
The Tyranny of Ideas - jger15
https://nadiaeghbal.com/ideas
======
quanticle
One book-series that engages with the feeling of being trapped by one's ideas
is _Dune_ (specifically, the first three books: _Dune_ , _Dune Messiah_ ,
_Children of Dune_ ). Those three books are all about a person who has a great
(in the sense of large, not morally good) idea, unleashes that idea onto an
unsuspecting world, and then spends the rest of their life attempting to stop
the very memetic demon that they unleashed.

~~~
hguant
Spoilers ahead for a 30+ year old novel.

What's particularly interesting about this idea of a 'memetic demon' is that
the character unleashing it knew all along that it would be/had the potential
to be [0] a monsterous thing, and spends a good deal of the first novel both
looking for alternatives to unleashing this monstrosity[1], and is ultimately
destroyed in the second because he attempts to maintain some sense of self in
the face of the overwhelming power of this idea - he wants to be himself,
_and_ maintain control of the idea that's swept him into power. This dichotomy
is ultimately fatal. Only the one who sacrifices himself to the 'Golden Path'
and allows in a very real sense his self to be subsumed by destiny is able to
control this bloody, powerful idea.

[0] The idea of a thing that has the potential to be another thing or the
potential of a thing in being is defined by a precise word in German and in
Greek that I can't remember right now. Aristotle's _Metaphysics_ goes into
this question (can a thing that is not yet but will be if the thing that
exists now lives rightly be said to be real? Does that future thing guide the
present thing? Can it be talked about as if it is real?) in exhaustive detail.

[1] The idea needs controlling because it's in part a techno-cultural jihad.
Humanity needs to break out of its ossified structures to grow, but the
cultural forces that have the power to do so (primarily religion in the novel)
are equally capable of reducing this space empire to a series of isolated
planets with nothing but memories of space flight. The protagonists want to
have it both ways - just enough entropy to keep the system moving forward, but
not enough to bring everything to chaos.

~~~
BjoernKW
I think the word you refer to under [0] is 'teleology'.

------
mistermann
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics)

> Memetics is the study of information and culture based on an analogy with
> Darwinian evolution. Proponents describe memetics as an approach to
> evolutionary models of cultural information transfer. Critics regard
> memetics as a pseudoscience. Memetics describes how an idea can propagate
> successfully, but doesn't necessarily imply a concept is factual.

> The term meme was coined in Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene, but
> Dawkins later distanced himself from the resulting field of study.[2]
> Analogous to a gene, the meme was conceived as a _" unit of culture" (an
> idea, belief, pattern of behaviour, etc.) which is "hosted" in the minds of
> one or more individuals, and which can reproduce itself in the sense of
> jumping from the mind of one person to the mind of another._ Thus what would
> otherwise be regarded as one individual influencing another to adopt a
> belief is seen as an idea-replicator reproducing itself in a new host. As
> with genetics, particularly under a Dawkinsian interpretation, a meme's
> success may be due to its contribution to the effectiveness of its host.

I believe memetics is one of the most impactful but underappreciated ideas out
there today, and plausibly explains the bizarre polarization of opinions on a
wide variety of hot button current topics. Everyone perceives that their
opinion/knowledge is based on facts, but very few are even slightly aware that
their knowledge is actually based on a hodge podge of memes, each with varying
levels of truthiness.

~~~
xamuel
If anything is a meme, then memetics itself is. It's no more "impactful" than
the observation that people chant team slogans, recite famous quotes, or use
mnemonic devices. Name something memetics has impacted. Viral marketing? Nope,
that would've happened with or without Dawkins. Etc.

~~~
mistermann
> If anything is a meme, then memetics itself is.

Of course it is. Pointing out that something is a meme isn't really an insult,
it's just the nature of reality.

Indeed, chanting of team slogans, etc are all forms of memetic, cult-like
behavior.

> Name something memetics has impacted. Viral marketing? Nope, that would've
> happened with or without Dawkins. Etc.

Memetics isn't an "invention", it's simply a label given to a general
observation (itself a meme) of ideas like people do not think in facts, or
fully realize the difference between reality and their _interpretation_ of
reality. Whether the discovery and documentation of these human behaviors has
"impacted" anything is no proof one way or another if it is a correct theory.

