, thought, joke, song, dance, habit, even state of mood. ==See also== *Bandwagon effect *Chain letter *Collective consciousness *Collective intelligence *Collective memory *Copycat *Demagoguery *Diffusion of innovations *Everett Rogers *Exploding sheep *Figure of speech *Framing (communication theory) *Gabriel Tarde *Groupthink *Herd behavior *Hive mind *Jedi census phenomenon *Memebot *Meme pool *Memespace *Metal Gear Solid 2, a video game centered on the concept of history as memetic *Neuroeconomics *Paradigm shift *Propaganda *Rhetoric *Self-replication *Spamming *Trope *Urban legend ==References== *''The Selfish Gene'' by Richard Dawkins, [http://www.oup.co.uk/ Oxford University Press], 1976, 2nd edition, December 1989, hardcover, 352 pages, ISBN 0192177737; April 1992, ISBN 019857519X; trade paperback, September 1990, 352 pages, ISBN 0192860925 *''The Music of Life'', Pir Hazrat Inayat Khan, Omega Uniform Edition, 2nd edition, 1993, trade paperback: 353 pages, ISBN 093087238X. An introduction to the ''muwakkals,'' the Eastern memes. *''Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme'' by Richard Brodie, Integral Pr, September 1995, 251 Pages, ISBN 09636001 *''The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History'' by Howard Bloom, Atlantic Monthly Press, February 1997, 480 pages, ISBN 0871136643 *''The Meme Machine'' by Susan Blackmore, [http://www.oup.co.uk/ Oxford University Press], 1999, hardcover ISBN 0198503652, trade paperback ISBN 0965881784, May 2000, ISBN 019286212X *''[http://www.agner.org/cultsel/ Cultural Selection]'' by Agner Fog. Dordrecht: Kluwer 1999. ISBN 0-7923-5579-2. *''Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads Through Society'' by Aaron Lynch, Basic Books, 1999, ISBN 0465084672 **Review: [http://zompist.com/memes.html The new pseudo-science of memes] *''Snow Crash'' by Neal Stephenson, Bantam Doubleday Dell, reprint, 2000, trade paperback: 440 pages, ISBN 0553380958 (science fiction novel about a metavirus which can penetrate and take over ''any'' information system, and thus can spread as gene, meme, or biological virus) *"Eyes at the back of your head: How Richard Semon's memes gave way to Richard Dawkins's memes" by Tim Flannery, ''Times Literary Supplement'', October 19, 2001 *''The Electric Meme: A New Theory of How We Think'' by Robert Aunger, Free Press, 2002, hardcover ISBN 0743201507 *''[http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Annotations/DEFAULT.14.html The Ideology of Cybernetic Totalist Intellectuals]'', an essay by Jaron Lanier which very strongly criticises "meme totalists" who assert memes over bodies. *[http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/overview.html Journal of Memetics - ''Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission''] *Principia Cybernetica holds a [http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMLEX.html lexicon of memetics concepts], comprising a list of different types of memes. *A list of [http://users.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/Memetics/ memetics publications on the web] *''[http://www.lulu.com/mmeme/ The Masculist Meme]'' by Alan Carr. Lulu Publishing, Content .58184 Examines political correctness as a mind-virus. *''[http://www.what-it-all-means.com Memeiosis]'' by Steven Ericsson-Zenith, a formal characterization of memes. *''[http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00003471/ Culture as Complex Adaptive System]'' by Hokky Situngkir, formal interplays between memetics and cultural analysis. *''[http://memetics.chielens.net/master.html The Viral Aspects of Language: A Quantitative Research of Memetic Selection Criteria]'' by Klaas Chielens ==External links== *[http://www.memes.org Memes.org] *[http://www.rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmemes.html The text of Dawkin's ''Selfish Gene'', chapter 11, "Memes: the new replicators"] *[http://viral-meme.info/ Viral-Meme.info - "Language as a virus"] *[http://www.quotesexchange.com/2004/08/help-make-blogs-more-visible_05.html Meme Designed to Help Make Blogs More Visible! (GoMeme 4.0)] *[http://virus.lucifer.com/lexicon.html Church of Virus lexicon] *[http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/MemeTank MemeTank at dKosopedia] *[http://www.davidgalbraith.org/archives/000828.html 'Dissecting Blogebrity' as a viral meme] Culture Memetics Philosophy of mind Protoscience
Archives: *Talk:Meme/Archive1 — up to end of 2004 *Talk:Meme/Archive2 — First quarter of 2005 (currently) == Meme List website == I removed the external link to something called "The Meme List", as it does not seem to have any memes at all. It appears to be a collection point for websites that have lists of topics to blog on. Those aren't "memes"; they're just "ideas". — User:Jeffq User talk:Jeffq 06:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Same thing. But I don't want any lists of lists, either. If we listed memes, we'd have to list every thought and subthought and group of thoughts that ever existed. --User:Omegatron 14:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) == TODO: Common misconceptions about memes and memetics == I think it should be the main part of any meme discussion at the present time, because the most sources I've ever seen refer to completely wrong conception of meme and memetics. This seems the main reason why many sources consider memetics completely speculative and NOT a science at all. The article seems lacking without this topic. --User:Neonil 13:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Done. Thanks for help User:Stevietheman. User:Neonil 16:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::But how can you say that every possible piece of information is a meme? That means that the statement "every possible piece of information is a meme" is a meme too, and so on, but that makes all logical thinking and truth illusionary. Such a statement is by its very nature self-destructive, and in my opinion, that's the reason why memetics hasn't evolved into a mature science. --User:Michael :::Strawman, Michael. Memetics does not assert that every last bit of data is a meme- do measurements of the orbital velocities of red giants in the Andromeda galaxy, surely valid real data, live or die based on their attractiveness, or mutate while being propagated through imitation? Surely not, and memetics is not so silly as to say that. To put it simply, memetics is concerned with ideas that spread and change (read "mutate"). There are enough arguments against memetics, no need to go around misrepresenting it. --User:Marudubshinki 00:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC) ::::Maybe we need to focus on what the purpose is behind treating an idea as a meme. Any idea can be thus treated, but it's often pointless to do so. For example, the idea that the sky is blue could be considered in memetic terms. However, the easiest way to account for this popularity of this idea is to point out that any idiot can look up and see the sky. In contrast, it's not obvious how, say, the belief that masturbation is immoral became popular in some groups but not others, or why its popularity has changed over time. Here, memetics can help by pointing out what makes this belief spread better under certain circumstances. Note that this description is entirely independent of the truth (if any) of the idea itself. It is this aspect that makes memetics so good at dealing with issues that are subjective, controversial or held largely independent of facts (such as religion). User:Alienus 00:55, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) == TODO: Sharpen intro == The article throws a ton of flood on a first time reader's head. It seems to me that most quit without any idea of what meme is. Several people I sent link didn't understand it. I think - the introductionary part should be made as short and sharp as possible, to give new reader a solid understanding in the mimimum possible words. --User:Neonil 16:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :It would be cool if you could place your revision ideas here in talk first and get a consensus before changing the article. It's just that the opener text is usually the most sensitive part of the article. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Work">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 20:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I added it, in somehow raw form, in hope that somebody will edit it soon... User:Stevietheman, do you have a free minute? :) :::I experience that people DO NOT UNDERSTAND meme concept and memetics from the article in the form as it is. I suppose people lose understending and then their interset somewhere very close to the start of the article. I hope we will solve it in some evolutionary way.......... User:Neonil 23:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I'm too tired to copyedit it this evening, but I'd like to suggest another section name: "In a nutshell". I think that's what you're driving at. At any rate, I may be able to take a look at it tomorrow if nobody else beats me to it. Cheers. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Work">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 02:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I have a slight doubt... This would make this chapter seem not serious, while the goal is opposite. However it is up to you to change it in any way you think it seems proper, also its content would give an idea. Currently I changed the name to Meme#Basic_Introduction. But I hope it will experience successful mutations soon. :) Thanks! --User:Neonil 21:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::The articles don't have to be deadly serious you know- touches of whimsy are allowed; see Invisible Pink Unicorn. --User:Marudubshinki 21:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::Please make the intro short and sweet. it scrambled my brain, i stopped reading, and i still don't know what the hell a meme is. I'm either stupid or this article sucks. My experience in Wikipedia tells me both are good possibilities. thanks User:Muchosucko 07:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Politics== I just reverted the following addition: :*Politics: memes were used to manipulate the Soviet society into believing that life in the USSR was bad. Example of the memes are "USSR produces too many tractors" (in reality an order of magnitude less per hectar than in Europe), "there is a shortage of food" (actual consumption of most products was higher than in the United States, with the exception of meat). These memes were believed by most people and propagated , and this eventualy created a climate of irrational aversion towards the Soviet order. Frankly, I can't make sense of it. Perhaps it's salvagable, but it needs a redraft. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 19:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for the revert and sorry that my addition was so messy. I will clarify it below and hope that together we can reedit it so that it can fit back into the article. --User:Paranoid 21:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::The point was that during the 1960-1980s a number of memes (ideas, stories, misleading statistics, etc.) were injected (not necessarily by some evil body, but still there must have been some authors) into the collective mind of Soviet people. These memes successfully reproduced and spread, as a side effect, cultivating an aversion to the Soviet order among the people. ::Examples: ::#"USSR produces too many tractors" - someone (an economist? It was often repeated by Aganbegyan- a famous economist, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences) at some point claimed that because of the inefficient planning system, the Soviet economy was susceptible to imbalance. One quoted example was that it produced too many tractors that were useless to the agriculture. Sometimes people quoted the number of tractors that the United States produced, sometimes they didn't. The conclusion was supposed to be that the USSR needs a market economy that would magically produce as many tractors as needed. ::In reality the number of tractors in Soviet Union (per hectare) was an order of magnitude less than in Europe and the US. In 1988 there were 12 tractors per 1000 ha in USSR, 34 in the USA, 77 in Poland, 144 in Italy and 476 in Japan! Note also that the USA has a totally different climate (comparable only with Kazakhstan). But it was claimed that the USSR had 3 times more (and even 10 times more) tractors than needed. ::This incorrect claim was widely believed by the public, often repeated and was adopted by the people as an illustration of "why the system can't work". It is a meme and it was a very notable one (although probably not as well known outside the USSR). ::#"There is a shortage of food" - again, the "deficit" of food was an extremely common claim. The argument was that since there are "empty shelves" in the Soviet Union, the economic system is ineffective and should be replaced by free market. It was argued that in a free market economy everyone will have access to an abundance of nicely packaged western-like supermarket food. ::In reality constant lowering of prices by the planning agencies simply led to an unfortunate side effect. As the prices dropped below the equilibrium point, people were always buying all available stock, leading to "empty shelves". The actual food consumption was high, but psychologically the empty shelves proved to be very hard to endure. Even though per capita consumption of most products (with the exception of meat) in Soviet Union was higher than in the United States, people were unhappy. In 1988 consumption of milk and milk products in the USSR was 356 kg per capita (260 kg in the USA), but 44% of the Soviet people said when polled that they were not consuming enough milk. In Armenia, where people consumed 480 kg of milk (1989) 62% of the people were not satisfied with the consumption levels. The situation with most other products (including both food and consumer goods) was similar. ::This meme was extremely popular and it spread despite contradicting reality in a sense. People could see that they have plenty of food on the table (and even in the stores, most of the time), but they instead repeated the lie about deficits. These memes were believed by most people and propagated , and this eventualy created a climate of irrational aversion towards the Soviet order. I think they are interesting examples, although I may have been guilty of not explaining them well. --User:Paranoid 21:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Very interesting. I totally understand what you're driving at now. Now it's just a matter of reworking the new content. Let us know if you need assistance. Cheers! — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 01:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I was unsure about adding a large section to the article, so I tried to fit it into a one paragraph format of the examples section. Now it doesn't look like it can be explained in one paragraph. Do you think adding a separate section on use of memes for social manipulation or may be on their role in the USSR specifically may work? --User:Paranoid 01:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I'm not sure. Anyone else have any ideas for what to do? — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 22:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Sadly, I think this comes under the heading of orignal research, and as such is not appropriate. If references to the linking of memetics to these concepts can be given, then the idea may become acceptable, but it isn't at the moment. --User:Noisy | User talk:Noisy 14:35, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC) ::::::It isn't original research. A number of authors have talked about this (the one I am most familiar with is Sergey Kara-Murza). They didn't use the term "meme", but they were talking about the same phenomenon - it's only that memetics has not become popular in Russia yet. --User:Paranoid 21:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Memetics == Let's not be overly enthusiastic here. It's not even certain that memetics is an accurate theory, or that it's even useful (if it is), or just extra terminology. [http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-2716.html Ephilosopher link] --User:Maprovonsha172 14:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::(Later note: This appears to be the working Ephilosopher link, and it is hardly a damning series of arguments like Maprovonsha172 implies elsewhere. --User:Marudubshinki 21:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) :By messing up your personal pages, and sigs, and posting the same anti-memetics message three times to different talk pages, you are not making friends, Maprovonsha. --User:Marudubshinki 14:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ::What's that supposed to mean? I'm just trying to make sure these pages live up to their claim to objectivity. I provided a link that shows that memetics is not a sure thing; as I said, it's yet to be seen whether memetics is a proto-science or a pseudo-science. There just isn't any telling. Meanwhile, if we use memetics terminology liberally throughout articles not directly relating to memetics we are underhandedly endorsing what may very well be a pseudo-science, or useless at best. I imagine memetic terminology will become what postmodern terminology has been for a while now-something someone can use to appear smart. If you have a problem with any of that, you say where. Don't tell me I'm "not making friends," that isn't constructive to say the least and could be (mis)interpreted as a threat. --Maprovonsha172 23:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)~ :::I noticed that you blanked a good portion of your Talk page, completely eliminating RickK's comments. That isn't the usual practice; normally we just move an overfull talk page to an 'Archive' page, and cut and paste as necessary- see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. I'm sure that was just because you are fairly new, and that it was not an attempt to hide some things, like more cynical and suspicious people might think. :::As far as memetic terminology goes, that terminology is very widely accepted as useful for thinking about many behaivours- if it describes what is happening well, and provides insight, it is probably valid. Note also no-one appears to be providing support for your position. :::And you may imagine what you like. :::Very well- I shall tell you my problem. First, you appear to have had a spat with RickK. RickK is a good user, which casts some doubt on your integrity. Second, you write some articles which have since been deleted or converted into redirects. This in and of itself is not bad, is a learning experience, but not positive either. Also, you seem to have never heard of edit summaries. Bad wikiquette. Another thing: you blank part of your Talk page dealing with serious issues, with no summary, no archiving, no nothing. Not bad in and of itself, again, but definitely not good. Finally, you come to certain pages, and argue against them, and remove good information. That's bad. That is pratically Internet troll. I am hoping you are not a troll, but are merely inexperienced, and argumentative. Prove me right. :::And your misinterpreting is not my problem; my meaning was clear. May I constructively suggest a reading of the Wikipedia:FAQ? --User:Marudubshinki 01:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::::I'll admit your hopes, then. I may have bad wikiquette but that doesn't figure into the discussion on memetics. I could have bad wikiquette, no integrity, no experience, and absolutely nothing going for me except for the fact that I'm right! All that is an argumentum ad hominem, taking people's attention away from the issue because you can't defend your pro-memetics position otherwise---and I'm not anti-memetics. But why are you defending posting memetic terminology all throughout theoretically objective arcticles which aren't directly concerned with memetics while memetics is still a controversial subject? Whether or not anyone wants to go to bat with me and admit that it still is controversial, again, is irrelevant. I don't suppose you even checked out the link I provided. If you had, you would know there is much reputable resistance to memetics and memetic terminology, believe it or not Meme Theory's accuracy and usefullness is still being debated. But, by using memetic terminology in 'objective' articles not directly related to memetics is clearly a tacit endorsement of the theory. --User:Maprovonsha172 14:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :::::We live in the real world, Map. 