From an evolutionary perspective, we can think of memes ('bits' of cultural information / ideas) as replicators similar to genes in that memes that are good at getting themselves copied should become more prevalent in the population and memes that are not as good at getting copied, comparably, should become less prevalent. However; are there important similarities / differences between memes and genes that should be noted in order to predict what characteristics are likely to make a meme successful and which will effect the manner in which they evolve over time?
I guess the answer to your question would also be one of the answers/tools to forecasting trends/technology.
I have been developing the use of memeplexes based on the work of Prof Clare W Graves. Fog (1999) on cultural selection talks of memeplexes. I have categorised into nMemes - naturally occurring meme complexes like personality types and cMemes as catalyst memes which enable change and tMemes as technology memeplexes. Graves work is really vMeme complexes which are the hidden values within an individual. vMemes inform how nMemes, cMemes and tMemes act. The process has a degree of prediction as we have to move through 'I' and 'We' system from less complex to more complex and more complex to less complex as our life conditions change. That is the theory and I have used successfully in many organisation and seems to work. Do not know if this helps but might trigger some thoughts...
Thanks for the answers thus far - I am still working my way through the literature and through your recommendations. Here is my initial thought: Memes require a human mind in order to exist (i.e., we can have all of the cultural information in books, museums, billboards, etc. that we want, but without a human mind to perceive and interpret a meme, the meme does not exits). Thus, we can follow somewhat of a virus model for memes. Memes which are better at 'infecting' and taking up residence in human minds will become more prolific. Thus, it may be fruitful to map characteristics of the meme (what makes them good 'infectors'?) and characteristics of the meme environment of the human mind (what makes them susceptible to 'infection'?) to develop models of the likely spread of memes. From this standpoint, it would be more a question of when there is a good match between meme and mind. Some minds will be susceptible to infection by some memes but not others. If this is how things really work, I think it allows for a modeling process that is pretty comparable to evolutionary disease models. John, is this similar to what you are discussing above? Michael, I apologize if what I said repeated anything in your chapter or contradicted it...I still need to sit down and read through it.
The reason I am using the Clare Graves model is that during his research he identified 8 meme complexes (Today's language) and calculated that the brain had the capacity for six sets of three. He then did further research and mapped these over human evolution for the last 100,000 years. His theory is that it is a dance between life conditions and our capacity to handle complexity. The residuals are passed from generation to generation. So for a simple example The Tribal meme complex (vMemes) gave way to the Empires meme complex and to solve those problem evolved into the Traditional or Religion meme complex and so on. each meme complex attracts and rejects memes. We move from I to We system and from We to I system depending on what we need to survive in our given life conditions. So if we take the environmental meme complex or green movement which emerged about 120 years ago it attracts memes which support its culture. For example, at the extreme, it does not recognise any hierarchies thus rejects memes that are related to hierarchies (simple one). Graves also linked his vMeme complexes to L and R side of the brain and from mFRI scans seems to support his view. Fog (1999) suggested that each meme complex had the following characteristics to attract and reject memes.
“Bait – This is the promised benefits that make the meme complex look attractive to potential new hosts.”
“Hook – This is the part of the meme complex that urges reproduction.”
“Indoctrination – making sure that the host gets all the memes in the meme complex.”
“Protection against rival meme complexes – this could be the meme that ‘Blind faith is a virtue and heresy is a sin.”
“Reward and punishment – Obviously, rewards or punishments are often needed to make the host obey the instruction of the meme-complex and its organisation.”
“Taxation – The demand the host contribute time, energy, or money to the meme complex and its organisation.”
(Fog, 1999, Cultural Selection p. 73-74)
For modelling I am starting to look at Towards Human-like Social Muti-agents with Memetic Automation Ong and Chen - Evolution of ideas: A novel Memetic Algorithm Based on Semantic Networks Baydin and Mantaras both on researchgate look interesting.
Hope this is useful?
Dear colleagues
This question seems inactive, but I want to ask my own simple question as a medical epidemiologist. There are many papers online calling Meme a pseudo-science. Please let me know what is the exact consensus now, is it a rejected hypothesis or a young theory need more esearch?
The debate goes back to before Darwin's time - Richard Dawkins (a biologist - the selfish gene) proposed theory in 1972. It has been called a pseudo-science mainly by biologists who object to the comparison to viruses and genes and memes effecting biochemistry. (Chapter four of my PhD - downloadable -researchagte - looks at some of the arguments) Brain scans are beginning to show connections to memplexes. Used in computer science and a very useful theory in social sciences. Graves' theory (1950s) has been used in hospital for aligning culture and making changes. The link to biology and brain chemistry needs more research. Look at the work of people like Blackmore and Disten , Bruce Lipton among many. There is enough mathematical models from computer sciences and social sciences to conclude that it is still a valid hypothesis. It is certainly gaining traction as a research area. In integral psychology there is research on memeplex use in intake assessments. Graves was a Prof of Psychology and developed memeplexes as a meta theory but at that time memes and meme theory had not be thought of and I see it as useful for adding a theoretical model to meme research. Early days maybe.
Forgot to add see discussions "Are our lives governed by memes?" Might be useful
Dear John
With many thanks for comprehensive reply, I accept calling the memes alike viruses was a negative contribution as recently Blackmore has rejected her hypothesis about calling "the religions a virus" but my initial studies shows the ideas, information or meme whatever we call it, spread over the populations and generations as like as the micro-organisms but surely not always harmful as them, these concepts are similar but not the same. About memetics I agree that the technology is yet poor but we almost need the theories. the theory of infection and diseases was discovered so long before exact observation of the micro-organisms.
I am interested to work in this field. Do you or anybody else would help and collaborate with me as this is a multidisciplinary area. And any other suggestion is welcomed.
Reza Hi - I would be pleased to collaborate there are not too many interested in this field. Like all analogies the virus one is useful as memes do seem to spread virus like and also mutate dependent on the host that attracts them (me or you). There are negative and unhealthy memes that do spread within certain host communities.One theory I have just started exploring is the use of Construction Theory and Construction Law which might be a good candidate for understanding how memes spread. Also other areas I am exploring are the development of human consciousness and enhanced reality.
Yes I am sure that Meme might has bad or good types and the similarity with virus does not means to have the same function as it. I should read about the fields you have mentioned specially social construction theory. Besides, I think there are some facts showing the ways to go to scientifically evaluate the presence of meme. For example if we would show how the animals learn their behaviors of own race even when they are born never seeing their parents. Or if we be able to show that some people show behaviors similar to their parents that has not been learned actively, we might show some clues.
I should say that I am a medical epidemiologist and then a sociologist so the techniques I know are mostly field experiments although there are some computational and mathematical methods as well.
As well I think epidemiology of infectious diseases strongly responsive to this theory as there is much similarity between communicable disease and opinions behavior.
I was not refereeing to social constriction theory - but physics Construction Theory - as in Adrian Bejan and J Pedder Zane Design in Nature based on thermodynamics and can be applied to social organisational. Another area to look at is in Integral Psychotherapy "The Integral Intake" by Andre Marquis. In Graves work in brain autopsies showed the areas of the brain that were associated to his value memeplexes which could be hereditary transmitted - and there is one paper that has attempted replicate Graves with fMRI scans and it indicted that he was going in the right direction. There have been some good studies on the transmission of mathematical ability in a Jewish sect from Roman tomes today which could indicate the transmission of the process element of the Authority structure/order driven Gravesian value memeplex. So my hypothesis is that certain memes are attracted to certain memeplexes. But this does need a scientific study. We use questionnaires that uncover the embedded or hidden memeplexes with the individual - but how valid is this? All the problems of Ipsative questionaires etc.
Also - In regards to the question about whether the study of meme's is pseudo-science - I would argue strongly that it is not. The basic idea is that meme's that have properties that make them more likely to be replicated will become more common in the environment, and memes that are worse at getting themselves replicated will become less common and will eventually become extinct. Provided we can properly define the boundaries of a meme, we can measure them, and if we can measure them, we can study them scientifically.
Agree - The idea of using Graves is to provide some structure. How do you measure successful and unsuccessful memes as they tend to change and morph in definition depending on the group they are attracted to?
I see what you are saying. I think it is a really tough question to determine how to measure memes and make sure it is something that isn't arbitrary. It needs to be able to be held up to objective standards and when we are talking about something whose only physical instantiation is its behavioral influence, that is tough to do....As soon as the semester is over I'll be able to put a little more time and thought into this
Do you think there is any use looking at Constructal Law there is an overview in the book Design in Nature by Bejan and Zane. A new(ish) law in physics based on the principles of thermodynamics where everything is about flow and movement? look forward to you thoughts.
Hi Reza, (and all)
See: http://storyality.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/storyality-100-the-holonic-structure-of-the-meme-the-unit-of-culture/
And regarding the problem of "Memetics being a pseudo science", see posts #100 to #108 here:
http://storyality.wordpress.com/an-index-to-this-blog/
Hope that helps...
Cheers
JT
A link to a PDF (ebook):
Velikovsky, JT (2014), Why Some Things Are Popular - or: The Meme - The Unit of Culture, CPT, Sydney, DOI 10.13140/2.1.2821.5360
See also:
http://storyality.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/storyality-130-why-some-things-are-popular-velikovsky-2014/