I happen to believe it _could_ impact the world in a major way, if large
numbers or people were _intimately_ aware of it, but that's far easier said
than done. Accepting these ideas _in principle_ isn't terribly difficult
(although plenty of people seem to find the ideas offensive), but even having
intellectually accepted the principle, changing one's real-time behavior (not
jumping to conclusions or mischaracterizing/imagining the beliefs of others
during conversations, humbly admitting when someone points out your facts
aren't actually facts, etc etc etc) is something else entirely. This can be
observed on HN, Reddit, and everywhere on a daily basis.

~~~
xamuel
>a general observation (itself a meme) of ideas like people do not think in
facts, or fully realize the difference between reality and their
_interpretation_ of reality.

People have been pointing that out for a loooong time. Plato's famous allegory
of the cave. Or St. Paul in his letter to the church of Corinth, "Now we see
but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I
know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known".

>Indeed, chanting of team slogans[, reciting famous quotes, and using mnemonic
devices] are all forms of memetic, cult-like behavior

Next elementary school science teacher I run into, I'll have to enlighten her
that "ROY G. BIV" is cult-like behavior and she's been brainwashing her
students all this time ;)

~~~
mistermann
Very clever humorous sidestepping of defending your suggestion that memetics
aren't impactful/important.

Here's a second chance: above you say: "The grandparent comment about Memetics
being so "impactful" is somewhat like English professors taking credit for the
fact that we're speaking English."

Perhaps you're right and they aren't impactful. Could you share how _you know_
how impactful (or not) memetics are, say in the field of democracy. The
comment you were replying to above states: "I realized I was getting more
emotionally from the memes (which aren’t exactly the sort of memes Dawkins was
thinking of) than long-winded analysis of what was good/bad about the
episode." That comment touches on something that seems rather interesting and
counter-intuitive to me - do you disagree? If that person "gets more" from GOT
memes than long-winded analysis, might Donald Trump supporters perhaps have
their beliefs shaped by the various memes they consume? After all, I suspect
you'd be quite agreeable on the idea that Trump supporters are a rather
delusional bunch, would you not?

Was the election of Donald Trump an impactful event? Did memes have precisely
zero impact on the election of Donald Trump (here's one I grabbed at random
from today's front page of /r/T_D:
[https://i.imgur.com/fwvnNfN.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fwvnNfN.jpg) Here's
another: [https://imgur.com/a/TQJvDXr](https://imgur.com/a/TQJvDXr))? (And if
it isn't too much trouble, when answering, please explain how it is you _know_
the answer to that question. As a hint, I will draw attention to my previous
statement: "...changing one's real-time behavior...". As another hint, as a
mental exercise consider how your statement "Yes, image macros can be a great
way of getting a point across." can be true, while it is simultaneously true
that image macros have no impact.)

~~~
xamuel
I'm not saying that memes have no impact, I'm saying that Memetics have no
impact. As in, the scholarly academic study of memes. Obviously memes have had
an enormous impact on everything ever since the first cavemen invented the art
of grunting and pointing at things. As for Memetics having an impact, well,
that would be like a professor of theoretical musicology releasing a #1
charting pop album.

~~~
mistermann
> I'm not saying that memes have no impact, I'm saying that Memetics have no
> impact. As in, the scholarly academic study of memes.

Ah ok, I'm glad I was misunderstanding rather than disagreeing.

> As for Memetics having an impact, well, that would be like a professor of
> theoretical musicology releasing a #1 charting pop album.

Here I'm quite certain we actually do disagree.

If we take the definition as: "Memetics is the study of information and
culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution. Proponents describe
memetics as an approach to evolutionary models of cultural _information
transfer_. Memetics describes how an idea can _propagate successfully_ , but
_doesn 't necessarily imply a concept is factual._"

Would it be fair to say this is consistent with the notion that people don't
think in facts, they think in _ideas_ (aka memes), which aren't necessarily
true? Do you significantly disagree with this notion?

~~~
xamuel
You're casting an over-broad definition of Memetics. Long before Dawkins, we
had things like "archetypes" in Jungian psychology, "gestalts" in gestalt
psychology, "signs" in semiotics. And many other similar notions that would
fit what you're describing. Memes became a "thing", academically, because
Dawkins was a successful pop writer. They've had about as much genuine
scholarly impact as Deepak Chopra!

That's on the academic side. On the practical side, sure, marketing firms and
political campaigns have attempted to hijack image captions, with varying
(usually low) success. (It's not like Trump employs a bunch of scientists to
post image captions on r/T_D. Love it or hate it, that's grass roots.) All of
this would have been done whether people had decided to latch it to Memetics
or not. It's not like image macros wouldn't have become a thing if "Selfish
Gene" hadn't been written.