'Ad hominem attacks' are entirely valid data with which to adjust the strengths of our beliefs and probabilities- we aren't dealing with classical logic or syllogisms. Ex. antiglobal warming proponents have a much weaker case since it has been revealed that many of them are not exactly unbiased and uninterested parties, to say the least. Is that data ad hominem? Does it directly refute the anti-global warming case's data? No- but it is very relevant; that is how ad hominem attacks are useful. And you certainly are not 'anti-memetics'- you have proven that time and again in your edits and responses (or lack thereof.) You'll notice I have checked out your provided links- most of'em didn't work, and the one that did is hardly an authority or source of good anti-memetics arguments; and where exactly are you getting 'reputable resistence' from? As far as terminology goes, I shall state again, using it is not an endorsement of memetics- it is an endorsement of ''people's'' use of memetics terminology. --User:Marudubshinki 21:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::There are many articles in the Wikipedia with disputes like this. They are usually resolved by noting in the article (using ''sources'') that there are people of significance who are skeptical of memetics and its treatment as a science (of course, this would need to be balanced with its proponents). However, adding this information doesn't give one license to rip out the other material on memetics, given that it's an NPOV, accurate description. There's grammatical ways to copyedit material that is in dispute without removing it entirely. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC) ::::::Okay, but don't you see my point that it may very well contradict the NPOV policy? By using memetic terminology in an article we are tacitly endorsing memetics, because it is supposed to be an objective article and inherent in the wording would be a affirmation of the theory. You realize memetics is controversial, so you should be able to see why using their terms in articles not in any way related to memetics is inadvertently taking sides on a controversial issue. By the way, very little of what is to be said using memetic terminology couldn't be said another way, therefore it's gratuitous at best, and an underhanded affirmation of a pseudo-science at worst. --User:Maprovonsha172 17:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::Now you are just being disingenuous- in what ways can you discuss ideas as entities subject to evolutionary forces, with behaivour analogous to that of 'selfish genes', which still has the explanatory power of memetic terminology? --User:Marudubshinki 21:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::So, do we also have a problem with using ID terminology in an Intelligent design article and Christian terminology in a Christianity article? On top of that, "intelligent design" is very controversial. Are we to keep controversial ideas out of the Wikipedia? The Wikipedia affirms ideas that exist to a big extent in the wilds of human thought, whether they are scientific or pseudo-scientific. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 18:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I only said that we shouldn't use memetic terminology in articles NOT pertaining directly to memetics or meme theory. But using it elseware is affirming its validity, which is why we wouldn't file intelligent design under science, let's say. But really, the analogy doesn't work because the loaded wording of memetics is what I'm getting at. --User:Maprovonsha172 18:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC) == Fellow deletionists == I hope we all can see now why using memetic terminology liberally throughout articles not directly concerned with memetics or meme theory is not only unnecessary, but a violation of the NPoV. Memetics is, after all, on Wikipedia's List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. Meme theory is a controversial issue which is still being debated (http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-2716.html). Since it's yet to be seen whether memetics is a proto-science or a pseudo-science we shouldn't use it as if it were accepted fact, in theoretically objective articles. As I have posted on the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians) on Meta-Wiki (member 38#), I encourage everyone to either delete unnecessary memetic terminology or reword it to uphold the NPoV. --User:Maprovonsha172 15:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :Avoiding memetic terminology has nothing to do with deletionism. --User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 15:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::Yeah, deletionism is more about prose elegance and keeping Wikipedia on encylopedic subjects and data. --User:Marudubshinki 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::Well I'm sort of new at this. But I thought that deleting unnecessary or POV information was what deletionism was all about. I suppose avoiding memetic terminology isn't deletionist, but we ought to, anyway. Don't you agree? --User:Maprovonsha172 15:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::::I'm a deletionist too, and I'm likewise lost on your point. Besides, you haven't even named these other articles where this "terminology" is being used. At least give us some kind of starting point for discussion. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 17:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC) :::::It all started with Godwin's Law, which I posted a NPOV-template on, after having deleted the memetic terminology used there (meme, counter-meme) ::::::(Despite the fact that the eponymous Godwin wrote an article for Wired, linked to in article, that ''explicity'' stated he thought of and designed it, with memes and memetic terminology. --User:Marudubshinki 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) :::::and it was all re-posted. I have since changed the wording to avoid the memetic words yet still convey more or less the same meaning. Also, I changed the Hypersigil page which said 'memetic-complex' to collection of images and/or ideas. On Internet Phenomenon I changed how the word meme was used, from something like 'these are good examples of memes,' to 'some would say...'. I also explained the other side to that by expressing the skepticism of many regarding meme theory ("...but it remains unclear how ideas can replicate themselves as people choose to imitate what they like."). ::::::(And with that you reveal you do not understand memetic theory at all. ''Of course'' people choose what they like! They also choose what convinces them to harbor or spread the memes; that is how they 'self-reproduce', by being attractive or convincing so that people remember them. --User:Marudubshinki 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) :::::I removed 'memetics' from the a list of the protoscience page, since no one knows if it's a protoscience or a pseudo-science yet. I made an alteration on the Friedrich Nietzsche page similar to my change on Internet Phenomenon, simply changing a definite statement to a 'some would say' uncertain statement. I also removed the word meme from Nevada-Tan and thus replaced "internet meme character" to "internet cartoon character," which isn't exactly the previously intended meaning but to give it that intended meaning (of a self-replicating system) would defeat the purpose of my correction. And finally, what I meant in saying that all deletionists should be going after this unnecessary and POV phenomenon of putting memetic terminology in all sorts of articles not directly related to meme theory is case in point when one scrolls down at Nevada-Tan and realizes there is an entire category of so-called 'internet memes.' So I realized this wasn't just one or a few incidents, but an ingrained problem, and as I have shown, to use memetic terms as if it's solid science is underhandedly endorsing meme theory and hence contradictory of Wikipedia's NPoV policy. --User:Maprovonsha172 18:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::I've replaced "meme" in that article - whether you like it or not, "meme" is a widely accepted and used term referring to Internet-spread phenomena. Whether anyone completely agrees with "meme theory" does not change the fact that "meme" is now a word that is here to stay. As the meme article states, "In casual use, the term meme sometimes refers to any piece of information passed from one mind to another. This usage more closely resembles the analogy of "language as a virus" than Dawkins's analogy of memes as replicating units." --User:FCYTravis 20:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::I would also like to note that I wrote a considerable entry on Internet Phonemena, seeking some clarification of the issues and common ground (as Travis can attest), but have received no reply despite the fact that Map has had liesure time enough, it would appear, to edit this and related aticles. --User:Marudubshinki 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC) == Internet Meme == There has been some discussion (and several deletions) on Internet-related pages regarding ''memes''. However, even if incorrectly, the term "meme" does apply to things such as All your base are belong to us or Nevada-tan. The term "meme", insofar as the net, has been in use for some time (the earliest I can remember "meme" used in conjunction was in the mid-90s). Perhaps a seperate article for "Internet meme" should be created. --User:Mitsukai 17:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :If I understand what you're saying you mean that there is an internet slang that uses 'meme' in a different way than say, Susan Blackmore does? In that case we would need an article to clarify which would be meant. --User:Maprovonsha172 18:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::No- the usage on the Internet is essentially the same. A bit more modest, usually in the sense of 'evolving ideas which live or die based on ability to get people to spread'em', with few of Blackmore's overarching claims, but definitely not distinct enough to warrant another page. --User:Marudubshinki 18:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :::Over-reaching claims are precisely the problem. The idea that a phrase or image replicates itself is the issue, or whether people just spread what they like. It seems that memetics personifies these things, as you say, "based on [their] ability to get people to spread'em." It seems to me that to swallow the pill that is memetics you have to accept Blackmore's theory the Self-plex, which leaves us with no say in what we re-print, repeat etc. because the self is an illusion. Of course that's not falsifiable, and so, here we have the task at hand to eliminate implications that memetics is any true science (at least for now. --User:Maprovonsha172 18:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::::No- is that your real problem? To accept the 'Selfplex' theory (which has got to be the most ambitious feature of Blackmore style memetics, and one even I am rather ambivalent about) is to by necessity accept memetics. But you know a little philosophy Map, so I'll use their jargon. 'Memetics is ''necessary'' for the 'Selfplex', but definitely not ''sufficient''.' --User:Marudubshinki 21:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::::Perhaps in the case of Internet memes, perhaps a section on the main meme article. While I agree that people are hardly quoting Susan Blackmore when referring to net memes (in fact, I'd be surprised if most in those cases knew anything about her), net memes have been around for quite some time and are more than just "catchphrases" or "memorable pictures". I think it's still important enough to warrant some sort of mention above that of a decdif in Wikitionary. --User:Mitsukai 20:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :::::I find it perfectly fair to question meme theory. But the usage of "Internet meme" is indisputable - it is, in fact, in widespread use on Internet communities ranging from Slashdot to FARK to DailyKos. To deny it by deleting "meme" from phenomena which are considered memes is denying reality. --User:FCYTravis 21:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::FCYTravis, just because some people use the word in their internet communities doesn't mean that they are using it properly, or that Wikipedia should respect their fad conception of an academic question. I wouldn't be denying reality, I'd be denying it's encyclopedic validity. Moreover, we shouldn't speak of memes as if they are definite things; no one can be so sure. You say, "I find it perfectly fair to question meme theory," but you tilt the discussion in your favor if we allow the word to be used freely in what are supposed to be objective articles. If you must use them, word it a certain way, as I have, to uphold the NPoV. Don't say 'these are memes,' instead say, 'some would say these are memes.' Mitsukai, you say "net memes...are more than just 'catchphrases' or 'memorable pictures.'" What are they, then? Because if you say they are 'self-replicators,' that’s the real (Dawkins, Dennett, Blackmore) definition of meme, and then net memes would be as PoV as what I've been arguing against. --User:Maprovonsha172 22:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::Now Map, who is committing classical logical fallacies now, hmm? 'just because some people use the word in their internet communities doesn't mean that they are using it properly'- now really. Ever hear of the 'No true Scotsman fallacy'? --User:Marudubshinki 21:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::Yes, Maru, I have heard of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy and not only do I find it irrelevant to what we are talking about, I resent your condescending tone. No True Scotsman? Just because you can't make such a hasty generalization about Scotsmen (that they all eat their porridge without sugar), or any other analogous generalization, doesn't mean you can't point out when a word is used improperly. What kind of a red herring accusation is that? --User:Maprovonsha172 01:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::::Irrelevant? You snobbishly proclaim that they are not using the 'true' meme, that you know better than they, and you complain about ''my'' condescending tone? Also: what on earth on you talking about with your 'generalizations'? NTS (as I shall abbreviate) is not about that, or inference o anything of the kind- its about redefining; just check the Wiki article No true Scotsman. And what red herrings are here? Usage of words is precsiely the issue. --User:Marudubshinki 03:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::Who's to say that someone is using a word "properly?" Who defines that? I'd say it's POV for you to claim that a group is using a word "improperly" when that word is being used in accordance with its dictionary definition. The Merriam-Webster dicdef of 'meme' is "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture" - and clearly that's what Internet memes are. They "spread from person to person" via the Internet - often among particular subcultures of those sites I referred to earlier. Your ideas regarding "meme theory" are entirely irrelevant to the fact that nowhere on Wikipedia has "meme" been used in a manner inconsistent with its dictionary definition. It's incumbent on you to explain why properly using a word is somehow POV. --User:FCYTravis 23:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::::I'm heavily in agreement with FCYTravis. If at the very least, we should have a section on meme for internet memes. However, realistically, I think it just be easier overall if someone just started up the Internet meme page. --User:Mitsukai 00:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::::I fully agree. Any place meme is referred to where it meets the dictdef in its explanation of some phenomena, esp. where it's widely discussed (and therefore encyclopedic), e.g., "Internet memes"--this is entirely appropriate. I might only agree with Maprovonsha172 where "meme" is applied to a phenomena in a manner that is not properly sourceable (or POV-balanceable). It matters not really whether memetics is a science or a pseudoscience; it matters most that "meme" has a definition and can be used to describe phenomena, albeit sometimes from a POV (as long as that POV is balanced). This is how we let in subjects like "Intelligent design." LOL. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 00:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::To expand on this, is it POV to use the word "evolution" in an article on Charles Darwin, or do we have to say "some people think Darwin created the theory of evolution" for it to meet NPOV standards? It is not POV to state a fact - and whether something is a meme or not is a fact. Now, the deeper, more complex issues of "meme theory" are controversial, certainly, and as such, should be mentioned in the "meme" entry. But to call something a "meme" according to its strict dicdef is completely NPOV. --User:FCYTravis 00:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC) FCYTravis, to ask "is it POV to use the word 'evolution' in an article on Charles Darwin" only shows that you haven't been paying much attention to the discussion. I have repeatedly said that it is fine to use memetic terminology in articles DIRECTLY related to memetics. It's the unnecessary and POV memetic terminology in articles on internet fads that I'm talking about. In that case it is POV because it assumes the validity of meme theory; obviously, in order to call something a meme one must first assume that there is such a thing. And it doesn't matter that meme is in the dictionary. Dictionaries give usages, not definitions. As such, dictionaries only reflect how word is commonly used, and we can't base what we deem objective truth (enough to place in an article as such) by commonly held ideas, to do so would be to commit the logical fallacy of the appeal to the majority. Also, to say that we can allow POV material in as long as we balance the POV is only justifies what I've been trying to do in rewording articles to stamp out the pro-meme theory bias. What I'm saying we need to do is not use the word 'meme' as if it's an undeniable fact, which it certainly isn’t. We should only use the word in articles directly concerned with meme theory or if it must be used somewhere else we should make it clear that it’s only what some people think. It is, after all, on Wikipedia’s List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. So, as far as I’m concerned we can uphold the NPOV by either not mentioning meme theory terminology when unnecessary (which is almost always the case) or by instead of saying “this is a meme,” saying “some people would call this a meme.” After all, to paraphrase Stevie, that’s how we let in subjects like Intelligent Design (“ID advocates argue…”). --User:Maprovonsha172 22:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC) :So if we don't follow dictionary definitions, what do we follow? There is no "appeal to the majority" here - the simple fact is that they are "memes" because the word usage has evolved to define them as memes. Whether that usage is in complete accordance with every facet of "meme theory" is irrelevant. The concept of "memes" on the Internet is firmly entrenched in the Reality-Based Environment. There is no "meme theory" bias here. The English language is an evolving one - and whether the creator of the word "meme" intended for it to apply, the fact is that it does now apply, and Wikipedia would be denying reality to claim otherwise. There is no dispute (beyond your philosophical ivory tower) of the existence of memes on the Internet insofar as the common usage definition - "an idea that spreads from person to person." Whether that idea is some sort of living whatever is another issue entirely. --User:FCYTravis 04:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ::FCYTravis, this is similar to what Mitsukai has said. If there is such a thing as an 'internet meme,' defined differently than the (Dawkins, Blackmore, Dennett) definition of meme (as a self-replicating system) than we should explain that in an article. As it stands, there is no such distinction made. If we are to accept that there are two definitions, the one associated with meme theory and the one associated with internet fads, we should explain that instead of using the same word in different contexts. It is an appeal to authority argument to assume a common usage is a proper definition, but as we've figured out here, that could be remedied by explaining the two different usages of the word meme. Internet fads could still be called 'memes' in such articles, as long it's clarified that by meme they mean something which is passed from person to person, not something which passes itself from person to person as meme theory speculates. ::We could comprimise by explaining which context the word is used, making the distinction clear between the meme theory usage and the internet fad usage, and as Mitsukai has proposed, we could make a page explaining the difference. --Maprovonsha172 :::I added a section to the "casual use" paragraph, explaining that this casual use is the one generally referred to when people speak of memes on the Internet. --User:FCYTravis 20:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ::::See! Some good *is* coming of this mess! --User:Marudubshinki 21:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC) == The Controversy that is the Study of Memetics! == As a great lover of Wikipedia, I have some criticisms of the article in its current state!! "Memetics" is a highly controversal area---considered by many (most??) scientists to be but a pseudoscience. As far as I can tell, there is no formal education available in memetics, nor are there many (any?) publishing journals in memetics. (My cursory search revealed one which is no defunct, but "soon to be relaunched" at http://www.jom-emit.org/). By these standards, Memetics carries scientific respectabilty comparable to crytpozoology---in fact, slightly less---since cryptozoology has at least one functioning journal which I am aware of. In contrast with this article on Memes, however, the Wikipedia article on cryptozoology stresses the fringe nature of cryptozoology. The Meme article does not do this---indeed, this characteristic of Memetics is likely one of the most relevant characteristics of the field for one who knows little/nothing of what memetics is, and should be well-featured in the article. I'm sure a lot of us like memes, but Wikipedia is not a forum! We should be trying to write a fair and balanced article about memes that relects both characteristics of the discipline, and how it is perceived by the scientific community. As such, I do not think the article is currently neutral, so I am adding a POV check tag to the article. --Anonymouse :There's no need to be so emotional about it (with all the exclamation points). Geez. But, at any rate balance is a good thing, and I agree that criticisms of this subject should be included either in this article or in memetics. In fact, I think the discussion of memetics as a science or pseudo-science (or whatever) belongs in memetics and not here. I would suggest that most material related to the study of memes go into memetics and let the NPOV work go on there. In this article, we should just simply describe what a meme is, give examples, and discuss them in relation to memetics. What does everyone think? — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:01, May 10, 2005 (UTC) :Also, I'd like to recommend that you register for an account here at the Wikipedia. Staying anonymous may weaken your position on discussing these matters, even if you're in the right. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:13, May 10, 2005 (UTC) ::I agree that we should argue about whether memetics is a science or a pseudo-science in memetics and not here, however, we shouldn't leave meme as it is. As it is, it treats a hypothetical as an absolute. We can't treat something in an article as if it were definite fact when we're not sure it even exists. --User:Maprovonsha172 21:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :::Hi! Me again. (original emotional controversy person!!!) I agree that memetics is a good place for much of the discussion of the science/pseudoscience area, but I agree with user:Maprovonsha172 that this article shouldn't treat a meme as an absolute thing: in particular, the disagreement over a precise definition of a meme (even among memeticists) should probably feature strongly in the article, as well as the controversy over whether memes exist at all. I'm going to try to do some cleanup of the article now... feel free to change back anything people think makes things worse! --Anonymouse (same as previous) ::::Hello again. I see someone cleaned up my cleanups---they look good. I was wondering... many of the sections under the "biological analogies" heading seem very long and musing... do people find this out of place? I'm thinking from the standpoint of how an encyclopedia article should look... what are peoples thoughts? This article seems rather too long write now, no? (Currently quite a bit longer than the recently featured article on Irish Poetry, which might be a rather broader subject matter than memes). Do people think this is a good area to cleanup? How to go about it? --Anonymouse (same one) :::::Any way you can reduce the material, while keeping everything that's relevant, is welcome, as far as I'm concerned. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 18:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::::::(Note for Maprovonsha: that is a genuine expression of deletionism.) --User:Marudubshinki 21:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC) == Self-replicator? == I've talked to many people who consider 'meme' an interesting metaphor, and many on Wikipedia have their own definition of meme (which could usually be substituted with the word fad), but meme theory as I have read makes clear one basic premise of all memetics: namely, that memes are 'units of imitation'(verbal, visual, etc.) which REPLICATE THEMSELVES. I tried to wrap around this concept of self-replication, and in Susan Blackmore's book The Meme Machine I found their theoretical justification. Towards of the end of her book she presents her theory of the Selfplex. It seems only to make sense that there would be such things as 'memes', self-replicating units of imitation, if the Selfplex theory is true. Without it 'meme' is a metaphor, or substitute word for fad, or, quite possibly, an altogether unnecessary and pseudo-scientific neologism. I know of no other explanation for memetic's insistence on 'self-replication' other than the theory of the Selfplex, in which Blackmore argues that the brain is the result of the coevolution of memes and genes. She claims that the concept of the self, as we know it, is itself a collection of memes, which has evolved in order to protect and increase susceptibility to other memes. This would mean that there is no you or me, that '''I am a person but not an 'I'.''' I would still be a person, meaning that I am a homo sapien sitting here typing this, but not an 'I', an innate persona or self that is Matthew Provonsha, PCHS student, slacker/amateur philosopher. All that (all my likes and dislikes, proclivities, desires and fears which I attribute to MYSELF) would just be socially constructed, supporting the Selfplex, the ''meme'' that I consider ''myself''. The Selfplex theory, as far as I know, however, isn't justified by any scientific experiments and cannot be proven true or false, so why are so many people accepting it whole-heartedly (just because it's interesting or they think they could impress someone by knowing such a comprehensive yet on-the-surface-technical idea, I imagine)? In any event, the Meme article is still too POV. I'm not saying you can't say meme on Meme, obviously, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be presented as Gospel Truth for Christ's sake. ;) Anyone want to defend Selfplex theory of the idea of memetic self-replication? Until it seems that we can be sure they're verifiable fact we shouldn't present them as such in supposedly NPoV articles. I'm going to put the NPoV template on meme because as I have said, it violates the NPoV Policy by presenting a hypothetical (a rather dubious one at that) as an established fact. --User:Maprovonsha172 20:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :I wouldn't describe the co-opted use for "fad" ''pseudoscientific'' so much as ''ascientific'', because I don't think people who use the word in that sense neccesarily mean it as a scientific concept at all. --User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 21:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :P.S. Susan Blackmore edited wikipedia a few times in the past and she lives a few yards down the road from me, I could drop a note in asking her to defend memeplex? ;) Possibly too much like Wikipedia:No original research though... ::Speaking for myself, that would be incrediby useful/awesome. Who better to discuss whether memetics is proto or pseudoscience, and all the other interesting issues Map brings up? She could also provide a decent overview of the field, point out what we've missed- I don't think any of us here are much more than 'interested layperson' and our knowledge is undoubtedly incomplete. --User:Marudubshinki 21:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::I only said the meme is sometimes used as a substitute for 'fad'. To quote myself, I said, "Without it 'meme' is a metaphor, or substitute word for fad, or, quite possibly, an altogether unnecessary and pseudo-scientific neologism." So I'm not saying that calling fads memes is pseudoscientific, just that it's used both ways. ::P.S. I would be glad to hear from Mrs. Blackmore has to say about it. --User:Maprovonsha172 21:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC) == Archival == Cut it out. These conversations are from April at the earliest, and shouldn't be archived yet. Don't revert war anymore. Discuss it here. --User:Omegatron 16:09, May 11, 2005 (UTC) :AGH! Ok, the ones from before April can be archived. Someone reverted again while I was editing. --User:Omegatron 16:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::There wasn't enough to archive there, Omegatron. Besides, Steinsky did not tell us where the archive he created is! — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC) :::Don't delete things because they are "unrelated", steinsky. I have no problem with archiving old stuff, though, because this page is large. Maybe he was in the process of moving it? --User:Omegatron 16:15, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::::There was plenty to archive, and it is in the existing archive. There is no need to archive 50kb every time, and there is no need to create a new archive page every time. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 16:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::You archived stuff from yesterday. Put it back. --User:Omegatron 16:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC) :::::Yes, there was enough to archive, but one month? Further, YES, a new page should have been created, as once an archive is created, it shouldn't be touched again. Archive 1 is about a specific time period, up thru the end of 2004. This is all just insanity going on here.. haven't seen anything quite like this in my 14 months as an editor. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::::::I have, regularly. Moving discussions to an existing archive page is considered more desirable than creating an excess of pages. I can only conclude you have had a very secluded editing life, if you've never seen either removal of discussions that aren't about the article, or not using excess archive pages. Maybe I have, in two years I've never seen the policy that says archive pages shouldn't be expanded bit-by-bit, as and when needed. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 16:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::But you should have created a ''new ongoing archive file'' for 2005 topics. That's what I will go ahead and do w/o objection. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::I disagree that that's what should have been done, and don't consider it neccesary, but I have no objection with other people wasting further time on this trivial issue if it doesn't involve me. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 16:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::::Good. Just don't archive anything that's still ongoing. --User:Omegatron 16:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::Personally, may I request that everyone stop archiving and reverting until I can reformatt this page? I've made some progress, and the page really needs it (I'd be done, except for some lousy luck- namely edit conflict with Map, and a old copy of Navigator (Damn admins!). --User:Marudubshinki 21:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::Okay- I am pretty much done. Flame away, and I'll clean up afterwards. (And thanks to Omegatron, I know the right template to use too.) --User:Marudubshinki 02:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC) == self-replicating system == I've been thinking about how the discussion has come to the problem of the two different connotations for the word meme, and I think it can best be solved by agreeing that the difference is that so-called 'internet memes' are replicated and (Blackmore's) 'memes' self-replicate. So to say they replicate themselves is POV, while saying that 'internet memes' are spread all over internet communities is not. So, to disavow my initial thought that all memetic terminology violates the NPoV, I think we could balance the POV by making certain everyone knows the difference between the two concepts and how it's not proven that memes self-replicate, just that some people think they do. --User:Maprovonsha172 14:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ==Cleanup== Does anybody have any specific cleanup related issues with this article? The cleanup template is generally used for neglected articles that have e.g. formatting problems or bad prose, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Cleanup generally isn't used for issues of neutrality or incompleteness. I am removing it from the page as it was originally inappropriately added on an issue of neutrality. --User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 15:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC) ==Political memes== I think it would be interesting to have a section for political memes named "Politics" that would be situated near the "Religion" section. I oftentimes run into Democratic Party (United States) activists who claim that the Republican Party (United States) has been using memes over the past generation or so to manipulate the American people. Whether that's true or not, I think this could be a good seed for a new section on this topic. Any thoughts? — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 19:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) :It's like what the logical positivists say about metaphysical claims. We can't say one way or the other. Here's what Bertrand Russell said (forgive me if it isn't word for word) about sin: "When I say 'sinner' I don't mean one that commits sins in the Christian sense, because depending on what you believe either everyone or no one does." That's exactly why we can't talk about memes this way, Stevie. Either no ideas are memes or most all ideas are memes, depending on your beliefs. Many of you believe in memes; in which case both the Democratic and Republican parties are constantly bombarding us with their memes.User:Maprovonsha172 23:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Meme