~~~
mistermann
> You're casting an over-broad definition of Memetics.

I am, or the author of the wikipedia article
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics))
where I quoted that definition from?

> Long before Dawkins, we had things like "archetypes" in Jungian psychology,
> "gestalts" in gestalt psychology, "signs" in semiotics.

>> Archetypes were a concept introduced by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung,
who believed that archetypes were models of people, behaviors, or
personalities. Archetypes, he suggested, were inborn tendencies that play a
role in influencing human behavior.

>> Gestalt psychology is an attempt to understand the laws behind the ability
to acquire and maintain meaningful perceptions in an apparently chaotic world.
The central principle of gestalt psychology is that the mind forms a global
whole with self-organizing tendencies through the law of prägnanz. This
principle maintains that when the human mind (perceptual system) forms a
percept or "gestalt", the whole has a reality of its own, independent of the
parts.

>> In semiotics, a sign is anything that communicates a meaning that is not
the sign itself to the interpreter of the sign. The meaning can be intentional
such as a word uttered with a specific meaning, or unintentional, such as a
symptom being a sign of a particular medical condition. Signs can communicate
through any of the senses, visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or taste.

Regardless, refer to this phenomenon using whatever words you'd like. A rose
by any other name would smell as sweet.

> They've had about as much genuine scholarly impact as Deepak Chopra!

I don't disagree with your assertion that ~"multiple people have recognized
and described this phenomenon within human psychology and assigned it a
variety of labels", or that there has _so far_ been little noteworthy impact.
My interest is about the _potential_ of this knowledge.

I initially wrote:

"I believe memetics is one of the most impactful but underappreciated ideas
out there today, and plausibly explains the bizarre polarization of opinions
on a wide variety of hot button current topics. Everyone perceives that their
opinion/knowledge is based on facts, but very few are even slightly aware that
their knowledge is actually based on a hodge podge of memes, each with varying
levels of truthiness."

If I had more accurately described my beliefs like so:

"I believe memetics is one of the most _important_ but underappreciated ideas
out there today, and plausibly explains the bizarre polarization of opinions
on a wide variety of hot button current topics. Everyone perceives that their
opinion/knowledge is based on facts, but very few are even slightly aware that
their knowledge is actually based on a hodge podge of memes, each with varying
levels of truthiness. If we could somehow manage to get a significant portion
of the population to _truly_ realize that much of what they believe, what they
consider to be fact, their mental model of reality, is largely made up of
meaningfully incorrect approximations, the impact on the world could be
substantial."

....would you still disagree?

If so, could you note which specific parts of _my words_ you disagree with?

~~~
xamuel
I think at last we can agree on your more accurate description of your
beliefs, just with the sole exception that we could simplify it by the removal
of the first sentence. That is, I fully agree with the following:

Everyone perceives that their opinion/knowledge is based on facts, but very
few are even slightly aware that their knowledge is actually based on a hodge
podge of memes, each with varying levels of truthiness. If we could somehow
manage to get a significant portion of the population to truly realize that
much of what they believe, what they consider to be fact, their mental model
of reality, is largely made up of meaningfully incorrect approximations, the
impact on the world could be substantial.

~~~
mistermann
Hmmmm....on one hand this seems like all a silly misunderstanding, basically a
pedantic difference of "impactful" vs " _potentially_ impactful". Except
removing the first sentence strips the _magnitude of importance_ component
from my statement, which is one of the most important aspects of my interest.

I wonder if I can make my meaning even clearer (more difficult to find a way
to misunderstand)....how about if I phrase it this way:

"If global polarization of opinions on a wide variety of topics (some of which
can be argued to be an existential threat to human existence on earth) starts
to suddenly increase, and it is learned that opinions on both sides of most
disagreements are based on objectively incorrect beliefs, it would be
extremely valuable (possibly up to restoring the previous likelihood of long-
term sustainability of human life on the planet) to find a way to get people
to fully realize their beliefs are false, so that reasonable, collaborative
negotiations can be established to begin solving our various problems."

In the spirit of conversational efficiency, perhaps it is helpful to note
explicitly that my intent is to learn your opinion on _how important
/valuable_ you personally believe reducing the amount of delusional beliefs
held by individuals in society might be, and that I am happy to continue
redirecting the conversation back to that _specific_ topic as many times as is
necessary.

~~~
xamuel
I'm in full agreement with the quoted paragraph. And I would say reducing the
amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently
important.

As for this pedantic discussion, maybe this parable will help. A man goes to
Huffington Post and reads an article about the dangers of global warming.
Fully convinced, he goes shouting from the rooftops: "Huffington Post has the
potential to be one of the most important publications in all of history! It
is urgently important that we stop global warming!"

You see, that first sentence which the man shouted is distracting and
confused. He should have just jumped straight to the second one. Just to be
clear, in this parable, the man represents you, "global warming" represents
"everyone is operating under delusional beliefs", and "Huffington Post"
represents Memetics.

~~~
mistermann
I'm quite sure I see what you're saying, but I'm quite certain you don't see
what I'm saying. It seems like you're trying to not understand, rather than
trying to understand. This is part of the point I am trying to get at.

Your analogy seems flawed to me. The Huffington Post is a fairly trashy rag
that prints vague, half-informed articles on a wide variety of subjects,
mostly in a click-baity form. Memetics is a label assigned to an _abstract
concept_.

Could widespread public understanding and acceptance of what the Huffington
Post writes change the world? Not in any plausible way I can see. Could
widespread public understanding and acceptance (or at least open-minded
consideration) of the concepts (delusional beliefs, reality vs perception,
epistemology, etc) that fall under the Memetics label change the world? I
think....maybe. If, that is, some way could be found to accomplish the
"understanding and acceptance (or at least open-minded consideration)" part.
Unfortunately, this seems much less likely, as conversations like this well
demonstrate, imho. It's kind of a self-referential problem if you think about
it, which is why it's so difficult I guess.

> As for this pedantic discussion

Oh there's no doubt it's pedantic, but pedantry is sometimes useful in non-
cooperative/evasive conversations. But even more importantly, I find it
personally useful to take these conversations as far as possible before my
"adversary's" sense of amusement runs out. I think it is useful (or at least
interesting) to learn more about the nature/behaviors of intelligent people
_who do not have conflicting values or goals with me_ , or even conflicting
abstract beliefs ("I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held
by individuals is extremely, urgently important"), yet who seem determined to
seek ways to fail. If you and I, who seem to be in full agreement (discovered
only through pedantic dedication to keeping this conversation on topic) on
what is important, can't seem to reach a point of mutually respectful and
reasonable conversation, whom may I ask do you think is going to fix this
problem in democratic societies? The media? The politicians?

On even semi-complicated topics, people don't really know what the fuck
they're talking about at least half the time. At best they're "kinda" right.
You might expect this from the general public, but when it starts infecting
the culture of sites like HN, that seems like a very bad sign to me.

~~~
xamuel
What's your objective with this continuing discussion? Are you hoping to
convince me to take a specific action or something?

Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based on
an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract
concept. The thing being studied is the abstract concept. So, by Memetics, all
along, I have meant the collective body of (academic) study/scholarship of
memes. Since you say "Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept", it
seems that's the root of the understanding. You're talking about the concept
itself, while I'm talking about the study/literature of that concept.

My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that Memetics
was high impact. I consider the objective moot now, since it's become apparent
you're using "Memetics" in a nonstandard sense, and the rest of the audience
is long gone.

Memetics (the study of memes) is a useful path which has apparently led you to
enlightenment and made you realize we're all laboring under illusions. It's
not the only path, and now that you've reached enlightenment, you should
realize that Memetics itself is just one more of those illusions you're
opposed to. (In the same way, Buddhists say, "If you meet the Buddha on the
road, kill him.")

Trying to rid yourself of ignorance by your own willpower is futile. There is
no solid ground to stand on, because everything is ignorance. "All have sinned
and fallen short of the glory of God." Dawkins and his type are priests of a
religion based on trying to rid oneself of ignorance by one's own willpower.
This will never work, and you'll always be miserable. Jesus said: "I am the
way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
You will never come to the ultimate truth via your own intellectual exercises.
It's as futile as trying to write a dictionary with no circular definitions.

~~~
mistermann
> What's your objective with this continuing discussion?

As I stated: "I think it is useful (or at least interesting) to learn more
about the nature/behaviors of intelligent people who do not have conflicting
values or goals with me, or even conflicting abstract beliefs ("I would say
reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely,
urgently important"), yet who seem determined to seek ways to fail."

Perhaps "find ways to misunderstand the question being asked or shift the
subject" would have been more appropriate than "fail".

(When reading this, please keep in mind I fully acknowledge your above words
regarding the validity of the term "abstract beliefs" in this sentence. I hope
you can overlook this and accept that I am simply restating this prior
statement exactly as initially written, with full admission that it may fall
short of absolutely perfect accuracy in choice of terms.

See also:

[https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-
argue...](https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue-more-
effectivel-1632402742)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)

Example:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735)
"I'm curious why you think a transition to a more enlightened..."

)

> Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something?

Yes, answer the questions as written, or acknowledge that you choose not to
(rather than leading the conversation off onto a tangent).

> Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based
> on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract
> concept.

Speaking of pedantry....do you think the core idea or intent of this
discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word
"memetics"? Are you familiar with the meaning of the phrase "a rose by any
other name would smell as sweet"?"

I have clearly said multiple times that my interest is related to the
potential utility of _a widespread, true understanding_ of the ideas discussed
within memetics - whether it could make a difference in the world.

> My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that
> Memetics was high impact.

And I have clearly addressed the poor choice of words in my initial statement,
at least twice:

\- "I don't disagree with your assertion that ~"multiple people have
recognized and described this phenomenon within human psychology and assigned
it a variety of labels", _or that there has so far been little noteworthy
impact_. My interest is about the _potential_ of this knowledge."

\- "Hmmmm....on one hand this seems like all a silly misunderstanding,
basically a pedantic difference of "impactful" vs " _potentially_ impactful"."

The conversation clearly moved on beyond that: "I'm in full agreement with the
quoted paragraph. And I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs
held by individuals is extremely, urgently important"

.... _and yet_ , you have once again pivoted back to whether Memetics _is_
high impact, after already acknowledging you believe _the ideas contained
within_ are "extremely, urgently important".

> I consider the objective moot now, since it's become apparent you're using
> "Memetics" in a nonstandard sense, and the rest of the audience is long
> gone.

I'm not here to win points, I'm here to have a conversation and gain a deeper
understanding of human nature (in this case, why people behave evasively in
conversations).

> Trying to rid yourself of ignorance by your own willpower is futile. There
> is no solid ground to stand on, because everything is ignorance. "All have
> sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Dawkins and his type are
> priests of a religion based on trying to rid oneself of ignorance by one's
> own willpower. This will never work, and you'll always be miserable. Jesus
> said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
> except through me." You will never come to the ultimate truth via your own
> intellectual exercises. It's as futile as trying to write a dictionary with
> no circular definitions.

This all sounds a bit like those vague but persuasive/useful memes we were
talking about earlier. A tangential one at that! ;)

~~~
xamuel
Thanks, I'm flattered you're interested in learning from me. I'm not
deliberately trying to be evasive. Believe it or not, I've been thinking of
you as deliberately evasive. Achieving real mind-share with someone is MUCH
harder than people think. Jesus said: "If two of you on the earth agree about
anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven." I'm
fully behind your call for steelman/principle of charity, in fact, it feels
serendipitous, because I've been praying recently for the Lord to help me
better love my neighbors, and those links you posted are highly relevant!
Jesus said: "Do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may
trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Maybe
what he meant was, don't condescendingly think of people as swine, but rather,
assume the best in them.

Since you want to learn from me, one of my guiding principles is: there's far
too much great material to read in a lifetime, so use the test of time to
filter it. I'm currently reading the collected works of Shakespeare and
finding it far more amazing than I expected. "A rose by any other name" is
just one of many passages about names, self-denial, and so forth in Romeo and
Juliet; to the point I'm convinced R&J is only a love story on the very
surface, and has a far profounder hidden meaning. Shakespeare has passed the
test of time. Dawkins hasn't, so I depriotize him. Maybe Dawkins is better
than Shakespeare, but I consider that improbable because Dawkins hasn't passed
the test of time yet. And if he were so great, he'd have Beatles-level
fanfare. I'll read Dawkins when/if an editor asks me to peer-review one of
Dawkins's papers or a paper that majorly cites him.

>Do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective
is the precise definition of the word "memetics"?

That was related to MY core intent (see my prev. comment).

>Yes, answer the questions as written, or acknowledge that you choose not to

Heretofore, I've been attempting to synthesize your comments and reply to them
on-the-whole rather than bullet by bullet.

>after already acknowledging you believe the ideas contained within are
"extremely, urgently important"

Again, this is like a man saying 'The ideas in Huffington Post are extremely,
urgently important', because he read an article there about global warming.
The "ideas contained within" are not unique to Memetics, Memetics just happens
to be where you first encountered them. They've been around for thousands of
years! (And as an aside, as an academic discipline, "Memetics" is just as
trashy and low-brow as Huffington Post.)

>This all sounds a bit like those vague but persuasive/useful memes we were
talking about earlier. A tangential one at that!

If you think people are laboring under illusions now, think how bad it was in
the year 30 AD. Caesar was literally declaring himself a god, and enforcing it
with state propaganda. THAT'S the kind of environment in which Jesus of
Nazareth was spreading truth-bombs. And if Jesus hadn't done what he'd done,
we'd still be enslaved by god-kings today.

~~~
mistermann
> Believe it or not, I've been thinking of you as deliberately evasive.

I would appreciate if you could point out some specific examples of where you
believe I've done this, as a secondary motive for engaging in these seemingly
useless conversations is that I'm trying to learn how to achieve constructive
conversation under a variety of circumstances. I've done my best to argue
mostly in good faith, but spotting one's shortcomings (blind spots) is
incredibly difficult (as you correctly point out).

> because I've been praying recently for the Lord to help me better love my
> neighbors, and those links you posted are highly relevant! Jesus said: "Do
> not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under
> their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Maybe what he meant was,
> don't condescendingly think of people as swine, but rather, assume the best
> in them.

It's a good question. Some possible explanations:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:6#Interpretations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:6#Interpretations)
The first few seem off the mark, but the latter ones seem reasonable.

> Dawkins hasn't, so I depriotize him. Maybe Dawkins is better than
> Shakespeare, but I consider that improbable because Dawkins hasn't passed
> the test of time yet. And if he were so great, he'd have Beatles-level
> fanfare. I'll read Dawkins when/if an editor asks me to peer-review one of
> Dawkins's papers or a paper that majorly cites him.

I happen to not be a big fan of Dawkins, but might you have fallen victim to a
bit of guilt by association here? Again, the importance here is not the
identification, summation, and labeling of these behaviors, it is the
behaviors themselves. The quality of discourse in Western nations has been
disgraceful and declining for a very long time now, but something seems to
have changed recently to dramatically accelerate the decline. _This_ is what
I'm interested in. We have an overabundance of base materials and
theory/philosophy to work from, but I propose that what's happening _now_ is
different. There is no shortage of online experts (armchair and otherwise)
telling us "why" this is, but very few people I'm aware of who are closely
studying it with a minimum of biases and preconceived notions, and doing so
with their eyes wide open.

>> Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based
on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract
concept. The thing being studied is the abstract concept. So, by Memetics, all
along, I have meant the collective body of (academic) study/scholarship of
memes. Since you say "Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept", it
seems that's the root of the understanding. You're talking about the concept
itself, while I'm talking about the study/literature of that concept.

>> Do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective
is the precise definition of the word "memetics"?

> That was related to MY core intent (see my prev. comment).

Ok, let's try this again then, perhaps I'm understanding your perspective
better now....might you be referring to the study of memetics, limited _only_
to the mechanisms, propogation, etc, whereas I am extending that (perhaps
incorrectly) to include the "second order effects" on individuals in society,
and how "memes" (spread near-instantaneously via the internet) has facilitated
a massive increase in incorrect opinions (on both "sides" of the various
divides) on a much broader range of topics (absent the internet, most people
would have zero exposure to many of the contentious issues)?

Hopefully this is getting closer, but if not this is a good lesson in how
difficult it is to understand what the other person is talking about even when
both parties are trying as hard as possible!

I happen to be quite pleased at how this conversation seems to now be turning
out. On one hand, it's very easy to view this conversation from a(!)
perspective where it is clearly an utter waste of both of our time. On the
other hand, I believe there is also a more abstract perspective you can view
it from where it demonstrates that sometimes, patience and politeness can
overcome a seemingly intractable impasse.

Once again, as I'm sure you well know, we've all been taught these lessons
before (
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsJnxlXepsY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsJnxlXepsY)
), but we never seem to get it through our thick skulls.

~~~
xamuel
>I would appreciate if you could point out some specific examples

Well the first one that comes to mind was you seemed to do all sorts of mental
gymnastics in response to my "man reading about global warming in Huffington
Post" metaphor. I had thought that the meaning of that should be pretty
blatantly clear and that the particular choices like "huffington post" or
"global warming" should be pretty obviously irrelevant. Probably my own fault
for assuming the meaning was clearer than it was. For comparison you could
imagine if I responded to your "rose by any other name" by saying something
like, "What are you talking about, don't you know that a 'rose' is a type of
flower? Our conversation has nothing to do with flowers!"

> Ok, let's try this again then...

Let's talk practical matters. If you want to seriously survey what mankind
collectively has figured out about "mechanisms, propagation, etc", "a massive
increase in incorrect opinions", etc., how might you embark on that journey?
What search terms do you plug in to Google Scholar? You could try meme-related
search terms like "memes and ignorance" or "deceptive memes" etc., and (with
the help of scihub) you might find some interesting material. But my point is
that you ought to widen the net with searches related to "propaganda", "false
beliefs", "misinformation", etc. For example, the latter leads to this article
which might be of interest to you (I only skimmed the abstract so I'm not
offering any guarantees), which does not contain the word "meme" anywhere in
it:
[https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554](https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554)

My sentiments here are similar to those of Oliver Braddick in the following
editorial, but replace "illusion" with "meme", "perception" with "belief":
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03010066187746...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0301006618774658)

~~~
mistermann
> Well the first one that comes to mind was you seemed to do all sorts of
> mental gymnastics in response to my "man reading about global warming in
> Huffington Post" metaphor.

What you wrote:

 _As for this pedantic discussion, maybe this parable will help. A man goes to
Huffington Post and reads an article about the dangers of global warming.
Fully convinced, he goes shouting from the rooftops: "Huffington Post has the
potential to be one of the most important publications in all of history! It
is urgently important that we stop global warming!"_

My reply:

 _Your analogy seems flawed to me. The Huffington Post is a fairly trashy rag
that prints vague, half-informed articles on a wide variety of subjects,
mostly in a click-baity form. Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract
concept._

 _Could widespread public understanding and acceptance of what the Huffington
Post writes change the world? Not in any plausible way I can see. Could
widespread public understanding and acceptance (or at least open-minded
consideration) of the concepts (delusional beliefs, reality vs perception,
epistemology, etc) that fall under the Memetics label change the world? I
think....maybe. If, that is, some way could be found to accomplish the
"understanding and acceptance (or at least open-minded consideration)" part._

Is "all sorts of mental gymnastics" a fair characterization of that?

> I had thought that the meaning of that should be pretty blatantly clear and
> that the particular choices like "huffington post" or "global warming"
> should be pretty obviously irrelevant.

It's not really an argument, it's more of a "guilt by association" slur. Very
effective rhetoric no doubt, but not intellectually convincing.

> Probably my own fault for assuming the meaning was clearer than it was.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my existing rebuttal, tear into it if you'd
like.

> For comparison you could imagine if I responded to your "rose by any other
> name" by saying something like, "What are you talking about, don't you know
> that a 'rose' is a type of flower? Our conversation has nothing to do with
> flowers!"

Except the meaning of that phrase is very widely known, and we have already
established that we both know what it means. Your HuffPost/GlobalWarming story
though is neither of these.

> Let's talk practical matters. If you want to seriously survey what mankind
> collectively has figured out about "mechanisms, propagation, etc"

It seems we are still, somehow, _still_ not on the same page.

Recall this exchange:

>> (Me) "If global polarization of opinions on a wide variety of topics (some
of which can be argued to be an existential threat to human existence on
earth) starts to suddenly increase, and it is learned that opinions on both
sides of most disagreements are based on objectively incorrect beliefs, it
would be extremely valuable (possibly up to restoring the previous likelihood
of long-term sustainability of human life on the planet) to find a way to get
people to fully realize their beliefs are false, so that reasonable,
collaborative negotiations can be established to begin solving our various
problems."

> (You) I'm in full agreement with the quoted paragraph. And I would say
> reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely,
> urgently important.

We have more than enough of a handle on the mechanisms, etc. The fact is, on
complicated topics, hardly anyone knows what the fuck they are talking about,
but plenty of people _think_ they do, and this is starting to cause dangerous
levels of strongly polarized beliefs in Western nations. But despite all of
this being blatantly obvious, no one in a major position of leadership or
influence is pointing this fact (that _everyone_ is misinformed) out to
anyone. Instead, everyone continues to pander to their tribe, saying _it is
only the other side who is delusional_. This is what I propose needs to stop.

EDIT: Thinking about it more, I think I'm leaving out the importance of
epistemology being a core part of this message, which is perhaps distinct from
memetics?

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)

------
simonebrunozzi
Hmm. I usually like Nadia's writing a lot. This article, though, seemed to be
much less "crisp" than others, and it confused me quite a bit.

Most of what she tries to describe in the initial part reminds me of the
concept of "Moloch" (specifically in the sense described by Bertrand Russell's
A Free Man's Worship, and Allen Ginsberg's poem): almost like a super-entity,
resulting from the interactions of many individuals, but with a specific
behavior of its own.

I don't thinks that it's about "ideas", as Nadia states; rather, it's the fact
that molecule : gas = person : humanity, a person has personality but a large
mass of persons has a behavior of its own, an inertia that you can't change as
an individual.

In the second part of the article, I get the question, I am not sure it is
related to the first part or not, and I am not sure whether it's important to
compartmentalize, etc.

~~~
wallace_f
>molecule : gas = person : humanity, a person has personality but a large mass
of persons has a behavior of its own, an inertia that you can't change as an
individual.

It's interesting, and there's a lot of truth to it; but I really believe the
truth is somewhere in the middle and I would be much more careful not to want
to cheapen the heroes of the world. Certain people do have a willingness to
put themselves at risk to seek virtue.

------
mdonahoe
The most interesting part of that post to me was the tweet about Charles
Goodyear.

Dude had a rough life. Further reading lead me to learn that the Goodyear tire
company was founded 30 years after Charles’ death.

~~~
hodgesrm
Wikipedia has a good summary of his tribulations. It's sobering reading if you
think you are having rough day at your start-up.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Goodyear](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Goodyear)

------
d_j_b
There was so much to enjoy in _Embassytown_ : the Hosts, the Metaphors, the
Festival of Lies, biorigging, Immer, the super-cerebral ending. Anyone come
across anything equally juicy recently?

~~~
smogcutter
_Book of the New Sun_ by Gene Wolfe. If you're into Mieville you'll probably
dig it; I think _Perdido Street Station_ in particular owes a lot to Wolfe.

It's hard to pitch the series (4 books, but currently published in two
volumes) without giving anything away, and part of the pleasure of the book is
piecing together information as you go. But for more detail here's the article
that out me onto it, after Wolfe's recent death:
[https://www.theringer.com/2019/4/25/18515675/gene-wolfe-
scie...](https://www.theringer.com/2019/4/25/18515675/gene-wolfe-science-
fiction-author)

------
gumby
The Lil Wayne example is interesting. The Beach Boys faced this problem too.
Some, like the Beatles, Bowie were able to transcend it. A couple of
alternatives:

\- The Beastie Boys faced this problem, and released a jazz album outside the
US (I think it was eventually imported). It was largely invisible to their
customer base.

\- Steven King and J. K. Rowling both used pseudonyms to publish outside their
recognised genres.

~~~
ljm
I wonder how Radiohead fits into this when everybody expects them to deviate
from a style.

The two albums that would typecast them (OK Computer, The Bends) are one of a
kind. No one wants more of them.

~~~
jacobush
why not?

------
winningcontinue
Ideas are fascinators and the most interesting of which will find audiences.
Those audiences will not depose of those ideas easily. It's a not an entirely
novel new concept. I think of the spread of a religion throughout most of
human history. Stoya wasn't talking about some high minded conceptual idea
when she chose her stage name, but rather something she just connected to at a
point in her life.