The term and concept of meme (pronunciation in International Phonetic Alphabet for English; from the Greek language word ''μνήμη'' for 'memory') is a neologism that first appeared in the 1976 book by Richard Dawkins, ''The Selfish Gene''. Though Dawkins defined the meme as "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation," memeticists vary in their definitions of ''meme''. The lack of a consistent, rigorous and precise definition of a meme remains one of the principal criticisms leveled at ''memetics'', the study of memes. Different definitions of the meme generally agree, very roughly, that a meme consists of some sort of a self-propagating unit of cultural evolution having a resemblance to the gene (the unit of genetics). Dawkins introduced the term after writing that evolution depended not on the particular chemical basis of genetics, but only on the existence of a self-replicating unit of transmission—in the case of evolution, the gene. For Dawkins, the meme exemplifies another self-replicating unit, and most importantly, one which he thought would prove useful in explaining human behavior and cultural evolution. [[Image:Madhappyfaceblob.gif|thumb|right|240px|The smiley exemplifies what some might consider a visual meme. Anyone who has seen a smiley can copy, reproduce, or modify it and then show it to others.]] In casual use, the term ''meme'' often refers to any piece of information passed from one mind to another. This usage more closely resembles the analogy of "language as a virus" than Dawkins' analogy of memes as replicating units. This definition has come into popular use on the Internet to refer to Internet phenomena such as André the Giant Has a Posse, "All your base are belong to us", Blogebrity and Icy Hot Stuntaz. ==Basic introduction== Though memetics do not not generally agree on a specific definition, one can roughly define 'meme' as any piece of information transferable from one mind to another. Examples might include thoughts, ideas, theories, practices, habits, songs, dances and moods. Memes supposedly have, as their fundamental property, evolution via natural selection in a way very similar to Charles Darwin's ideas concerning biology evolution, on the premise that replication, mutation, survival and competition influence them. For example, while one idea may become extinct, others will survive, spread and mutate—for better or worse—through modification. Note an important fact, however: not only the memes most beneficial to their hosts will necessarily survive; rather, memes supposedly spread best by functioning as the most effective replicators, which allows for the possibility that successful memes might prove detrimental to their hosts. ==History of the meme concept== The concept of ideas that spread according to genetic rules predates the coining by Richard Dawkins in ''The Selfish Gene''; for example William S. Burroughs asserted that "[l]anguage is a virus." John Laurent in ''The Journal of Memetics'' has suggested that the term 'meme' itself may have derived from the work of the little-known Germany biologist Richard Semon. In 1904 Semon published ''Die Mneme'' (published in English as ''The Mneme'' in 1924). His book discussed the cultural transmission of experiences with insights parallel to those of Dawkins. Laurent found the use of the term ''mneme'' in ''The Soul of the White Ant'' (1927) by Maurice Maeterlinck and highlights its parallels to Dawkins's concept: :Maeterlinck, in discussing theories which attempt to explain 'memory' in termites as well as the other 'social' insects (ants, bees etc.), uses the phrase "engrammata upon the individual mneme" (Maeterlinck, 1927, p.198). Webster's Collegiate dictionary defines an engram as "a memory trace; specif.: a protoplasmic change in neural tissue hypothesized to account for persistence of memory". Note that Maeterlinck explains that he obtained his phrase from the "German philosopher" Richard Semon. [http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/1999/vol3/laurent_j.html] Laurent suggests that the etymological roots of the term 'meme' may come from ''mimneskesthai'', the Greek term for 'memory,' rather than from Dawkins's root of ''mimeisthai'', "to imitate." Everett Rogers pioneered the "Diffusion of innovations" theory (formalised in 1962) which explains how and why people adopt new ideas. Rogers reflected some of the influence of Gabriel Tarde, who set out "laws of imitation" in his book of 1890 that explained how people decided whether to imitate behavior. Francis Heylighen of the Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies has come up with what he called memetic selection criteria. These criteria opened the way to a specialized field of applied memetics to find out if these selection criteria could stand the test of quantitative analyses. In 2003 Klaas Chielens carried out these tests in a Masters thesis project on the testability of the selection criteria. ==Memetics== Memetics, the study of memes, remains a controversial field among many scientists and skeptics. Memetics originated when Richard Dawkins reduced the process of biological genetic evolution to its most fundamental unit: the replicator (or gene). Dawkins, in a search for parallels and other things that he might classify as replicators, suggested that the information and ideas in brains—culture, for example—could function as replicators as well. Computer software may represent another form of replicator with which evolution may eventually build grand things, whether socially as in the open source movement, or through the use of evolutionary algorithms . Memetics takes concepts from the theory of evolution (especially population genetics) and applies them to human culture. Memetics also uses mathematical models to try to explain many very controversial subjects such as religion and political systems, though principal criticisms of memetics include the claim that memetics ignores established advances in the fields (such as sociology, cognitive psychology, social psychology, etc.) most relevant to the claims and methodologies of memetics. The term ''memetic association'' refers to the idea that memes herding behavior. For example, a meme for bluejeans includes memes for trouser flies, riveted clothing, blue dye, cotton clothing, belt loops and double-sewn seams. The phrase ''memetic drift'' refers to the process of an idea or meme changing as it replicates between one person to another. Memetic drift increases when meme transmission occurs in an awkward way. Very few memes show strong ''memetic inertia'' (the characteristic of a meme to manifest in the same way and to have the same impact regardless of who receives or transmits the meme). Memetic inertia increases when the meme transfers along with mnemonic devices, such as a rhyme, to preserve the memory of the meme prior to its transmission. See Murphy's law for one example of memetic drift. Memeticists generate much memetic terminology by prepending 'mem(e)-' to an existing, usually biological, term or by putting 'mem(e)' in place of 'gen(e)' in various terms. Examples include: meme pool, memotype, memetic engineer, meme-complex. :''See also'' Memetic lexicon ==Memetic evolution== Memetic evolution, like genetic evolution, cannot happen without mutation. Mutation produces the essential variations, whereupon those variations that prove "better" at replication will become more common and therefore have a greater chance at replication again. However, unlike genetic evolution, memetic evolution has no separate underlying genotype. If, for example, a mouse loses its tail or a bodybuilder lifts weights, the DNA information in their genotype will remain unchanged, and when replicating again will not pass on these acquired characteristics. In memetics the phenotype serves as the genotype and therefore changes in the former will accumulate and get passed on as they replicate. Memetics therefore behaves in a Jean-Baptiste Lamarck manner, highlighting the irony of a great deal of effort and debate devoted to proving that genetic evolution does not function in a Lamarckian manner. Language most likely evolved from just a handful of primitive syllables, the original language phenotypes, into the modern wide array of dialects because of mutation. Further mutations of language include writing, Braille, sign language, etc. Even the oft-cited "All your base are belong to us" meme produced variations such as "all your vote are belong to us". Other lines in the originating videogame's dialogue such as "Someone set up us the bomb" also replicated on the Internet, but with less success. Researchers may employ search engines as an imperfect tool in measuring the popularity of various memetic phrases. ===Do cultures evolve?=== Dawkins observed that cultures can evolve in much the same way that populations of organisms evolve. Various ideas pass from one generation to the next; such ideas may either enhance or detract from the survival of the people who obtain those ideas. This process affects which of those ideas will survive for passing on to future generations. For example, a certain culture may have unique designs and methods of tool-building that another culture may not have; therefore, the culture with the more effective methods may prosper more than the other culture, ''ceteris paribus''. This leads to a higher proportion of the overall population adopting the more effective methods as time passes. Each tool design thus acts somewhat similarly to a biological gene in that some populations have it and others do not, and the meme's function directly affects the presence of the design in future generations. ===Propagation of memes=== Memes have as an important characteristic their propagation through imitation, a concept introduced by the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde. Imitation means to copy the observation behaviour of another individual. Typically imitators copy behaviour from observing other humans, but they may also copy from an inanimate source, such as from a book or from a musical score. When imitation first evolved in humans or in their ancestors, it proved itself a valuable skill for learning, which increased an individual's ability to reproduce genetically. Some have speculated that sexual selection of the best imitators further drove a genetic increase in the ability of brains to imitate well. Memes propagate by imitation, direct or indirect, of one individual by another, and thus depend on brains sufficiently powerful to assess the key aspects of the imitated behavior (what to copy and why) as well as its potential benefits. Researchers have observed memetic copying in just a few species on Earth, including hominids, dolphins and birds which learn how to sing by imitating their parents. One could argue however that there exist examples of less complex memes in other species—for example, scientists have artificially induced imitative behavior in cephalopods and in rats. Zoopharmacognosy (the use of drugs by animals) may conceivably examplify an animal meme. Observers have noticed that some species ingest non-foods, such as toxic plants or charcoal, to ward off parasitic infestation or poisoning, respectively (for an accessible description of several examples, see ). Both genes and memes can survive much longer than the individual organisms that carry them. A successful gene, such as a gene for powerful teeth in a population of lions, can remain unchanged in the gene pool for hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. A successful meme can propagate itself from one individual to another long after the original form of the meme perished with its carrier. ==Biological analogies== In much the same way that the selfish gene concept offers a fruitful way of understanding and reasoning about aspects of biological evolution, the meme concept allegedly can conceivably assist in the better understanding of some otherwise puzzling aspects of human culture (and learned behaviors of other animals as well). However, if one cannot test for "better" empirically, the question will remain whether or not the meme concept counts as a philosophy of science scientific theory. Memetics thus remains a science in its infancy, a protoscience (although critics sometimes label it a pseudoscience). ===Thoughts as discrete units=== Although memeticists speak of memes as discrete units, this need not imply that thoughts somehow become quantized or that "atomic" ideas exist which one cannot break down into smaller pieces. The meme as a unit simply provides a convenient way of discussing "a piece of thought copied from person to person", regardless of whether that thought contains others inside it, or forms part of a larger meme. A meme could consist of a single newly-coined word, or a meme could consist of the entire speech in which that word was first uttered. The "word itself" meme will most likely survive many more generations (after transmission alone or in other sentences) than the "speech in its entirety" meme will survive (due to errors of memory, abridged versions, etc.) This forms an analogy to the idea of a gene as a self-replicating set of code. The gene in this definition does not consist of a set number of nucleotides, but simply a collection of nucleotides (possibly in many different locations on the DNA) that replicate together and code for some set of behaviors or body parts. ===Evolution of memes=== Evolution requires not only inheritance and natural selection but also mutation, and memes also exhibit this property. Ideas may undergo changes in transmission which accumulate over time. Generations of hosts pass on these changes in the "phenotype" (the information in brains or retention systems). In other words, unlike genetic evolution, memetic evolution can show both Darwinian and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck traits. For example, folk tales and myths often become embellished in the retelling to make them more memorable or more appropriate and therefore more impressed hearers have a greater likelihood of retelling them, complete with embellishments. More modern examples appear in the various urban legends and hoaxes—such as the Goodtimes virus warning—that circulate on the Internet. A behavior, idea or usage distinguishes itself as a meme when some property of itself influences the likelihood of adoption. For example, tool designs affect the efficacy of a tool independently of the habits of the different people using them. Legends and myths often teach a moral lesson or explain a mystery, so they are more likely to be retold to serve different speakers' purposes than other similar stories without those elements. ===Evolutionary forces affecting memes=== A gene or a meme's success is determined only by the number of copies (and where the copies reside) that are extant. There exists a strong (but not complete) correlation between genes that do well and genes that have a positive effect on the organism which contains those genes. And if we restrict attention to memes normally interpreted as statements of fact, then a correlation emerges between those memes that do well and those that reflect reality. However, some genes and memes do survive which owe their success to other factors. Similarly, a correlation exists between successful memes of a technological/economic nature and those that help the economy. A gene's success in a body may stem from its attempt to bypass the normal sexual lottery by making itself present in more than 50% of zygotes in an organism. Some genes find other ways of having themselves transmitted between cells. Hence multiple factors influence the evolution of genes — not just the success of the species as a whole. Similarly the evolutionary pressures on memes include much more than just truth and economic success. Evolutionary pressures may include the following: #''Experience'': If a meme does not correlate with an individual's experience, then that individual has a reduced likelihood of remembering that meme #''Happiness'': If a meme makes people feel happier then they have a greater likelihood of remembering it #''Fear'': If a meme constitutes a threat then people may become frightened into believing it. The memes "if you do not do this you will burn in hell..." and "...do this and you will go to heaven" provide common examples #''Censorship'': If an organisation destroys any retention systems containing a particular meme or otherwise controls the usage of said meme, then that meme is put at a selective disadvantage. (Note that "Censorship is wrong" is a meme. It is interesting to speculate that this meme may have prospered by increasing the wealth of those nations that enforced it, thus increasing the influence of that meme itself.) #''Economics'': If people or organisations with economic influence exhibit a particular meme, then the meme has a greater likelihood of benefitting from a greater audience. If a meme tends to increase the riches of an individual holding it, then that meme is likely to spread because of imitation. Such memes might include "Hard work is good" and "Put number one first." #''Distinction'': If the meme enables hearers to recognize tellers (as leaders, intelligent people, insightful, etc.), then the meme has a greater chance of spreading. The erstwhile receivers will want to become themselves tellers of the same meme (or an evolved/mutated version). Thus elite knowledge can provide a promotion to elite status. A meme, like a gene, does not purposely do or want anything—it either gets replicated or not. Memes don't mutate in an exclusively passive way. The brain inhabited by a meme system performs a sort of active modification of a meme. One could draw a possible analogy with a cell's error-correction systems, but that becomes subtle. In essence, people create and modify memes almost continuously. One can manipulate, modify, and create meme systems in thought, for instance through internal dialogue. As soon as one opens one's mouth and says something (or does something) that one has not slavishly copied (but that others can copy), one has unleashed a novel meme. Meme-spreaders perform the role of a memetic engineer. Perhaps everyone functions as a memetic engineer to one degree or other. In modern society, the scientific and philosophical realms make this especially evident. It has become standard practice for scientists and philosophers alike to assemble memetic systems and to question their philosophical and emperical integrity. On perceiving a flaw, one may seek philosophical (thought experiments/logic/analysis) or empirical (experimental/observational/[questionably] mathematical) resolution. This happens in large part due to the influence of some of the more "modern" philosophers of the past. Over the last few hundred (or thousand) years, a "philosophy" or paradigm has evolved and developed which benefits the societies which embrace it. That philosophy includes the scientific and moral obligation to take nothing for granted and always to question any new information one perceives. People following this tradition have transformed the memetic base of modern science and philosophy. These people include (just to name a scant few) Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Marx, Benjamin Franklin and Karl Popper. Science accepts nothing as true unless empirical evidence and observation suggests such truth strongly and consistently. This entire procedure adheres to a meme system that has evolved in the direction of rejecting almost anything as fact. This meme system now includes such novel analytical paradigms as the scientific method and "John Dewey's decision making Model" (among many other meme-based systems) to help distinguish useful or truthful meme systems from [bad] ones. Essentially, people modify and fabricate memes consciously, even intentionally (though some argue that the intention comes from the memes). This would help to explain how rapidly, extensively and usefully memetic evolution has functioned in and for culture. People apply many ever-evolving meme-based systems of analysis and error correction to all information coming in and out. Just as genetic material has developed a gene-based error-correction model, memetic systems have found it favorable to permit the influence of a meme-based modification system. One could view the process as that of a meme-based modification system taking advantage of an extensive computational system (the human brain), programming it to produce and modify memes, and thus to modify the memotypic soup which largely dictates our thoughts and actions (and of course to create very useful, but still likely erroneous memeplexes). In early social development, people influence and are influenced by memes just like developed individuals. People later may become aware of this influence and begin to consciously filter what influence the meme systems have on them as well as what influence they have on meme systems (arguably in response to memeplexes programming their thoughts). In later, possibly somewhat esoteric stages, people become more acutely aware of the meme systems flooding their existence, and many people have begun to reach a more complete comprehension of these memes through a novel memeplex which evolves to explain them. One does not necessarily need to know of meme theory to realize the situation exists. Eventually, many see the potential to fabricate or modify meme systems consciously for specific ends, based on conscious plans and logical foresight (all aided by interacting memeplexes which arguably constitute thought), such that the memesphere becomes a cluttered canvas of interconnected variables which everyone influences. At this point the memetecist (or the meme artist) manifests in society to create symbolic culture at an ever-accelerating rate. Many of the world's most successful religions, and arguably all religions, show themselves subject to sentient memetic modification throughout time. Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism and Islam (and their offshoots) — just to name a few in that family—all arose (presumably) through modification and memeplex-recombination from a common one or few ancestors. (Zoroastrianism appears to have functioned as an important and widely-share memetic ancestor, contributing to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and their many derivative religions.) Those ancestors presumably resulted from extensive memetic engineering themselves, possibly more impressive than the modification of their descendants (as early religious memes likely fabricated much from little). Cultural materialism holds that the evolutionary pressures of economy and ecology explain many aspects of human culture. For example, the food taboos, sometimes enshrined in religions like the concepts of sacred cows or kosher and halal, would have prospered because they allowed the believing population to (say) live more hygienically and thus survive longer than non-believers in their environments. A migration or a change of the economic infrastructure could render the taboo neutral or even adverse. ===Memetic virus exchange?=== One controversial application of this "selfish meme" parallel results in the idea that certain collections of memes can act as "memetic viruses": collections of ideas that behave as independent life forms which continue to get passed on—even at the expense of their hosts—simply because of their success at getting passed on. Some observers have suggested that evangelism religions and cults behave this way; so by including the act of passing on their beliefs as a moral virtue, other beliefs of the religion also get passed along even if they do not provide particular benefits to the believer. Others maintain that the wide prevalence of human adoption of religious ideas provides evidence to suggest that such ideas offer some ecological, sexual, ethical or moral value; otherwise memetic evolution would long ago have selected against such ideas. For example, most religions urge peace and cooperation among their followers ("Thou shalt not kill") which may possibly tend to promote the biological survival of the social groups that carry these memes. A tendency exists in memetics to disparage religious memes. However, some speculate that traditional religions act as mental immune systems to suppress new and potentially harmful memes. Interestingly, we can compare this scenario with the action of a virus (here a religion — a "bundle" of religious memes) proving ineffective and maladaptive if it kills its host(s). For example, popular Christianity forbids both murder and suicide (an idea from Augustine of Hippo's ''The City of God''), and its precise definitions of heresy ensure that "properly" educated Christians cannot accept new religions which advocate such actions. One could make a case (as Susan Blackmore [http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/awaken.html has done]) that the study of Zen meditation in itself comprises a process of meme "pruning," i.e., a means to remove experiential clichés that reduce the value of life. This has not exempted Zen itself from serving as a source of highly mobile memes, such as "the sound of one hand clapping" or "Mu (negative)." It may surprise many memetics advocates to learn of meme-like concepts described long ago, and prevalent in Sufi teaching. Muwakkals rank as separate beings, elementals, that make up human thought (compare Gottfried Leibniz's monads). (Note that the framing of this whole discussion may mislead. If humans, as seen rigorously from Dawkins' perspective, comprise a collection of the extended effects of our various genes and memes, then the question of what counts as "valuable to the individual" cannot readily become separated from what benefits their genes and/or memes. Since one cannot easily determine the "ecological, sexual, ethical or moral value" of a meme coutside of the context of the memes of the determiner, memeticists can easily misuse the idea of "meme" or of a "meme virus" to reject others' positions in a pseudo-scientific way. For example, insofar as you agree with me—i.e., we carry the same memes—I call your ideas "ideas"; insofar as I find your ideas wrong—i.e., you fail to transmit your memes to me—I can call them "memes" and brand you as "infected with a meme virus".) Dawkins notes that one can distinguish a biological virus from its host's normal genetic material by the fact that it can propagate alone, without the entire genetic corpus of the host being propagated—or half of it, in the case of diploid sexual reproduction; thus, a virus can "sabotage" the host's other genes. This applies to memes in the sense that a meme that requires the success of its hosts has a greater likelihood of favouring the interests of these hosts than a does meme capable of succeeding even if each host quickly dies. For example, the commonplace meme encouraging people to wash their hands after they use the bathroom or before handling food, and to remind others to do the same, is not at all harmful. In contrast, a cultish meme telling people to quit their jobs, abandon their families, and run around spreading the meme seems quite virulent. Memetics offers maximum explanatory value in cases where one cannot demonstrate the truth of the contents of the meme. For example, one can readily show that washing hands helps to prevent illness, so the best explanation for the widespread popularity of this practice is that "it works," though memetics still helps explain the rate of spread, and details such as why the practice of washing hands before surgery took so long to catch on. Memetics though excels in explaining the spread of certain value judgements ("chastity is important"), preferences ("pork is icky"), superstitions ("black cats are unlucky") and other scientifically unverifiable beliefs ("Allah is the one true God"), since one cannot easily account for any of these phenomena in terms of their truth-value. Calling someone's ideas/beliefs/action a "meme" therefore does not constitute an insult, but saying that it is "just a meme" does. ===Non-natural selection=== How "naturally" does this type of selection occur? Perhaps as naturally as sexual attraction or as ethical habits. The relationship of the meme to other ideas of evolution, e.g., those that separate ecological, sexual, ethical and moral factors and reserve no special or separate role for "culture" beyond these, seems to resemble that of a "pretender to the throne"—pretending to explain these more specific ideas of evolution and culture—but without any model to test. This causes quite a few scientists and others to scoff at culture as any kind of factor in human life. A famous observation of this type came from Margaret Thatcher, who bluntly stated: "there is no such thing as society"—evidently she saw "it" as a set of survival, seduction and moral choice factors specific to individuals, couples and families, and not as a unified "culture" or "society" in any sense. ===Reproductive isolation in meme "speciation"=== In traditional population genetics the normal genetic variation, selection, and drift do not lead to formation of a new species without some form of "reproductive isolation"; i.e., in order to split a single species into two species, the two subpopulations of the original species must ultimately lose their ability to interbreed, which would normally maintain their heterogeneity. However, once separated, natural selection and/or just genetic drift acting on the normal genetic variation in the two subspecies will eventually change enough characteristics of the two subgroups that they can no longer interbreed, which by definition means that they will comprise two different species. Examples of reproductive isolation include geographical isolation, where a 'suddenly' appearing mountain range or river separates the two subgroups; temporal isolation, where one subgroup becomes entirely diurnal in its habits while the other becomes entirely nocturnal; or even just 'behavioral' isolation, as seen in wolf and dog: they ''could'' interbreed, biologically speaking, but normally they do not. A similar phenomenon can occur with memes. Normally, the population of individuals having a meme in their consciousness is heterogeneous and mixes enough to keep the meme intact although it covers a wide range of variations. Should that population become split, however, without sufficient contact for the two different subgroups of variations of the meme to equilibrate, eventually each group will evolve its own version of that meme, differing sufficiently from that of the other group to appear as a distinct entity. One example of this occurring on the Internet is the ''Kellerman'' meme. A search of the web and/or Usenet for the word 'Kellerman' will turn up a large number of citations, describing at great length the behavior of a 'Dr. Arthur Kellerman', who, with the willing assistance of the Centers for Disease Control and the public health lobby purportedly fabricated studies in order to implicate firearms (and by extension their owners) as a menace to public safety, for the purposes of statist control of the population which the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution—the right to keep and bear arms—would otherwise thwart. The authors of these pages and postings describe purported machinations, "junk science," a subsequent recantation by Dr. 'Kellerman', and the use of his work by gun control proponents. In reality, no "Dr. Arthur Kellerman" exists, at least not in any connection with the above description. There is, however, a Arthur Kellermann (with ''double'' n), who has indeed published several papers estimating the overall impact on the public health of firearm availability and various aspects of firearm storage, as part of a career in public health and emergency and trauma medicine. As in any such series of studies, Kellermann's work has strengths and weaknesses, which pundits rigorously debate both in the literature and online. However, even after eliminating matters of opinion and statements which are not fully supported, the remaining verifiable facts of Kellermann's studies and career remain virtually unrecognizable in the negative descriptions of 'Kellerman.' The original meme of Kellermann and his work on gun-related violent injury has generated a new meme, "Dr. Kellerman is a evil lying gun-grabbing enemy of freedom," by the classic genetic phenomenon of a mutagenesis. The sub-population involved had strongly negative attitudes towards Kellermann's work as well as a lack of first-hand familiarity with his studies and career. Because of the "reproductive isolation" caused by the total non-intersection of the results of searches for "Kellerman" and "Kellermann," the 'Kellerman' meme drifted even further in the direction of negativity, unchecked by facts related to the real Kellermann. As this group encounters new individuals of similar general outlook, they introduce new recruits to the 'Kellerman' lore only, and go on to produce their own websites and postings furthering the rapid progress of this meme. This phenomenon also demonstrates two other features of memes — the "meme-complex," a set of mutually-assisting "co-memes" which have co-evolved a symbiotic relationship, and the [http://www.istop.com/~ggrant/memetics/memelex.html "Villain vs. Victim"] infection strategy. ==Forms taken by memes in the brain== In 1981 biologists Charles J. Lumsden and Edward Osborne Wilson published a theory of gene-culture coevolution in the book ''Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process''. They pointed out that the fundamental biological units of culture must correspond to neuronal networks that function as nodes of semantic memory. Wilson later adopted the term 'meme' as the best existing name for the fundamental unit of cultural inheritance and elaborated upon the fundamental role of memes in unifying the Natural science and social sciences in his book ''Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge''. ===The "be happy" and "make others happy" memes=== Some spiritual practices such as Buddhism clearly promote ecological and moral goals recognizable to most people, i.e., The Noble Eightfold Path emphasizes limited consumption, reduced cruelty, no delegation of violence or participation in violent systems, and a withdrawal from sexual and ethical processes that have no clear ecological or moral value to the practitioner—regardless of the value they may have to others. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic "Western" religions, however, focus more on devotion to a transcendent deity and to moral codes of behavior, including social and ethical codes affecting every aspect of life from public behavior to commerce to sexual expression. Such religions strongly encourage people to devote themselves to the needs of others. The contrast between "be happy" and "make others happy," although not as stark in practice or theory as the traditional debate suggests, may satisfy constraints of different ecological or sexual norms in some non-obvious way. But it seems entirely likely that they are valuable to the believer. At least, the majority of people on Earth believe so. ===Religion=== Some (such as Dawkins himself, see [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/quotes.shtml]) consider religion itself a meme—or, more exactly, a memeplex or group of memes. To observers infected by a different set of memes, it appears that some fundamentalist evangelical movements act only to add to their own numbers. The movements in question devote what appears to their opponents as an inordinate amount of time to evangelical activity, and therefore may seem to unsympathetic observers to serve no other function. This makes it possible to characterize them as self-serving, and in some cases as a particularly virulent virus. On the other hand, for the meme to continue to propagate, it must provide some spiritual or emotional good: catharsis, a release from worry and guilt, a sense of salvation, happiness, moral energy, etc. The American Religious Right has a unified message built around religious dogma. By attaching conservative political views to Christian religious evangelism (meme piggybacking), they have associated a set of political ideas/memeplexes with a set of religious ideas/memeplexes that throughout history have "replicated" very effectively. That is, Christianity has won converts for centuries; now in many cases a religious conversion also becomes a political conversion. Similarly, the scientific method offers a body of social and experimental techniques which, given certain preconditions—a free press for the circulation of information, a large number of people predisposed to see the world as a mechanism subject to general rules which can be discovered through repeatable experiments—acts highly virulently, spreading quickly through an educated population. By demonstrating its success at making predictions, science as a practice can make itself more attractive to converts. Ideas and attitudes which are not necessarily verifiable by experimentation, but which tend to be held by scientists or feel aesthetically pleasing in combination with scientific discoveries, can propagate themselves in societies where science has a high status by the same process of "meme piggybacking." ===Meme resistance=== Karl Popper advocated this in the strongest possible terms: "The survival value of intelligence is that it allows us to extinct a bad idea, before the idea extincts us." Resistance to science and technology has formed a common meme that can guide human cultural and cognitive evolution away from disastrous paths—for instance the US and USSR stockpiled but did not use nuclear weapons in the Cold War period. Ignorance has been in some cultures considered a virtue—in particular, ignorance of certain temptations that the culture believes would be disastrous if pursued by many individuals. The Internet, perhaps the ultimate meme vector, seems to be hosting both sides of this debate. Although it would seem to a naïve observer that no adult user of the Internet could oppose its use by other adults, that does in fact happen, based on any number of criteria from ethics to intent to ability to resist hacker or pornography. Principia Cybernetica holds a [http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMLEX.html lexicon of memetics concepts], comprising a list of different types of memes. It also refers to an essay by Jaron Lanier, ''[http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier/lanier_p1.html The ideology of cybernetic totalist intellectuals]'', which criticises very strongly "meme totalists" who assert memes over bodies. ==Examples of memes== Crudely-stated versions of some common memes include: *Technology: cars, paper clips, etc. Technology clearly demonstrates mutation as well, which memetic (or genetic) progress requires. Many paper clip designs have emerged throughout history, for example, with varying degrees of longevity, fecundity and copying fidelity (i.e., memetic "success"). An often-cited example of "technology as meme" involves the building of a fire. *Jingles: advertising slogans set to an engaging melody *Earworms: songs that you can't stop humming or thinking. "It's a Small World After All" is a common example. *Jokes: or at least those jokes popularly considered funny *Proverbs and aphorisms: "You can't keep a good man down." *Nursery rhymes: propagated from parent to child over many generations, sometimes with associated actions and movements. *Children's culture: games, activities and taunts typical for different age groups. *Epic poems: once important memes for preserving oral history; writing has largely superceded them. *Chain letters: "You must send this message to five other people, or something bad will happen to you." *Conspiracy theories *Luck: "I am a lucky person. Here are some stories of my luck. If you believe in good luck, you can become lucky like me." (and its obverse) *Fashions: especially clothing styles such as blue jeans. *Medical and safety advice: "Don't swim for an hour after eating" or "Steer in the direction of a skid." *Movies: very memetic given their mass replication, movies tend to cause people to replicate scenes or repeat popular catch phrases such as "You can't handle the truth!" from ''A Few Good Men'' or "Alllllllrighty then!" from ''Ace Ventura'', even if they have not seen the movie themselves. *Religions: complex memes, including folk religion beliefs; can even spread virally (such as The Prayer of Jabez). *Popular concepts: these include Freedom, Justice, Ownership, Open Source, Egoism, or Altruism *Group-based biases: everything from anti-semitism and racism to cargo cults. *Longstanding political memes that suppress democratic notions and activity, such as "mob rule" and "republic, not a democracy." *Programming paradigms: from structured programming and object-oriented programming to extreme programming. *Internet phenomenon: Internet slang and Internet humor such as "All your base are belong to us." *Wikis: the proliferation of collaborative editing systems following the Wiki example in their multiple incarnations. Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc. *Moore's Law: this meme has a particularly interesting form of self-replication. The conviction that "semiconductor complexity doubles every 18 months" became considerably more than a predictive observation; it became a performance target for an entire industry once it was extensively believed. Manufacturers now strive to make the next generation of semiconductor technology recreate the performance growth of the previous generation, and so maintain belief in Moore's Law. *Consciousness and the self: Susan Blackmore theorized that a "self" merely comprises a collection of memetic stories which she calls the ''selfplex''. *The concept of memes itself comprises a meme. Even the idea that the concept of memes is itself a meme has become a widely spread meme. However, the idea that the idea that the concept of memes is itself a meme is not yet particularly common as a meme. (Not to mention that, at this stage, the idea makes most people's heads hurt.) The ''Memetic Lexicon'' lists meme attributes compiled by Glenn Grant under a "share-alike" licence. The thoughtful examples it offers help to focus the concept for readers unfamiliar with memetic thinking. The Lexicon has circulated since the early 1990s, and evolved into its version 3.5 memeplex in 2004: [http://www.istop.com/~ggrant/memetics/memelex.html A Memetic Lexicon] ==Common misconceptions== A very common misconception about memes represents them as very special, rare kinds of thought or as some special trick of public relations gurus. Generally, memes can comprise any piece of information that can possibly transfer between two minds — idea, thought, joke, song, dance, habit, even state of mood. ==See also== *Bandwagon effect *Chain letter *Collective consciousness *Collective intelligence *Collective memory *Copycat *Demagoguery *Diffusion of innovations *Everett Rogers *Exploding sheep *Figure of speech *Framing (communication theory) *Gabriel Tarde *Groupthink *Herd behavior *Hive mind *Jedi census phenomenon *Memebot *Meme pool *Memespace *Metal Gear Solid 2, a video game centered on the concept of history as memetic *Neuroeconomics *Paradigm shift *Propaganda *Rhetoric *Self-replication *Spamming *Trope *Urban legend ==References== *''The Selfish Gene'' by Richard Dawkins, [http://www.oup.co.uk/ Oxford University Press], 1976, 2nd edition, December 1989, hardcover, 352 pages, ISBN 0192177737; April 1992, ISBN 019857519X; trade paperback, September 1990, 352 pages, ISBN 0192860925 *''The Music of Life'', Pir Hazrat Inayat Khan, Omega Uniform Edition, 2nd edition, 1993, trade paperback: 353 pages, ISBN 093087238X. An introduction to the ''muwakkals,'' the Eastern memes. *''Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme'' by Richard Brodie, Integral Pr, September 1995, 251 Pages, ISBN 09636001 *''The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History'' by Howard Bloom, Atlantic Monthly Press, February 1997, 480 pages, ISBN 0871136643 *''The Meme Machine'' by Susan Blackmore, [http://www.oup.co.uk/ Oxford University Press], 1999, hardcover ISBN 0198503652, trade paperback ISBN 0965881784, May 2000, ISBN 019286212X *''[http://www.agner.org/cultsel/ Cultural Selection]'' by Agner Fog. Dordrecht: Kluwer 1999. ISBN 0-7923-5579-2. *''Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads Through Society'' by Aaron Lynch, Basic Books, 1999, ISBN 0465084672 **Review: [http://zompist.com/memes.html The new pseudo-science of memes] *''Snow Crash'' by Neal Stephenson, Bantam Doubleday Dell, reprint, 2000, trade paperback: 440 pages, ISBN 0553380958 (science fiction novel about a metavirus which can penetrate and take over ''any'' information system, and thus can spread as gene, meme, or biological virus) *"Eyes at the back of your head: How Richard Semon's memes gave way to Richard Dawkins's memes" by Tim Flannery, ''Times Literary Supplement'', October 19, 2001 *''The Electric Meme: A New Theory of How We Think'' by Robert Aunger, Free Press, 2002, hardcover ISBN 0743201507 *''[http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Annotations/DEFAULT.14.html The Ideology of Cybernetic Totalist Intellectuals]'', an essay by Jaron Lanier which very strongly criticises "meme totalists" who assert memes over bodies. *[http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/overview.html Journal of Memetics - ''Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission''] *Principia Cybernetica holds a [http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMLEX.html lexicon of memetics concepts], comprising a list of different types of memes. *A list of [http://users.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/Memetics/ memetics publications on the web] *''[http://www.lulu.com/mmeme/ The Masculist Meme]'' by Alan Carr. Lulu Publishing, Content .58184 Examines political correctness as a mind-virus. *''[http://www.what-it-all-means.com Memeiosis]'' by Steven Ericsson-Zenith, a formal characterization of memes. *''[http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00003471/ Culture as Complex Adaptive System]'' by Hokky Situngkir, formal interplays between memetics and cultural analysis. *''[http://memetics.chielens.net/master.html The Viral Aspects of Language: A Quantitative Research of Memetic Selection Criteria]'' by Klaas Chielens ==External links== *[http://www.memes.org Memes.org] *[http://www.rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmemes.html The text of Dawkin's ''Selfish Gene'', chapter 11, "Memes: the new replicators"] *[http://viral-meme.info/ Viral-Meme.info - "Language as a virus"] *[http://www.quotesexchange.com/2004/08/help-make-blogs-more-visible_05.html Meme Designed to Help Make Blogs More Visible! (GoMeme 4.0)] *[http://virus.lucifer.com/lexicon.html Church of Virus lexicon] *[http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/MemeTank MemeTank at dKosopedia] *[http://www.davidgalbraith.org/archives/000828.html 'Dissecting Blogebrity' as a viral meme] Culture Memetics Philosophy of mind Protoscience
Meme
Archives: *Talk:Meme/Archive1 — up to end of 2004 *Talk:Meme/Archive2 — First quarter of 2005 (currently) == Meme List website == I removed the external link to something called "The Meme List", as it does not seem to have any memes at all. It appears to be a collection point for websites that have lists of topics to blog on. Those aren't "memes"; they're just "ideas". — User:Jeffq User talk:Jeffq 06:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Same thing. But I don't want any lists of lists, either. If we listed memes, we'd have to list every thought and subthought and group of thoughts that ever existed. --User:Omegatron 14:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) == TODO: Common misconceptions about memes and memetics == I think it should be the main part of any meme discussion at the present time, because the most sources I've ever seen refer to completely wrong conception of meme and memetics. This seems the main reason why many sources consider memetics completely speculative and NOT a science at all. The article seems lacking without this topic. --User:Neonil 13:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Done. Thanks for help User:Stevietheman. User:Neonil 16:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::But how can you say that every possible piece of information is a meme? That means that the statement "every possible piece of information is a meme" is a meme too, and so on, but that makes all logical thinking and truth illusionary. Such a statement is by its very nature self-destructive, and in my opinion, that's the reason why memetics hasn't evolved into a mature science. --User:Michael :::Strawman, Michael. Memetics does not assert that every last bit of data is a meme- do measurements of the orbital velocities of red giants in the Andromeda galaxy, surely valid real data, live or die based on their attractiveness, or mutate while being propagated through imitation? Surely not, and memetics is not so silly as to say that. To put it simply, memetics is concerned with ideas that spread and change (read "mutate"). There are enough arguments against memetics, no need to go around misrepresenting it. --User:Marudubshinki 00:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC) ::::Maybe we need to focus on what the purpose is behind treating an idea as a meme. Any idea can be thus treated, but it's often pointless to do so. For example, the idea that the sky is blue could be considered in memetic terms. However, the easiest way to account for this popularity of this idea is to point out that any idiot can look up and see the sky. In contrast, it's not obvious how, say, the belief that masturbation is immoral became popular in some groups but not others, or why its popularity has changed over time. Here, memetics can help by pointing out what makes this belief spread better under certain circumstances. Note that this description is entirely independent of the truth (if any) of the idea itself. It is this aspect that makes memetics so good at dealing with issues that are subjective, controversial or held largely independent of facts (such as religion). User:Alienus 00:55, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) == TODO: Sharpen intro == The article throws a ton of flood on a first time reader's head. It seems to me that most quit without any idea of what meme is. Several people I sent link didn't understand it. I think - the introductionary part should be made as short and sharp as possible, to give new reader a solid understanding in the mimimum possible words. --User:Neonil 16:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :It would be cool if you could place your revision ideas here in talk first and get a consensus before changing the article. It's just that the opener text is usually the most sensitive part of the article. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Work">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 20:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I added it, in somehow raw form, in hope that somebody will edit it soon... User:Stevietheman, do you have a free minute? :) :::I experience that people DO NOT UNDERSTAND meme concept and memetics from the article in the form as it is. I suppose people lose understending and then their interset somewhere very close to the start of the article. I hope we will solve it in some evolutionary way.......... User:Neonil 23:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I'm too tired to copyedit it this evening, but I'd like to suggest another section name: "In a nutshell". I think that's what you're driving at. At any rate, I may be able to take a look at it tomorrow if nobody else beats me to it. Cheers. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman Talk">User talk:Stevietheman | Work">Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 02:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I have a slight doubt... This would make this chapter seem not serious, while the goal is opposite. However it is up to you to change it in any way you think it seems proper, also its content would give an idea. Currently I changed the name to Meme#Basic_Introduction. But I hope it will experience successful mutations soon. :) Thanks! --User:Neonil 21:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::The articles don't have to be deadly serious you know- touches of whimsy are allowed; see Invisible Pink Unicorn. --User:Marudubshinki 21:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::Please make the intro short and sweet. it scrambled my brain, i stopped reading, and i still don't know what the hell a meme is. I'm either stupid or this article sucks. My experience in Wikipedia tells me both are good possibilities. thanks User:Muchosucko 07:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Politics== I just reverted the following addition: :*Politics: memes were used to manipulate the Soviet society into believing that life in the USSR was bad. Example of the memes are "USSR produces too many tractors" (in reality an order of magnitude less per hectar than in Europe), "there is a shortage of food" (actual consumption of most products was higher than in the United States, with the exception of meat). These memes were believed by most people and propagated , and this eventualy created a climate of irrational aversion towards the Soviet order. Frankly, I can't make sense of it. Perhaps it's salvagable, but it needs a redraft. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 19:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for the revert and sorry that my addition was so messy. I will clarify it below and hope that together we can reedit it so that it can fit back into the article. --User:Paranoid 21:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::The point was that during the 1960-1980s a number of memes (ideas, stories, misleading statistics, etc.) were injected (not necessarily by some evil body, but still there must have been some authors) into the collective mind of Soviet people. These memes successfully reproduced and spread, as a side effect, cultivating an aversion to the Soviet order among the people. ::Examples: ::#"USSR produces too many tractors" - someone (an economist? It was often repeated by Aganbegyan- a famous economist, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences) at some point claimed that because of the inefficient planning system, the Soviet economy was susceptible to imbalance. One quoted example was that it produced too many tractors that were useless to the agriculture. Sometimes people quoted the number of tractors that the United States produced, sometimes they didn't. The conclusion was supposed to be that the USSR needs a market economy that would magically produce as many tractors as needed. ::In reality the number of tractors in Soviet Union (per hectare) was an order of magnitude less than in Europe and the US. In 1988 there were 12 tractors per 1000 ha in USSR, 34 in the USA, 77 in Poland, 144 in Italy and 476 in Japan! Note also that the USA has a totally different climate (comparable only with Kazakhstan). But it was claimed that the USSR had 3 times more (and even 10 times more) tractors than needed. ::This incorrect claim was widely believed by the public, often repeated and was adopted by the people as an illustration of "why the system can't work". It is a meme and it was a very notable one (although probably not as well known outside the USSR). ::#"There is a shortage of food" - again, the "deficit" of food was an extremely common claim. The argument was that since there are "empty shelves" in the Soviet Union, the economic system is ineffective and should be replaced by free market. It was argued that in a free market economy everyone will have access to an abundance of nicely packaged western-like supermarket food. ::In reality constant lowering of prices by the planning agencies simply led to an unfortunate side effect. As the prices dropped below the equilibrium point, people were always buying all available stock, leading to "empty shelves". The actual food consumption was high, but psychologically the empty shelves proved to be very hard to endure. Even though per capita consumption of most products (with the exception of meat) in Soviet Union was higher than in the United States, people were unhappy. In 1988 consumption of milk and milk products in the USSR was 356 kg per capita (260 kg in the USA), but 44% of the Soviet people said when polled that they were not consuming enough milk. In Armenia, where people consumed 480 kg of milk (1989) 62% of the people were not satisfied with the consumption levels. The situation with most other products (including both food and consumer goods) was similar. ::This meme was extremely popular and it spread despite contradicting reality in a sense. People could see that they have plenty of food on the table (and even in the stores, most of the time), but they instead repeated the lie about deficits. These memes were believed by most people and propagated , and this eventualy created a climate of irrational aversion towards the Soviet order. I think they are interesting examples, although I may have been guilty of not explaining them well. --User:Paranoid 21:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Very interesting. I totally understand what you're driving at now. Now it's just a matter of reworking the new content. Let us know if you need assistance. Cheers! — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 01:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I was unsure about adding a large section to the article, so I tried to fit it into a one paragraph format of the examples section. Now it doesn't look like it can be explained in one paragraph. Do you think adding a separate section on use of memes for social manipulation or may be on their role in the USSR specifically may work? --User:Paranoid 01:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I'm not sure. Anyone else have any ideas for what to do? — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 22:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Sadly, I think this comes under the heading of orignal research, and as such is not appropriate. If references to the linking of memetics to these concepts can be given, then the idea may become acceptable, but it isn't at the moment. --User:Noisy | User talk:Noisy 14:35, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC) ::::::It isn't original research. A number of authors have talked about this (the one I am most familiar with is Sergey Kara-Murza). They didn't use the term "meme", but they were talking about the same phenomenon - it's only that memetics has not become popular in Russia yet. --User:Paranoid 21:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Memetics == Let's not be overly enthusiastic here. It's not even certain that memetics is an accurate theory, or that it's even useful (if it is), or just extra terminology. [http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-2716.html Ephilosopher link] --User:Maprovonsha172 14:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::(Later note: This appears to be the working Ephilosopher link, and it is hardly a damning series of arguments like Maprovonsha172 implies elsewhere. --User:Marudubshinki 21:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) :By messing up your personal pages, and sigs, and posting the same anti-memetics message three times to different talk pages, you are not making friends, Maprovonsha. --User:Marudubshinki 14:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ::What's that supposed to mean? I'm just trying to make sure these pages live up to their claim to objectivity. I provided a link that shows that memetics is not a sure thing; as I said, it's yet to be seen whether memetics is a proto-science or a pseudo-science. There just isn't any telling. Meanwhile, if we use memetics terminology liberally throughout articles not directly relating to memetics we are underhandedly endorsing what may very well be a pseudo-science, or useless at best. I imagine memetic terminology will become what postmodern terminology has been for a while now-something someone can use to appear smart. If you have a problem with any of that, you say where. Don't tell me I'm "not making friends," that isn't constructive to say the least and could be (mis)interpreted as a threat. --Maprovonsha172 23:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)~ :::I noticed that you blanked a good portion of your Talk page, completely eliminating RickK's comments. That isn't the usual practice; normally we just move an overfull talk page to an 'Archive' page, and cut and paste as necessary- see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. I'm sure that was just because you are fairly new, and that it was not an attempt to hide some things, like more cynical and suspicious people might think. :::As far as memetic terminology goes, that terminology is very widely accepted as useful for thinking about many behaivours- if it describes what is happening well, and provides insight, it is probably valid. Note also no-one appears to be providing support for your position. :::And you may imagine what you like. :::Very well- I shall tell you my problem. First, you appear to have had a spat with RickK. RickK is a good user, which casts some doubt on your integrity. Second, you write some articles which have since been deleted or converted into redirects. This in and of itself is not bad, is a learning experience, but not positive either. Also, you seem to have never heard of edit summaries. Bad wikiquette. Another thing: you blank part of your Talk page dealing with serious issues, with no summary, no archiving, no nothing. Not bad in and of itself, again, but definitely not good. Finally, you come to certain pages, and argue against them, and remove good information. That's bad. That is pratically Internet troll. I am hoping you are not a troll, but are merely inexperienced, and argumentative. Prove me right. :::And your misinterpreting is not my problem; my meaning was clear. May I constructively suggest a reading of the Wikipedia:FAQ? --User:Marudubshinki 01:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::::I'll admit your hopes, then. I may have bad wikiquette but that doesn't figure into the discussion on memetics. I could have bad wikiquette, no integrity, no experience, and absolutely nothing going for me except for the fact that I'm right! All that is an argumentum ad hominem, taking people's attention away from the issue because you can't defend your pro-memetics position otherwise---and I'm not anti-memetics. But why are you defending posting memetic terminology all throughout theoretically objective arcticles which aren't directly concerned with memetics while memetics is still a controversial subject? Whether or not anyone wants to go to bat with me and admit that it still is controversial, again, is irrelevant. I don't suppose you even checked out the link I provided. If you had, you would know there is much reputable resistance to memetics and memetic terminology, believe it or not Meme Theory's accuracy and usefullness is still being debated. But, by using memetic terminology in 'objective' articles not directly related to memetics is clearly a tacit endorsement of the theory. --User:Maprovonsha172 14:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :::::We live in the real world, Map. 'Ad hominem attacks' are entirely valid data with which to adjust the strengths of our beliefs and probabilities- we aren't dealing with classical logic or syllogisms. Ex. antiglobal warming proponents have a much weaker case since it has been revealed that many of them are not exactly unbiased and uninterested parties, to say the least. Is that data ad hominem? Does it directly refute the anti-global warming case's data? No- but it is very relevant; that is how ad hominem attacks are useful. And you certainly are not 'anti-memetics'- you have proven that time and again in your edits and responses (or lack thereof.) You'll notice I have checked out your provided links- most of'em didn't work, and the one that did is hardly an authority or source of good anti-memetics arguments; and where exactly are you getting 'reputable resistence' from? As far as terminology goes, I shall state again, using it is not an endorsement of memetics- it is an endorsement of ''people's'' use of memetics terminology. --User:Marudubshinki 21:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::There are many articles in the Wikipedia with disputes like this. They are usually resolved by noting in the article (using ''sources'') that there are people of significance who are skeptical of memetics and its treatment as a science (of course, this would need to be balanced with its proponents). However, adding this information doesn't give one license to rip out the other material on memetics, given that it's an NPOV, accurate description. There's grammatical ways to copyedit material that is in dispute without removing it entirely. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC) ::::::Okay, but don't you see my point that it may very well contradict the NPOV policy? By using memetic terminology in an article we are tacitly endorsing memetics, because it is supposed to be an objective article and inherent in the wording would be a affirmation of the theory. You realize memetics is controversial, so you should be able to see why using their terms in articles not in any way related to memetics is inadvertently taking sides on a controversial issue. By the way, very little of what is to be said using memetic terminology couldn't be said another way, therefore it's gratuitous at best, and an underhanded affirmation of a pseudo-science at worst. --User:Maprovonsha172 17:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::Now you are just being disingenuous- in what ways can you discuss ideas as entities subject to evolutionary forces, with behaivour analogous to that of 'selfish genes', which still has the explanatory power of memetic terminology? --User:Marudubshinki 21:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::So, do we also have a problem with using ID terminology in an Intelligent design article and Christian terminology in a Christianity article? On top of that, "intelligent design" is very controversial. Are we to keep controversial ideas out of the Wikipedia? The Wikipedia affirms ideas that exist to a big extent in the wilds of human thought, whether they are scientific or pseudo-scientific. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 18:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I only said that we shouldn't use memetic terminology in articles NOT pertaining directly to memetics or meme theory. But using it elseware is affirming its validity, which is why we wouldn't file intelligent design under science, let's say. But really, the analogy doesn't work because the loaded wording of memetics is what I'm getting at. --User:Maprovonsha172 18:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC) == Fellow deletionists == I hope we all can see now why using memetic terminology liberally throughout articles not directly concerned with memetics or meme theory is not only unnecessary, but a violation of the NPoV. Memetics is, after all, on Wikipedia's List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. Meme theory is a controversial issue which is still being debated (http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-2716.html). Since it's yet to be seen whether memetics is a proto-science or a pseudo-science we shouldn't use it as if it were accepted fact, in theoretically objective articles. As I have posted on the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians) on Meta-Wiki (member 38#), I encourage everyone to either delete unnecessary memetic terminology or reword it to uphold the NPoV. --User:Maprovonsha172 15:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :Avoiding memetic terminology has nothing to do with deletionism. --User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 15:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::Yeah, deletionism is more about prose elegance and keeping Wikipedia on encylopedic subjects and data. --User:Marudubshinki 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::Well I'm sort of new at this. But I thought that deleting unnecessary or POV information was what deletionism was all about. I suppose avoiding memetic terminology isn't deletionist, but we ought to, anyway. Don't you agree? --User:Maprovonsha172 15:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::::I'm a deletionist too, and I'm likewise lost on your point. Besides, you haven't even named these other articles where this "terminology" is being used. At least give us some kind of starting point for discussion. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 17:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC) :::::It all started with Godwin's Law, which I posted a NPOV-template on, after having deleted the memetic terminology used there (meme, counter-meme) ::::::(Despite the fact that the eponymous Godwin wrote an article for Wired, linked to in article, that ''explicity'' stated he thought of and designed it, with memes and memetic terminology. --User:Marudubshinki 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) :::::and it was all re-posted. I have since changed the wording to avoid the memetic words yet still convey more or less the same meaning. Also, I changed the Hypersigil page which said 'memetic-complex' to collection of images and/or ideas. On Internet Phenomenon I changed how the word meme was used, from something like 'these are good examples of memes,' to 'some would say...'. I also explained the other side to that by expressing the skepticism of many regarding meme theory ("...but it remains unclear how ideas can replicate themselves as people choose to imitate what they like."). ::::::(And with that you reveal you do not understand memetic theory at all. ''Of course'' people choose what they like! They also choose what convinces them to harbor or spread the memes; that is how they 'self-reproduce', by being attractive or convincing so that people remember them. --User:Marudubshinki 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) :::::I removed 'memetics' from the a list of the protoscience page, since no one knows if it's a protoscience or a pseudo-science yet. I made an alteration on the Friedrich Nietzsche page similar to my change on Internet Phenomenon, simply changing a definite statement to a 'some would say' uncertain statement. I also removed the word meme from Nevada-Tan and thus replaced "internet meme character" to "internet cartoon character," which isn't exactly the previously intended meaning but to give it that intended meaning (of a self-replicating system) would defeat the purpose of my correction. And finally, what I meant in saying that all deletionists should be going after this unnecessary and POV phenomenon of putting memetic terminology in all sorts of articles not directly related to meme theory is case in point when one scrolls down at Nevada-Tan and realizes there is an entire category of so-called 'internet memes.' So I realized this wasn't just one or a few incidents, but an ingrained problem, and as I have shown, to use memetic terms as if it's solid science is underhandedly endorsing meme theory and hence contradictory of Wikipedia's NPoV policy. --User:Maprovonsha172 18:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::I've replaced "meme" in that article - whether you like it or not, "meme" is a widely accepted and used term referring to Internet-spread phenomena. Whether anyone completely agrees with "meme theory" does not change the fact that "meme" is now a word that is here to stay. As the meme article states, "In casual use, the term meme sometimes refers to any piece of information passed from one mind to another. This usage more closely resembles the analogy of "language as a virus" than Dawkins's analogy of memes as replicating units." --User:FCYTravis 20:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::I would also like to note that I wrote a considerable entry on Internet Phonemena, seeking some clarification of the issues and common ground (as Travis can attest), but have received no reply despite the fact that Map has had liesure time enough, it would appear, to edit this and related aticles. --User:Marudubshinki 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC) == Internet Meme == There has been some discussion (and several deletions) on Internet-related pages regarding ''memes''. However, even if incorrectly, the term "meme" does apply to things such as All your base are belong to us or Nevada-tan. The term "meme", insofar as the net, has been in use for some time (the earliest I can remember "meme" used in conjunction was in the mid-90s). Perhaps a seperate article for "Internet meme" should be created. --User:Mitsukai 17:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :If I understand what you're saying you mean that there is an internet slang that uses 'meme' in a different way than say, Susan Blackmore does? In that case we would need an article to clarify which would be meant. --User:Maprovonsha172 18:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::No- the usage on the Internet is essentially the same. A bit more modest, usually in the sense of 'evolving ideas which live or die based on ability to get people to spread'em', with few of Blackmore's overarching claims, but definitely not distinct enough to warrant another page. --User:Marudubshinki 18:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :::Over-reaching claims are precisely the problem. The idea that a phrase or image replicates itself is the issue, or whether people just spread what they like. It seems that memetics personifies these things, as you say, "based on [their] ability to get people to spread'em." It seems to me that to swallow the pill that is memetics you have to accept Blackmore's theory the Self-plex, which leaves us with no say in what we re-print, repeat etc. because the self is an illusion. Of course that's not falsifiable, and so, here we have the task at hand to eliminate implications that memetics is any true science (at least for now. --User:Maprovonsha172 18:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::::No- is that your real problem? To accept the 'Selfplex' theory (which has got to be the most ambitious feature of Blackmore style memetics, and one even I am rather ambivalent about) is to by necessity accept memetics. But you know a little philosophy Map, so I'll use their jargon. 'Memetics is ''necessary'' for the 'Selfplex', but definitely not ''sufficient''.' --User:Marudubshinki 21:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::::Perhaps in the case of Internet memes, perhaps a section on the main meme article. While I agree that people are hardly quoting Susan Blackmore when referring to net memes (in fact, I'd be surprised if most in those cases knew anything about her), net memes have been around for quite some time and are more than just "catchphrases" or "memorable pictures". I think it's still important enough to warrant some sort of mention above that of a decdif in Wikitionary. --User:Mitsukai 20:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :::::I find it perfectly fair to question meme theory. But the usage of "Internet meme" is indisputable - it is, in fact, in widespread use on Internet communities ranging from Slashdot to FARK to DailyKos. To deny it by deleting "meme" from phenomena which are considered memes is denying reality. --User:FCYTravis 21:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::FCYTravis, just because some people use the word in their internet communities doesn't mean that they are using it properly, or that Wikipedia should respect their fad conception of an academic question. I wouldn't be denying reality, I'd be denying it's encyclopedic validity. Moreover, we shouldn't speak of memes as if they are definite things; no one can be so sure. You say, "I find it perfectly fair to question meme theory," but you tilt the discussion in your favor if we allow the word to be used freely in what are supposed to be objective articles. If you must use them, word it a certain way, as I have, to uphold the NPoV. Don't say 'these are memes,' instead say, 'some would say these are memes.' Mitsukai, you say "net memes...are more than just 'catchphrases' or 'memorable pictures.'" What are they, then? Because if you say they are 'self-replicators,' that’s the real (Dawkins, Dennett, Blackmore) definition of meme, and then net memes would be as PoV as what I've been arguing against. --User:Maprovonsha172 22:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::Now Map, who is committing classical logical fallacies now, hmm? 'just because some people use the word in their internet communities doesn't mean that they are using it properly'- now really. Ever hear of the 'No true Scotsman fallacy'? --User:Marudubshinki 21:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::Yes, Maru, I have heard of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy and not only do I find it irrelevant to what we are talking about, I resent your condescending tone. No True Scotsman? Just because you can't make such a hasty generalization about Scotsmen (that they all eat their porridge without sugar), or any other analogous generalization, doesn't mean you can't point out when a word is used improperly. What kind of a red herring accusation is that? --User:Maprovonsha172 01:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::::Irrelevant? You snobbishly proclaim that they are not using the 'true' meme, that you know better than they, and you complain about ''my'' condescending tone? Also: what on earth on you talking about with your 'generalizations'? NTS (as I shall abbreviate) is not about that, or inference o anything of the kind- its about redefining; just check the Wiki article No true Scotsman. And what red herrings are here? Usage of words is precsiely the issue. --User:Marudubshinki 03:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::Who's to say that someone is using a word "properly?" Who defines that? I'd say it's POV for you to claim that a group is using a word "improperly" when that word is being used in accordance with its dictionary definition. The Merriam-Webster dicdef of 'meme' is "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture" - and clearly that's what Internet memes are. They "spread from person to person" via the Internet - often among particular subcultures of those sites I referred to earlier. Your ideas regarding "meme theory" are entirely irrelevant to the fact that nowhere on Wikipedia has "meme" been used in a manner inconsistent with its dictionary definition. It's incumbent on you to explain why properly using a word is somehow POV. --User:FCYTravis 23:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::::I'm heavily in agreement with FCYTravis. If at the very least, we should have a section on meme for internet memes. However, realistically, I think it just be easier overall if someone just started up the Internet meme page. --User:Mitsukai 00:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::::I fully agree. Any place meme is referred to where it meets the dictdef in its explanation of some phenomena, esp. where it's widely discussed (and therefore encyclopedic), e.g., "Internet memes"--this is entirely appropriate. I might only agree with Maprovonsha172 where "meme" is applied to a phenomena in a manner that is not properly sourceable (or POV-balanceable). It matters not really whether memetics is a science or a pseudoscience; it matters most that "meme" has a definition and can be used to describe phenomena, albeit sometimes from a POV (as long as that POV is balanced). This is how we let in subjects like "Intelligent design." LOL. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 00:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::To expand on this, is it POV to use the word "evolution" in an article on Charles Darwin, or do we have to say "some people think Darwin created the theory of evolution" for it to meet NPOV standards? It is not POV to state a fact - and whether something is a meme or not is a fact. Now, the deeper, more complex issues of "meme theory" are controversial, certainly, and as such, should be mentioned in the "meme" entry. But to call something a "meme" according to its strict dicdef is completely NPOV. --User:FCYTravis 00:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC) FCYTravis, to ask "is it POV to use the word 'evolution' in an article on Charles Darwin" only shows that you haven't been paying much attention to the discussion. I have repeatedly said that it is fine to use memetic terminology in articles DIRECTLY related to memetics. It's the unnecessary and POV memetic terminology in articles on internet fads that I'm talking about. In that case it is POV because it assumes the validity of meme theory; obviously, in order to call something a meme one must first assume that there is such a thing. And it doesn't matter that meme is in the dictionary. Dictionaries give usages, not definitions. As such, dictionaries only reflect how word is commonly used, and we can't base what we deem objective truth (enough to place in an article as such) by commonly held ideas, to do so would be to commit the logical fallacy of the appeal to the majority. Also, to say that we can allow POV material in as long as we balance the POV is only justifies what I've been trying to do in rewording articles to stamp out the pro-meme theory bias. What I'm saying we need to do is not use the word 'meme' as if it's an undeniable fact, which it certainly isn’t. We should only use the word in articles directly concerned with meme theory or if it must be used somewhere else we should make it clear that it’s only what some people think. It is, after all, on Wikipedia’s List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. So, as far as I’m concerned we can uphold the NPOV by either not mentioning meme theory terminology when unnecessary (which is almost always the case) or by instead of saying “this is a meme,” saying “some people would call this a meme.” After all, to paraphrase Stevie, that’s how we let in subjects like Intelligent Design (“ID advocates argue…”). --User:Maprovonsha172 22:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC) :So if we don't follow dictionary definitions, what do we follow? There is no "appeal to the majority" here - the simple fact is that they are "memes" because the word usage has evolved to define them as memes. Whether that usage is in complete accordance with every facet of "meme theory" is irrelevant. The concept of "memes" on the Internet is firmly entrenched in the Reality-Based Environment. There is no "meme theory" bias here. The English language is an evolving one - and whether the creator of the word "meme" intended for it to apply, the fact is that it does now apply, and Wikipedia would be denying reality to claim otherwise. There is no dispute (beyond your philosophical ivory tower) of the existence of memes on the Internet insofar as the common usage definition - "an idea that spreads from person to person." Whether that idea is some sort of living whatever is another issue entirely. --User:FCYTravis 04:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ::FCYTravis, this is similar to what Mitsukai has said. If there is such a thing as an 'internet meme,' defined differently than the (Dawkins, Blackmore, Dennett) definition of meme (as a self-replicating system) than we should explain that in an article. As it stands, there is no such distinction made. If we are to accept that there are two definitions, the one associated with meme theory and the one associated with internet fads, we should explain that instead of using the same word in different contexts. It is an appeal to authority argument to assume a common usage is a proper definition, but as we've figured out here, that could be remedied by explaining the two different usages of the word meme. Internet fads could still be called 'memes' in such articles, as long it's clarified that by meme they mean something which is passed from person to person, not something which passes itself from person to person as meme theory speculates. ::We could comprimise by explaining which context the word is used, making the distinction clear between the meme theory usage and the internet fad usage, and as Mitsukai has proposed, we could make a page explaining the difference. --Maprovonsha172 :::I added a section to the "casual use" paragraph, explaining that this casual use is the one generally referred to when people speak of memes on the Internet. --User:FCYTravis 20:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ::::See! Some good *is* coming of this mess! --User:Marudubshinki 21:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC) == The Controversy that is the Study of Memetics! == As a great lover of Wikipedia, I have some criticisms of the article in its current state!! "Memetics" is a highly controversal area---considered by many (most??) scientists to be but a pseudoscience. As far as I can tell, there is no formal education available in memetics, nor are there many (any?) publishing journals in memetics. (My cursory search revealed one which is no defunct, but "soon to be relaunched" at http://www.jom-emit.org/). By these standards, Memetics carries scientific respectabilty comparable to crytpozoology---in fact, slightly less---since cryptozoology has at least one functioning journal which I am aware of. In contrast with this article on Memes, however, the Wikipedia article on cryptozoology stresses the fringe nature of cryptozoology. The Meme article does not do this---indeed, this characteristic of Memetics is likely one of the most relevant characteristics of the field for one who knows little/nothing of what memetics is, and should be well-featured in the article. I'm sure a lot of us like memes, but Wikipedia is not a forum! We should be trying to write a fair and balanced article about memes that relects both characteristics of the discipline, and how it is perceived by the scientific community. As such, I do not think the article is currently neutral, so I am adding a POV check tag to the article. --Anonymouse :There's no need to be so emotional about it (with all the exclamation points). Geez. But, at any rate balance is a good thing, and I agree that criticisms of this subject should be included either in this article or in memetics. In fact, I think the discussion of memetics as a science or pseudo-science (or whatever) belongs in memetics and not here. I would suggest that most material related to the study of memes go into memetics and let the NPOV work go on there. In this article, we should just simply describe what a meme is, give examples, and discuss them in relation to memetics. What does everyone think? — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:01, May 10, 2005 (UTC) :Also, I'd like to recommend that you register for an account here at the Wikipedia. Staying anonymous may weaken your position on discussing these matters, even if you're in the right. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:13, May 10, 2005 (UTC) ::I agree that we should argue about whether memetics is a science or a pseudo-science in memetics and not here, however, we shouldn't leave meme as it is. As it is, it treats a hypothetical as an absolute. We can't treat something in an article as if it were definite fact when we're not sure it even exists. --User:Maprovonsha172 21:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :::Hi! Me again. (original emotional controversy person!!!) I agree that memetics is a good place for much of the discussion of the science/pseudoscience area, but I agree with user:Maprovonsha172 that this article shouldn't treat a meme as an absolute thing: in particular, the disagreement over a precise definition of a meme (even among memeticists) should probably feature strongly in the article, as well as the controversy over whether memes exist at all. I'm going to try to do some cleanup of the article now... feel free to change back anything people think makes things worse! --Anonymouse (same as previous) ::::Hello again. I see someone cleaned up my cleanups---they look good. I was wondering... many of the sections under the "biological analogies" heading seem very long and musing... do people find this out of place? I'm thinking from the standpoint of how an encyclopedia article should look... what are peoples thoughts? This article seems rather too long write now, no? (Currently quite a bit longer than the recently featured article on Irish Poetry, which might be a rather broader subject matter than memes). Do people think this is a good area to cleanup? How to go about it? --Anonymouse (same one) :::::Any way you can reduce the material, while keeping everything that's relevant, is welcome, as far as I'm concerned. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 18:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::::::(Note for Maprovonsha: that is a genuine expression of deletionism.) --User:Marudubshinki 21:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC) == Self-replicator? == I've talked to many people who consider 'meme' an interesting metaphor, and many on Wikipedia have their own definition of meme (which could usually be substituted with the word fad), but meme theory as I have read makes clear one basic premise of all memetics: namely, that memes are 'units of imitation'(verbal, visual, etc.) which REPLICATE THEMSELVES. I tried to wrap around this concept of self-replication, and in Susan Blackmore's book The Meme Machine I found their theoretical justification. Towards of the end of her book she presents her theory of the Selfplex. It seems only to make sense that there would be such things as 'memes', self-replicating units of imitation, if the Selfplex theory is true. Without it 'meme' is a metaphor, or substitute word for fad, or, quite possibly, an altogether unnecessary and pseudo-scientific neologism. I know of no other explanation for memetic's insistence on 'self-replication' other than the theory of the Selfplex, in which Blackmore argues that the brain is the result of the coevolution of memes and genes. She claims that the concept of the self, as we know it, is itself a collection of memes, which has evolved in order to protect and increase susceptibility to other memes. This would mean that there is no you or me, that '''I am a person but not an 'I'.''' I would still be a person, meaning that I am a homo sapien sitting here typing this, but not an 'I', an innate persona or self that is Matthew Provonsha, PCHS student, slacker/amateur philosopher. All that (all my likes and dislikes, proclivities, desires and fears which I attribute to MYSELF) would just be socially constructed, supporting the Selfplex, the ''meme'' that I consider ''myself''. The Selfplex theory, as far as I know, however, isn't justified by any scientific experiments and cannot be proven true or false, so why are so many people accepting it whole-heartedly (just because it's interesting or they think they could impress someone by knowing such a comprehensive yet on-the-surface-technical idea, I imagine)? In any event, the Meme article is still too POV. I'm not saying you can't say meme on Meme, obviously, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be presented as Gospel Truth for Christ's sake. ;) Anyone want to defend Selfplex theory of the idea of memetic self-replication? Until it seems that we can be sure they're verifiable fact we shouldn't present them as such in supposedly NPoV articles. I'm going to put the NPoV template on meme because as I have said, it violates the NPoV Policy by presenting a hypothetical (a rather dubious one at that) as an established fact. --User:Maprovonsha172 20:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :I wouldn't describe the co-opted use for "fad" ''pseudoscientific'' so much as ''ascientific'', because I don't think people who use the word in that sense neccesarily mean it as a scientific concept at all. --User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 21:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :P.S. Susan Blackmore edited wikipedia a few times in the past and she lives a few yards down the road from me, I could drop a note in asking her to defend memeplex? ;) Possibly too much like Wikipedia:No original research though... ::Speaking for myself, that would be incrediby useful/awesome. Who better to discuss whether memetics is proto or pseudoscience, and all the other interesting issues Map brings up? She could also provide a decent overview of the field, point out what we've missed- I don't think any of us here are much more than 'interested layperson' and our knowledge is undoubtedly incomplete. --User:Marudubshinki 21:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::I only said the meme is sometimes used as a substitute for 'fad'. To quote myself, I said, "Without it 'meme' is a metaphor, or substitute word for fad, or, quite possibly, an altogether unnecessary and pseudo-scientific neologism." So I'm not saying that calling fads memes is pseudoscientific, just that it's used both ways. ::P.S. I would be glad to hear from Mrs. Blackmore has to say about it. --User:Maprovonsha172 21:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC) == Archival == Cut it out. These conversations are from April at the earliest, and shouldn't be archived yet. Don't revert war anymore. Discuss it here. --User:Omegatron 16:09, May 11, 2005 (UTC) :AGH! Ok, the ones from before April can be archived. Someone reverted again while I was editing. --User:Omegatron 16:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::There wasn't enough to archive there, Omegatron. Besides, Steinsky did not tell us where the archive he created is! — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC) :::Don't delete things because they are "unrelated", steinsky. I have no problem with archiving old stuff, though, because this page is large. Maybe he was in the process of moving it? --User:Omegatron 16:15, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::::There was plenty to archive, and it is in the existing archive. There is no need to archive 50kb every time, and there is no need to create a new archive page every time. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 16:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::You archived stuff from yesterday. Put it back. --User:Omegatron 16:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC) :::::Yes, there was enough to archive, but one month? Further, YES, a new page should have been created, as once an archive is created, it shouldn't be touched again. Archive 1 is about a specific time period, up thru the end of 2004. This is all just insanity going on here.. haven't seen anything quite like this in my 14 months as an editor. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::::::I have, regularly. Moving discussions to an existing archive page is considered more desirable than creating an excess of pages. I can only conclude you have had a very secluded editing life, if you've never seen either removal of discussions that aren't about the article, or not using excess archive pages. Maybe I have, in two years I've never seen the policy that says archive pages shouldn't be expanded bit-by-bit, as and when needed. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 16:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::But you should have created a ''new ongoing archive file'' for 2005 topics. That's what I will go ahead and do w/o objection. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::I disagree that that's what should have been done, and don't consider it neccesary, but I have no objection with other people wasting further time on this trivial issue if it doesn't involve me. User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 16:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::::Good. Just don't archive anything that's still ongoing. --User:Omegatron 16:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::Personally, may I request that everyone stop archiving and reverting until I can reformatt this page? I've made some progress, and the page really needs it (I'd be done, except for some lousy luck- namely edit conflict with Map, and a old copy of Navigator (Damn admins!). --User:Marudubshinki 21:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::Okay- I am pretty much done. Flame away, and I'll clean up afterwards. (And thanks to Omegatron, I know the right template to use too.) --User:Marudubshinki 02:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC) == self-replicating system == I've been thinking about how the discussion has come to the problem of the two different connotations for the word meme, and I think it can best be solved by agreeing that the difference is that so-called 'internet memes' are replicated and (Blackmore's) 'memes' self-replicate. So to say they replicate themselves is POV, while saying that 'internet memes' are spread all over internet communities is not. So, to disavow my initial thought that all memetic terminology violates the NPoV, I think we could balance the POV by making certain everyone knows the difference between the two concepts and how it's not proven that memes self-replicate, just that some people think they do. --User:Maprovonsha172 14:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ==Cleanup== Does anybody have any specific cleanup related issues with this article? The cleanup template is generally used for neglected articles that have e.g. formatting problems or bad prose, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Cleanup generally isn't used for issues of neutrality or incompleteness. I am removing it from the page as it was originally inappropriately added on an issue of neutrality. --User:Steinsky User talk:Steinsky 15:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC) ==Political memes== I think it would be interesting to have a section for political memes named "Politics" that would be situated near the "Religion" section. I oftentimes run into Democratic Party (United States) activists who claim that the Republican Party (United States) has been using memes over the past generation or so to manipulate the American people. Whether that's true or not, I think this could be a good seed for a new section on this topic. Any thoughts? — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 19:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) :It's like what the logical positivists say about metaphysical claims. We can't say one way or the other. Here's what Bertrand Russell said (forgive me if it isn't word for word) about sin: "When I say 'sinner' I don't mean one that commits sins in the Christian sense, because depending on what you believe either everyone or no one does." That's exactly why we can't talk about memes this way, Stevie. Either no ideas are memes or most all ideas are memes, depending on your beliefs. Many of you believe in memes; in which case both the Democratic and Republican parties are constantly bombarding us with their memes.User:Maprovonsha172 23:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter: