Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
At 10:16 PM 12/04/04 +, you wrote: --===1943412254== (I just received your message of 7 April.) Keith Henson wrote The model of evolutionary psychology ... is that any observed feature in a species is either the direct result of the feature being selected or it is a side effect of some feature that was selected. Yes, I understand. But the question is why choose evolutionary psychology over some other kind of explanatory world view. If you cannot prove that the observed feature is indeed a result or side effect, what good is the model? Even if you can't prove an observed feature resulted from direct selection or byproduct, it is (in my opinion) useful to be able to limit it to one or the other rather than saying the gods put the ears on your head. But a lot of the time we can rule one out. So the capacity for individuals to amplify xenophobic memes in some circumstances (which we know happens) is one other the other. No, it only is one or the other if we already think that way. Maybe the xenophobic memes originate somewhere else. The *origin* of xenophobic memes is not the point. It is clear that like feedback squeal they can originate from arbitrary *noise.* The important thing is that under specific conditions xenophobic memes as silly as "long ears" and "short ears" can amplified up to killing fury. That's what is thought to have happened on Easter Island. I am sure you can think of more recent examples. Because such memes serve the function of synchronizing the warriors of a tribe to attack another tribe as a group Right. But based on this statement you could argue that the memes are the result of cultural learning -- after all, those cultures which have them better are the ones that survived Blink? Memes *are* cultural learning. Or are you saying that there is a metameme people learn that in hard times they should spread vicious ideas about their neighbors? That's not impossible, but I can't think of any evidence for it. Perhaps you could come up with an example? ... This would be supported as direct selection if ... [Restored context] if your model of one tribe attacking another led to the early and late attackers being killed more often than those in the main body of warriors. No, it would not! It would only show that such memes help a culture. This argument has been accepted as the evolutionary persistence of the tight peaking of the 13 and 17 year cicadas. The ones that come out a year early and the ones that come out a year late fair very poorly compared to the bulk of them that swamp predators. "Attack in a group" as a *meme* rather than a gene might go back further than the chimp/hominid split since chimps do it, but I am more concerned with the underlying gene based psychological mechanisms that lead to attack and under what conditions they get turned on. >The question is which explanation is better? I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. The question is: Can someone better explain xenophobic memes using cultural anthropology or evolutionary psychology? I am not aware that cultural anthropology has a deep explanatory model other than evolution. If you know of one, please point me to it. What about another hypothesis: that spies (for our side) are better tolerated during bad times than good times? While spies go way back, I can't see a spies operating in the little tribes in which we evolved. If spies are tolerated better (or worse) during bad times it would be a side effect of some trait that evolved long before populations got large enough for spies to be practical. Is that hypothesis better explained (or better attacked) using cultural anthropology or evolutionary psychology? >I know the goal; my question is not about the goal, but whether >evolutionary psychology is providing a good explanation, or whether it >is hokum? " . . . evolutionary psychology . . . . is a way of thinking about psychology that can be applied to any topic within it. In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. This way of thinking about the brain, mind, and behaviour is changing how scientists approach old topics, and opening up new ones." This quotation tells us about evolutionary psychology; it does not tell us whether it is any good or not. Why choose evolutionary psychology over another explanatory discipline, such as cultural anthropology? That is the question. I am always willing to consider logical arguments and better models. I think cultural anthropology and evolution psychology are likely to merge at the edges like the physical sciences do so there might not be any difference. I came to evolutionary psychology models after many years of not making progress with memetics models.
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
(I just received your message of 7 April.) Keith Henson wrote The model of evolutionary psychology ... is that any observed feature in a species is either the direct result of the feature being selected or it is a side effect of some feature that was selected. Yes, I understand. But the question is why choose evolutionary psychology over some other kind of explanatory world view. If you cannot prove that the observed feature is indeed a result or side effect, what good is the model? So the capacity for individuals to amplify xenophobic memes in some circumstances (which we know happens) is one other the other. No, it only is one or the other if we already think that way. Maybe the xenophobic memes originate somewhere else. Because such memes serve the function of synchronizing the warriors of a tribe to attack another tribe as a group Right. But based on this statement you could argue that the memes are the result of cultural learning -- after all, those cultures which have them better are the ones that survived ... This would be supported as direct selection if ... No, it would not! It would only show that such memes help a culture. >The question is which explanation is better? I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. The question is: Can someone better explain xenophobic memes using cultural anthropology or evolutionary psychology? What about another hypothesis: that spies (for our side) are better tolerated during bad times than good times? Is that hypothesis better explained (or better attacked) using cultural anthropology or evolutionary psychology? >I know the goal; my question is not about the goal, but whether >evolutionary psychology is providing a good explanation, or whether it >is hokum? " . . . evolutionary psychology . . . . is a way of thinking about psychology that can be applied to any topic within it. In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. This way of thinking about the brain, mind, and behaviour is changing how scientists approach old topics, and opening up new ones." This quotation tells us about evolutionary psychology; it does not tell us whether it is any good or not. Why choose evolutionary psychology over another explanatory discipline, such as cultural anthropology? That is the question. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises As I slowly update it, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I rewrite a "What's New" segment for http://www.rattlesnake.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
At 03:14 PM 09/04/04 -0700, you wrote: Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: snip I think an argument can be made that - in terms of expansion of genes and memes - war _is_ adaptive when one culture is technologically more advanced than the other; the above is rather like the MAD scenario carried out with spears and clubs instead of nukes. Correct. But the vast majority of our gene selection when on when there was not much technological difference between the tribes that were duking it out. In fact, most of the time they were related having swapped women for generations. By our standards today, genocidal warfare is utterly reprehensible, but it _is_ effective, if all you care about is spreading your descendants and culture. :P True but tricky. Your gene have been selected by this process. The genes build minds that (in the ancestral environment) had psychological traits for going to war when you could see that food was going to get short. Now genocidal warfare is utterly reprehensible, not to mention politically incorrect. How did that happen? My considered guess is that it is the result of a long period of *not* being short of food that allowed memes that genocide is not good to spread. Of course, we still have the trait. Consider Kosovo and Rwanda. And you have to wonder close to the surface the trait lies. Tangentially related are some of the premises of _Guns, Germs and Steel_ by Jared Diamond, which I recently finished reading (maybe there was already a discussion of this on the List, before my time?): that because of the paucity of suitable domesticable animals and plants (related to the extinction/extermination of many large mammals in the Americas, co-incident with the arrival of humans), there was a Spanish invasion of the Incan and Aztec empires, rather than a Mesoamerind invasion of Europe. In a nutshell, reliable food production and the exchange of plants/animals/techniques/ideas was more easily accomplished in Eurasia - as were diseases derived from domesticated animals - and much earlier, because of both the presence of suitable plants and animals in the ancient Fertile Crescent -> ability to support the rise of non-food-producing individuals/classes of people; the east-west axis orintation of the Eurasian continent (versus the geographical difficulties encountered in going frex from eastern North America to the Peruvian Andes) furthered this exchange. Later, memes of the fractionated and competing states (Europe) versus unified and monolithic one(s) (China) were permitted more expansion and diversity; frex Columbus was able to ask for backing from several states, whereas the order of one court stopped China's sea exploration. But I don't think that geography per se really explains the difference between mindsets, although I can see how it contributes. Culture, and all that it entails, seems too complex to me to be reduced to a matter of place and time. There is lots of chaos in the memetic world. Still, I enjoyed reading the book very much - I found the chapters on the Austronesian Expansion, Africa, and Polynesian cultures especially interesting. Here is one book review: http://dannyreviews.com/h/Guns_Germs_Steel.html Much of the same material is covered in Robert Wright's NonZero. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
At 08:43 AM 09/04/04 -02-30, you wrote: From: Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 20:12:43 -0400 We know that you don't get wars if economic disaster comes on too fast. So the impending economic disaster in Japan during WW2 was one that wasn't coming on too fast? I thought that was a contributing factor for Japan entering the war... The example I was thinking about was the Irish potato famine. The virus not only wiped out the potatoes in the field, but rotted the stored ones as well. Happened over a period of a few weeks. There were other factors, like they were so poor that a war would have been extremely hard to support. Two generations later they did revolt. It would be interesting to plot the economics leading up to that time. The time constant is based on how fast xenophobic meme can spread in a population. This can be very fast if the population is attacked, but much slower--on the scale of several months to a year--if they are just suffering an economic downturn. You could probably get confirmation of the time constant for memes to spread in a population by looking at the spread of fads. Of course, in a tribe of 100 people memes would spread to everyone and have effect in days to a few weeks. (Modern communication may shorten up the spreading time of a nation to be more like a tribe.) Perhaps as important as actual economic downturn is the perception that things are going to get bad in the not so distant future. I think that might have been the case in the South before the Civil War. Japan was already at war at the point they decided to attack the US so that might have shortened the process. Anyone know the time between when the US slapped economic sanctions on them and Dec. 7? I seem to remember that it was under a year. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html > > "The goal of research in evolutionary > psychology is to discover and > understand the design of the human mind > "In this view, the mind is a set of > information-processing machines > that were designed by natural selection to solve > adaptive problems faced by > our hunter-gatherer ancestors. This way of thinking > about the brain, mind, > and behavior is changing how scientists approach old > topics, and opening up new ones" > > > Incidentally, war may be highly non-adaptive for > technologies > > > higher than hunter gatherer. For example, > warfare in the > > > American Southwest starting about 1250 CE and > the response > > > the tribes made (moving into forts) was > incompatible with > > > their corn farming technology. This > incompatibility caused > > > continuing privation driven war. The result was > that most of > > > the population died out in a generation. It is > quite a > > > story. http://www.athenapub.com/8prewar.htm I think an argument can be made that - in terms of expansion of genes and memes - war _is_ adaptive when one culture is technologically more advanced than the other; the above is rather like the MAD scenario carried out with spears and clubs instead of nukes. By our standards today, genocidal warfare is utterly reprehensible, but it _is_ effective, if all you care about is spreading your descendants and culture. :P Tangentially related are some of the premises of _Guns, Germs and Steel_ by Jared Diamond, which I recently finished reading (maybe there was already a discussion of this on the List, before my time?): that because of the paucity of suitable domesticable animals and plants (related to the extinction/extermination of many large mammals in the Americas, co-incident with the arrival of humans), there was a Spanish invasion of the Incan and Aztec empires, rather than a Mesoamerind invasion of Europe. In a nutshell, reliable food production and the exchange of plants/animals/techniques/ideas was more easily accomplished in Eurasia - as were diseases derived from domesticated animals - and much earlier, because of both the presence of suitable plants and animals in the ancient Fertile Crescent -> ability to support the rise of non-food-producing individuals/classes of people; the east-west axis orintation of the Eurasian continent (versus the geographical difficulties encountered in going frex from eastern North America to the Peruvian Andes) furthered this exchange. Later, memes of the fractionated and competing states (Europe) versus unified and monolithic one(s) (China) were permitted more expansion and diversity; frex Columbus was able to ask for backing from several states, whereas the order of one court stopped China's sea exploration. But I don't think that geography per se really explains the difference between mindsets, although I can see how it contributes. Culture, and all that it entails, seems too complex to me to be reduced to a matter of place and time. Still, I enjoyed reading the book very much - I found the chapters on the Austronesian Expansion, Africa, and Polynesian cultures especially interesting. Here is one book review: http://dannyreviews.com/h/Guns_Germs_Steel.html Debbi No Blank Slates Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
From: Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 20:12:43 -0400 We know that you don't get wars if economic disaster comes on too fast. So the impending economic disaster in Japan during WW2 was one that wasn't coming on too fast? I thought that was a contributing factor for Japan entering the war... -Travis _ Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
At 02:31 PM 07/04/04 -0400, you wrote: Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote It's worst than that. The natives of Easter Island ... went at each other with rocks ... True, but that tells us nothing as to whether the capability of developing `xenophobic memes' comes as the result of greater genetic reproduction under some circumstances or comes as the result of something else. That's true. The model of evolutionary psychology (and for that matter, the rest of biology) is that any observed feature in a species is either the direct result of the feature being selected or it is a side effect of some feature that was selected. So the capacity for individuals to amplify xenophobic memes in some circumstances (which we know happens) is one other the other. Because such memes serve the function of synchronizing the warriors of a tribe to attack another tribe as a group and that group attacks are generally more successful than attacking one at a time, you would be led to suspect this feature was directly selected. This would be supported as direct selection if your model of one tribe attacking another led to the early and late attackers being killed more often than those in the main body of warriors. James Chowning Davies argues an association for wars, riots and other social disturbances with a downward deflection in economic (and other) progress after a run up. Christian Mesquida and Neil Wiener make the case that it is excessive numbers of young males--which is also associated with a population that has been growing faster then productivity. Right. But that still does not answer the question. All it tells us is that various old timers were right, such as those who wrote about the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise. The question is which explanation is better? I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. They have predicted (on the basis of excess young males) that China will be a source of wars. This is scary and I would very much like to see other arguments of this sort. But it has nothing to do with the question at hand. As for this other issue, whether there are reasonably good sociological predictors of future fighting, it interests me, but it is a separate question. Regarding this other issue, please tell us more about the time lags involved -- year, three years, seven years, a generation? -- and what makes up the perceived boundaries of the social group. We know that you don't get wars if economic disaster comes on too fast. The Irish potato famine is an example. A generation is too slow, though once xenophobic memes are strongly entrenched, they may persist for generations. (The resentment of the people who were under the Confederacy states is legendary. To some extent it persist to this day. Part of that may be because the states of the Confederacy took at least 100 years to catch up economically.) Given the time constants of how plants and animals that feed hunter gatherers grow, I would say the response from recognition that there are going to be problems feeding the tribe to warfare with nearby tribes is on the order of a few months. Farming may make this worse because after the harvest, the tribe *knows* how much they have to get them to the next harvest. It would be very interesting to try to reconstruct the course of the xenophobic memes that led up to the mass slaughter in Rwanda. I remember that my father recommended a book more than 35 years ago in which the author argued that unmet expectations are a cause of violence. For example, he claimed that before the French Revolution, life had been becoming better, but that improvement stopped. (I don't remember the time lag -- improvement may have stopped a half generation or even a full generation before the revolution.) What have you found? Incidentally, I did not write By the way, evolutionary psychology tries to account for human psychology traits that were adaptive for hunter gatherers. That quote is from someone else. (You probably did not intend to say `Chassell wrote:' and then the quote, but that is what the message claimed.) Sorry for the misatribution. That was mine. I know the goal; my question is not about the goal, but whether evolutionary psychology is providing a good explanation, or whether it is hokum? " . . . evolutionary psychology . . . . is a way of thinking about psychology that can be applied to any topic within it. In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. This way of thinking about the brain, mind, and behaviour is changing how scientists approach old topics, and opening up new ones." Leda Cosmides & John Tooby. (http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html) I find EP a remarkably powerful tool to guide model making. Modern behavior, for example, posting to a l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote It's worst than that. The natives of Easter Island ... went at each other with rocks ... True, but that tells us nothing as to whether the capability of developing `xenophobic memes' comes as the result of greater genetic reproduction under some circumstances or comes as the result of something else. James Chowning Davies argues an association for wars, riots and other social disturbances with a downward deflection in economic (and other) progress after a run up. Christian Mesquida and Neil Wiener make the case that it is excessive numbers of young males--which is also associated with a population that has been growing faster then productivity. Right. But that still does not answer the question. All it tells us is that various old timers were right, such as those who wrote about the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise. The question is which explanation is better? They have predicted (on the basis of excess young males) that China will be a source of wars. This is scary and I would very much like to see other arguments of this sort. But it has nothing to do with the question at hand. As for this other issue, whether there are reasonably good sociological predictors of future fighting, it interests me, but it is a separate question. Regarding this other issue, please tell us more about the time lags involved -- year, three years, seven years, a generation? -- and what makes up the perceived boundaries of the social group. I remember that my father recommended a book more than 35 years ago in which the author argued that unmet expectations are a cause of violence. For example, he claimed that before the French Revolution, life had been becoming better, but that improvement stopped. (I don't remember the time lag -- improvement may have stopped a half generation or even a full generation before the revolution.) What have you found? Incidentally, I did not write By the way, evolutionary psychology tries to account for human psychology traits that were adaptive for hunter gatherers. That quote is from someone else. (You probably did not intend to say `Chassell wrote:' and then the quote, but that is what the message claimed.) I know the goal; my question is not about the goal, but whether evolutionary psychology is providing a good explanation, or whether it is hokum? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises Since I am slowly updating it, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have written a "What's New" segment for http://www.rattlesnake.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
> to enable more spying ... in effect, to enable a few to be more > obvious about their xenophilia than before.) ^^ ... Did you mean "xenophobia" in those two places where you wrote "xenophilia"? No, I meant xenophilia: my question is whether, when you plan for war, spies and spying (by your side) becomes more acceptable? Keith suggested the `xenophobic memes' idea. Considering the same environment, I came up with two more, one of which is quite different from the first. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises Since I am slowly updating it, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have written a "What's New" segment for http://www.rattlesnake.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
At 05:01 PM 06/04/04 -0400, Robert J. Chassell wrote: snip By the way, evolutionary psychology tries to account for human psychology traits that were adaptive for hunter gatherers. These traits may map into modern conditions, but it's just happenstance. Some of them like capture-bonding--better known as Stockholm Syndrome--are rarely evoked in full form in the modern world (Thank goodness!). Wars between hunter gatherers didn't destroy a lot of built up capital investment because there just wasn't much. (Capital investment like water works makes large populations possible.) Since the income of large human populations depends on huge capital investment, a war which destroys a lot of the capital makes people poorer and over some range more likely to support wars. Eventually they get so poor that there are no resources that can be diverted to fighting and the war fades out. Talks about nasty disfunctional feedback loops! Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
At 05:01 PM 06/04/04 -0400, you wrote: Keith Henson wrote that times of trouble tend to make for a spread in xenophobic notions. He said that idea came from evolutionary psychology. Regarding evolutionary psychology, Gautam Mukunda wrote My problem ... It struck me as a "just so" story. This is true. I like the notion of `xenophobic memes' and even wrote an essay http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/xeno-savy.html "A pessimistic view of human nature argues that when times are bad, and they cannot migrate out of the situation, or fix it technologically, humans have a predisposition to lay blame on foreigners, and come to believe that the strangers ought be killed." It's worst than that. The natives of Easter Island were descended from perhaps 20 people who were lucky enough to have found the most isolated speck of land on earth. Over a few centuries they built up a population that some think was as high as 20,000 people (ten doublings) and devastated the environment. Prompted by privation/starvation they sorted themselves out into the long ears and the short ears and went at each other with rocks till the population was reduced to about a thousand. This happened substantially before western contact--which flattened what was left. "This view suggests that powerful contemporary societies in which people see themselves as losers, will become more and more xenophobic." There has been a historical association of the expansion of the neo-Nazi groups in the US with economic downturns. "This is an explanation both for some Moslem actions against the US and for the US response: in both societies, many perceive their hopes as different from what they expect. Times are perceived as bad." James Chowning Davies argues an association for wars, riots and other social disturbances with a downward deflection in economic (and other) progress after a run up. Christian Mesquida and Neil Wiener make the case that it is excessive numbers of young males--which is also associated with a population that has been growing faster then productivity. It is interesting that Mesquida and Wiener predicted (1997) on the basis of falling birth rates (fewer young men) that the troubles in Northern Ireland would come to an end. I am trying to get a copy of their paper to see if improving income per capita fits the data as well. They have predicted (on the basis of excess young males) that China will be a source of wars. If (as I argue) the dependency of war and other kinds of social disturbance is actually on income per capita taking a downturn then China will not start wars until/unless they get an economic depression. The current US is an odd case. While the income per capita has not taken an overall sharp drop, it has in some segments of the population, making those segments--if the theory holds water--more likely to support wars. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
"Robert J. Chassell" wrote: > (And I cam up with the notion that a society would permit those savy > men to find out more about the enemy, to enable more spying, so as to > be better able to kill them -- in effect, to enable a few to be more > obvious about their xenophilia than before.) ^^ > My question is whether evolutionary psychology provides good > explanations? It does provide a good source of hypothesises. No > doubt about that. > > But as for explanations: the issue between modular and general > capabilities is somewhat irrelevant, at least for me. (It is clear to > me that `spaghetti code' is less likely to work than modular code; and > I am willing to extend that idea from programs to brains.) > > One issue is whether one evolutionary explanation is more persuasive > than another, a second issue is whether evolutionary explanation are > more likely than others, and a third issue is whether capability is > inherited primarily through genetic or primarily through cultural > means? > > As an example, what about the hypothesis that xenophilia (among a few) ^^ > is triggered by bad times, on account it enables more effective > fighting and a greater likelihood of killing the others? Did you mean "xenophobia" in those two places where you wrote "xenophilia"? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
Keith Henson wrote that times of trouble tend to make for a spread in xenophobic notions. He said that idea came from evolutionary psychology. Regarding evolutionary psychology, Gautam Mukunda wrote My problem ... It struck me as a "just so" story. This is true. I like the notion of `xenophobic memes' and even wrote an essay http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/xeno-savy.html on it. (In that essay, I also write about the notion I came up with that in times of trouble, people would come increasingly to dislike `nice' but incompetent leaders, and be more likely to follow savy men; people would want to focus on winning, not just on `getting along'. (And I cam up with the notion that a society would permit those savy men to find out more about the enemy, to enable more spying, so as to be better able to kill them -- in effect, to enable a few to be more obvious about their xenophilia than before.) My question is whether evolutionary psychology provides good explanations? It does provide a good source of hypothesises. No doubt about that. But as for explanations: the issue between modular and general capabilities is somewhat irrelevant, at least for me. (It is clear to me that `spaghetti code' is less likely to work than modular code; and I am willing to extend that idea from programs to brains.) One issue is whether one evolutionary explanation is more persuasive than another, a second issue is whether evolutionary explanation are more likely than others, and a third issue is whether capability is inherited primarily through genetic or primarily through cultural means? As an example, what about the hypothesis that xenophilia (among a few) is triggered by bad times, on account it enables more effective fighting and a greater likelihood of killing the others? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises Since I am slowly updating it, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have written a "What's New" segment for http://www.rattlesnake.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
> From: Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > At 05:55 PM 03/04/04 -0600, The Fool wrote: > > > From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > snip > > > > So how does that square with the idease expressed > > > here? I'm not even sure, but evolutionary psychology > > > is a very, very, very thin reed on which to rest an argument. > > > >I tend to think extremism develops from out of control societal feedback > >loops, and that like any other parasitic disease extremism that's > >effective in some way is selected for. > > I think I would like to respond to this . . . . but I am not sure I have it > parsed right. > > Could you try again? > > It might help if you could tie it into the environment of evolutionary > adaption. I.e., when humans and their line lived as hunter gatherers. To put it simply: All living beings are a complex set of interconnected feed back loops. At the cellular level, at the Macro level, etc. Consider what happens when you cut yourself. A complex set of feedback loops control how the blood coagulates. Errors in these processes could cause you to bleed to death or cause _all_ of your blood to solidify killing you. Errors in some of these feedback circuits can cause diseases like cancers. All of society is intertwined web of feed back loops. Personal interactions, social interactions, Economic interactions, etc. are all feedback processes. Consider what would happen if all Americans stopped buying all the 'garbage' they buy and instead saved every dollar that wasn't spent on necessities. The Economy would collapse. It's all interrelated. Everything you do has an effect on everyone else, including yourself. It's all about chaos theory and 'the butterfly effect'. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
At 05:55 PM 03/04/04 -0600, The Fool wrote: > From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> snip > So how does that square with the idease expressed > here? I'm not even sure, but evolutionary psychology > is a very, very, very thin reed on which to rest an argument. I tend to think extremism develops from out of control societal feedback loops, and that like any other parasitic disease extremism that's effective in some way is selected for. I think I would like to respond to this . . . . but I am not sure I have it parsed right. Could you try again? It might help if you could tie it into the environment of evolutionary adaption. I.e., when humans and their line lived as hunter gatherers. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
> From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I tend to doubt very many Brin-Lers--other than > > certain Trolls--had > > difficulty understanding you. > > I did, actually, and I have an extensive background in > evolutionary psych. > > My problem with it - from what I did understand - is > the problem shared with most evolutionary psychology. > It struck me as a "just so" story. I never said it was correct. Just understandable. > So how does that square with the idease expressed > here? I'm not even sure, but evolutionary psychology > is a very, very, very thin reed on which to rest an argument. I tend to think extremism develops from out of control societal feedback loops, and that like any other parasitic disease extremism that's effective in some way is selected for. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
At 06:46 AM 03/04/04 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I tend to doubt very many Brin-Lers--other than > certain Trolls--had > difficulty understanding you. I did, actually, and I have an extensive background in evolutionary psych. My problem with it - from what I did understand - is the problem shared with most evolutionary psychology. It struck me as a "just so" story. That's a persistent problem with both evolutionary psychology and evolution itself. But it should not be a strike against an idea just because it seems obvious after being stated. For evolution as well as evolutionary psychology the background assumption is that for every living thing all physical and behavioral features are either the result of direct selection or they are byproducts (spandrels) of features that were under direct selection. This includes such weird corner cases as "junk" DNA. If you wanted to come up with the exact opposite explanation, you could come up with an equally plausible evolutionary background to explain it. I have heard this proposed before, but have never seen an example of two equally plausible evolutionary cases. If you can think of one or have a pointer, I would appreciate it. What you need is some empirical validation of the ideas. For example - does terrorism actually happen because of economic pressures? Well, there's some pretty good evidence (first explored 30 years ago by Sam Huntington in his "J-Curve" theory of terrorism during modernization) that terrorist movements most often occur after prolonged periods of economic _growth_, not scarcity, usually when that prolonged growth has slowed down. Very poor societies rarely produce terorrist movements, and the poor people in any society are almost never terrorists. Terrorists are, almost universally, the educated upper-middle class. So Sam argued that terrorism is actually a product of a difference between expectations and achievment of economic development, not scarcity. So how does that square with the ideas expressed here? With appropriate mapping from modern conditions into the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness, it provides strong support. I'm not even sure, but evolutionary psychology is a very, very, very thin reed on which to rest an argument. On the contrary, evolutionary psychology is the only solid rock we have to build arguments about behavior. We obviously can't have a specific evolved psychological trait to crash aircraft into buildings or even one for modern terrorism--the time scale is wrong, in fact, the time scale since the beginning of agriculture isn't enough to have noticeable effect on gene frequencies. (With exceptions for alcohol resistance and "thrifty genes.") So terrorists behavior and even them coming from "educated upper-middle class" have to be the consequences of direct selection or byproducts of direct selection for psychological traits that happened over appropriate time scales. "Appropriate time scale" would be the time when our ancestors were living at the ecological limit as hunter gatherers in small tribes--upwards of a million years. With me so far? Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I tend to doubt very many Brin-Lers--other than > certain Trolls--had > difficulty understanding you. I did, actually, and I have an extensive background in evolutionary psych. My problem with it - from what I did understand - is the problem shared with most evolutionary psychology. It struck me as a "just so" story. If you wanted to come up with the exact opposite explanation, you could come up with an equally plausible evolutionary background to explain it. What you need is some empirical validation of the ideas. For example - does terrorism actually happen because of economic pressures? Well, there's some pretty good evidence (first explored 30 years ago by Sam Huntington in his "J-Curve" theory of terrorism during modernization) that terrorist movements most often occur after prolonged periods of economic _growth_, not scarcity, usually when that prolonged growth has slowed down. Very poor societies rarely produce terorrist movements, and the poor people in any society are almost never terrorists. Terrorists are, almost universally, the educated upper-middle class. So Sam argued that terrorism is actually a product of a difference between expectations and achievment of economic development, not scarcity. So how does that square with the idease expressed here? I'm not even sure, but evolutionary psychology is a very, very, very thin reed on which to rest an argument. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
> From: Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > At 05:26 PM 02/04/04 -0800, you wrote: > >I know what a meme is. I meant I couldn't understand what you were saying. > > It would be hard to understand if you are not up on evolutionary psychology. I tend to doubt very many Brin-Lers--other than certain Trolls--had difficulty understanding you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
At 05:26 PM 02/04/04 -0800, you wrote: I know what a meme is. I meant I couldn't understand what you were saying. It would be hard to understand if you are not up on evolutionary psychology. http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html "The goal of research in evolutionary psychology is to discover and understand the design of the human mind. Evolutionary psychology is an approach to psychology, in which knowledge and principles from evolutionary biology are put to use in research on the structure of the human mind. It is not an area of study, like vision, reasoning, or social behavior. It is a way of thinking about psychology that can be applied to any topic within it. "In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. This way of thinking about the brain, mind, and behavior is changing how scientists approach old topics, and opening up new ones." Did the expansion below help? You are welcome to ask questions, people on other lists have discussed this till it became clear to them. Keith Henson > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 6:12 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror > > At 11:33 PM 01/04/04 -0800, Mike Lee wrote: > > >Note to Keith: saying "meme" a lot doesn't make you intelligible. > > Sorry. I didn't realize the term was unfamiliar within this group. > > A meme is an element of culture, a replicating information > pattern affecting behavior. There are many other related > definitions that are also ok as long as you get the idea of a > spreading idea over. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics > > I wrote one of the earliest popular articles on memes > "MEMETICS AND THE MODULAR-MIND" in Analog (1987). > > http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=hkhensonE5ozq9.K8x%40netco m.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain > > It was reprinted in Whole Earth Review and that version is > webbed here: > > http://www.nancho.net/memes/infoviru.html > > "The entire topic would be academic except that there > are two levels of evolution (genes and memes) involved and > the memetic level is only loosely coupled to the genetic. > Memes which override genetic survival, such as those which > induce young Lebanese Shiites to blow themselves "into the > next world" from the front seat of a truck loaded with high > explosives, or induce untrained Iranians to volunteer to > charge Iraqi machine guns, or the WWII Kamikaze "social > movement" in Japan are all too well known. I have proposed > the term "memeoid" for people whose behavior is so strongly > influenced by a replicating information pattern (meme) that > their survival becomes inconsequential in their own minds." > > 18 years later and in view of the rich developments in > evolutionary psychology, I now think that the particular > class of xenophobic memes that drives tribes (or nations) > into wars is *tightly coupled* to genes. > > War was an adaptive response of genes to overpopulation and > periodic privation/starvation during the vast majority of our > evolution when we lived as hunter gatherers. For details of > my horrified thoughts on this subject you can put "xenophobic > memes" (with quotes) in Google. I am almost the only one > using that term. > > Incidentally, war may be highly non-adaptive for technologies > higher than hunter gatherer. For example, warfare in the > American Southwest starting about 1250 CE and the response > the tribes made (moving into forts) was incompatible with > their corn farming technology. This incompatibility caused > continuing privation driven war. The result was that most of > the population died out in a generation. It is quite a > story. http://www.athenapub.com/8prewar.htm > > Easter Island is another spectacular example of humans > switching into war mode. In that case, war and starvation > reduced the population to perhaps 1000 people from a peak > that might have been up to 20,000. At the much lower > population level the environment was able to recover somewhat > and with the rise in per capita income (mostly food) warfare > switched off. > > It is unnerving to discover what looks like an airtight > evolutionary psychology based argument that humans have > conditionally activated psychological traits that (among > other things) massively impair rational thinking. This is > because genes that turned off rational thinking in some > circumstances did better over the lo
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
> From: Mike Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I know what a meme is. I meant I couldn't understand what you were saying. In the past you've claimed to be more intelligent. The truth now emerges... - "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." - Voltaire ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
Rules are made to be broken. Intelligently. I top post only when the original message or thread is short or the top posting makes it more readable and obvious. Both were true in this case. But thanks for being officious. Oh, and I top post in one other case. But you've probably already guessed what that is, so I don't need to tell you. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William T Goodall > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 5:49 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror > > > On 3 Apr 2004, at 2:26 am, Mike Lee wrote: > > > I know what a meme is. I meant I couldn't understand what you were > > saying. > > Nothing wrong with being stupid. Most people are. But > top-posting is a no-no on this list. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
The Fool wrote: > > > From: Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > At 11:33 PM 01/04/04 -0800, Mike Lee wrote: > > > > >Note to Keith: saying "meme" a lot doesn't make you intelligible. > > > > Sorry. I didn't realize the term was unfamiliar within this group. > > Mr. Lee is a Troll. Apparently you have been trolled. And him not even a Billy Goat Gruff. What *is* the world coming to? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
On 3 Apr 2004, at 2:26 am, Mike Lee wrote: I know what a meme is. I meant I couldn't understand what you were saying. Nothing wrong with being stupid. Most people are. But top-posting is a no-no on this list. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who study history are doomed to repeat it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
I know what a meme is. I meant I couldn't understand what you were saying. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 6:12 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror > > At 11:33 PM 01/04/04 -0800, Mike Lee wrote: > > >Note to Keith: saying "meme" a lot doesn't make you intelligible. > > Sorry. I didn't realize the term was unfamiliar within this group. > > A meme is an element of culture, a replicating information > pattern affecting behavior. There are many other related > definitions that are also ok as long as you get the idea of a > spreading idea over. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics > > I wrote one of the earliest popular articles on memes > "MEMETICS AND THE MODULAR-MIND" in Analog (1987). > > http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=hkhensonE5ozq9.K8x%40netco m.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain > > It was reprinted in Whole Earth Review and that version is > webbed here: > > http://www.nancho.net/memes/infoviru.html > > "The entire topic would be academic except that there > are two levels of evolution (genes and memes) involved and > the memetic level is only loosely coupled to the genetic. > Memes which override genetic survival, such as those which > induce young Lebanese Shiites to blow themselves "into the > next world" from the front seat of a truck loaded with high > explosives, or induce untrained Iranians to volunteer to > charge Iraqi machine guns, or the WWII Kamikaze "social > movement" in Japan are all too well known. I have proposed > the term "memeoid" for people whose behavior is so strongly > influenced by a replicating information pattern (meme) that > their survival becomes inconsequential in their own minds." > > 18 years later and in view of the rich developments in > evolutionary psychology, I now think that the particular > class of xenophobic memes that drives tribes (or nations) > into wars is *tightly coupled* to genes. > > War was an adaptive response of genes to overpopulation and > periodic privation/starvation during the vast majority of our > evolution when we lived as hunter gatherers. For details of > my horrified thoughts on this subject you can put "xenophobic > memes" (with quotes) in Google. I am almost the only one > using that term. > > Incidentally, war may be highly non-adaptive for technologies > higher than hunter gatherer. For example, warfare in the > American Southwest starting about 1250 CE and the response > the tribes made (moving into forts) was incompatible with > their corn farming technology. This incompatibility caused > continuing privation driven war. The result was that most of > the population died out in a generation. It is quite a > story. http://www.athenapub.com/8prewar.htm > > Easter Island is another spectacular example of humans > switching into war mode. In that case, war and starvation > reduced the population to perhaps 1000 people from a peak > that might have been up to 20,000. At the much lower > population level the environment was able to recover somewhat > and with the rise in per capita income (mostly food) warfare > switched off. > > It is unnerving to discover what looks like an airtight > evolutionary psychology based argument that humans have > conditionally activated psychological traits that (among > other things) massively impair rational thinking. This is > because genes that turned off rational thinking in some > circumstances did better over the long haul. > > If you can find a flaw in my reasoning on this subject, I > would be very interested in hearing about it. > > Keith Henson > > (from the above URL) > > From AD 1150 to 1250, communities became more defensive in > location and construction, incidents of violence increased, > and the new social system disintegrated. The Late Period (AD > 1250 to Spanish Contact) is described by LeBlanc as a time of > "crisis and catastrophe." Within 50 years the entire > population of the Colorado Plateau moved into approximately > 100 very large communities constructed in clusters of 2 to 18 > pueblos. Many were built with line-of-sight communication in > mind. Over time the communities declined in size and most of > them were completely abandoned. Finally, the entire Colorado > Plateau was reduced to 3 clusters of sites: Acoma, Hopi, and > Zuni. At the time of Spanish Contact, Acoma consisted of a > single pueblo and Hopi and Zuni both had be
RE: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
> Question to Mike: do you really mean "intelligible," or did > you mean "intelligent?" I meant intelligible, in a somewhat metaphoric sense. For example, someone might be said to be unintelligibly muttering. Or a schizophrenic might be unintelligibly ranting. I was referring more to the latter sense of the word. > like "meme," but "intelligible?" In my experience, people > don't go around trying to make themselves sound more > "intelligible," except for the fine folks I've worked with in > radio and video who do voice-overs, where being > "intelligible" is stock in trade. In my experience, people who are trying to sound more intelligent frequently succeed only in being more unintelligible. BTW, according to Encarta, intelligible inÂtelÂliÂgiÂble [in tÃllijÉbâl] adj 1. understandable: capable of being understood his ideas were barely intelligible <---this is sorta kinda the thing I was getting at. 2. philosophy understandable by the mind alone: perceptible only by the mind, not the senses [14th century. Via Old French from Latin intelligibilis , from intellegere âto perceiveâ (see intelligent).] -inÂtelÂliÂgiÂbilÂiÂty [in tÃllijÉ bÃllÉtee], n -inÂtelÂliÂgiÂbleÂness [in tÃllijÉbâlnÉss], n -inÂtelÂliÂgiÂbly, adv Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2003.  1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. So, given all the above, I'd say your objections are perfectly intelligible, but somewhat incoherent. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
Takes one to know one. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Fool > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 3:19 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror > > > From: Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > At 11:33 PM 01/04/04 -0800, Mike Lee wrote: > > > > >Note to Keith: saying "meme" a lot doesn't make you intelligible. > > > > Sorry. I didn't realize the term was unfamiliar within this group. > > Mr. Lee is a Troll. Apparently you have been trolled. > > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:47 AM Subject: Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror > Mike Lee wrote: > > > Note to Keith: saying "meme" a lot doesn't make you intelligible. > > Question to Mike: do you really mean "intelligible," or did you mean > "intelligent?" I don't want to assume that this was a "Bushism," (as in > "functionable" for "functional") but, I don't really understand your > criticism. Then again, it wasn't aimed at me, it was aimed at Keith. > > I can imagine that one might want to take someone to task for trying to > sound "intelligent" by using a slightly arcane word like "meme," but > "intelligible?" In my experience, people don't go around trying to make > themselves sound more "intelligible," except for the fine folks I've > worked with in radio and video who do voice-overs, where being > "intelligible" is stock in trade. > > And no, I don't have hard data to back up "my experience." :-) > I wouldn't call the word "meme" arcane at all. We have been using it here for quite a few years. After all, Dr. Brin is quite conversant about the spread of memes. xponent Meme Memo Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Meta Level (was Winning the War on Terror)
At 02:32 PM 02/04/04 -0800, you wrote: > Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote one of the earliest popular articles on > memes "MEMETICS AND THE MODULAR-MIND" in Analog >(1987). snip I put the pointers up for historical context. light. Even if they were harmful when they started, the ones that survive over generations evolve and do not cause too much damage to their hosts. Calvin (who had dozens of people executed over theological disputes) would hardly recognize Presbyterians three hundred years later." I think of memes like the Golden Rule as beneficial symbionts, although in the strictly biological sense they tend to benefit others, rather than those who express the Rule in action. Originally, or at least by the time it was probably incorporated into our genes, altruism likely did benefit continuation of the expressor's genes, in the survival of relatives. There is a very dark side to Hamilton's inclusive fitness. In the Pleistocene genes conditionally inducing irrational behavior that would get you killed became common this way. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
> From: Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > At 11:33 PM 01/04/04 -0800, Mike Lee wrote: > > >Note to Keith: saying "meme" a lot doesn't make you intelligible. > > Sorry. I didn't realize the term was unfamiliar within this group. Mr. Lee is a Troll. Apparently you have been trolled. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Meta Level (was Winning the War on Terror)
> Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote one of the earliest popular articles on > memes "MEMETICS AND THE MODULAR-MIND" in Analog >(1987). > > http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=hkhensonE5ozq9.K8x%40netcom.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain "History classes have made us more aware of the genocidal depredations resulting from the "master race" meme that was part of the Nazi meme complex. Considered from the viewpoint of memes, Hitler was less a prime mover than a willing victim of this particularly nasty and pervasive variety of information disease. Had plague struck Germany in the '30s instead of Nazism, we would have understood it in terms of susceptibility, vectors, and disease organisms. What did happen may soon be modeled and understood in terms of the social and economic disruptions of the time increasing the number of people susceptible to fanatical beliefs, just as poor diet is known to increase the number of those susceptible to tuberculosis. For vectors, we have personal contact, the written word, radio, and amplified voices substituting for rats, lice, mosquitoes, and coughed-out droplets. A pool of "sub-memes," many of them ancient myth, contributed to the syncretic Nazi meme in much the same way mobile genes contribute to the virulence of the influenza viruses." The "ancient myth," or Golden Age era for which many yearn (the "Look-Back"-ers, per Himself), certainly can induce mass horrors, as you point out; the "Look-Forward"s seem to be more hopeful to me. But were the social revolutionaries like Marx etc. looking more forward or backward? [My knowledge of these movements is at best sketchy. They seem to be Looking Up A Dark Tunnel, to me.] Militant fundamentalists of all religions/ideologies fall into the Look-Back camp; their fear of new ideas and independent thinking seems to lead them to violence or authoritarian policies to control people. Or attempt to control, anyway. "However, most memes, like most microorganisms, are either helpful or at least harmless. Some may even provide a certain amount of defense from the very harmful ones. It is the natural progression of parasites to become symbiotes, and the first symbiotic behavior that emerges in a proto-symbiote is for it to start protecting its host from other parasites. I have come to appreciate the common religions in this light. Even if they were harmful when they started, the ones that survive over generations evolve and do not cause too much damage to their hosts. Calvin (who had dozens of people executed over theological disputes) would hardly recognize Presbyterians three hundred years later." I think of memes like the Golden Rule as beneficial symbionts, although in the strictly biological sense they tend to benefit others, rather than those who express the Rule in action. Originally, or at least by the time it was probably incorporated into our genes, altruism likely did benefit continuation of the expressor's genes, in the survival of relatives. "Sheer exhaustion may have been one of the most significant factors in developing a grudging tolerance, which in these later times has taken on a patina of virtue in the division of our culture known as "liberal."" Exhaustion as a virtue! What then of its offspring, Indifference? It's not nearly as self-congratulatory to think that tolerance sprang from mere fatigue, instead of as a lofty Higher Ideal achieved through Noble Thought and Sacrifice... Debbi who carries both the Look-Back (frex Tolkien's Lothlorien) and Look-Forward (frex Star Trek's Federation) memes, somehow managing to co-exist ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
Mike Lee wrote: Note to Keith: saying "meme" a lot doesn't make you intelligible. Question to Mike: do you really mean "intelligible," or did you mean "intelligent?" I don't want to assume that this was a "Bushism," (as in "functionable" for "functional") but, I don't really understand your criticism. Then again, it wasn't aimed at me, it was aimed at Keith. I can imagine that one might want to take someone to task for trying to sound "intelligent" by using a slightly arcane word like "meme," but "intelligible?" In my experience, people don't go around trying to make themselves sound more "intelligible," except for the fine folks I've worked with in radio and video who do voice-overs, where being "intelligible" is stock in trade. And no, I don't have hard data to back up "my experience." :-) Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
At 11:33 PM 01/04/04 -0800, Mike Lee wrote: Note to Keith: saying "meme" a lot doesn't make you intelligible. Sorry. I didn't realize the term was unfamiliar within this group. A meme is an element of culture, a replicating information pattern affecting behavior. There are many other related definitions that are also ok as long as you get the idea of a spreading idea over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics I wrote one of the earliest popular articles on memes "MEMETICS AND THE MODULAR-MIND" in Analog (1987). http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=hkhensonE5ozq9.K8x%40netcom.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain It was reprinted in Whole Earth Review and that version is webbed here: http://www.nancho.net/memes/infoviru.html "The entire topic would be academic except that there are two levels of evolution (genes and memes) involved and the memetic level is only loosely coupled to the genetic. Memes which override genetic survival, such as those which induce young Lebanese Shiites to blow themselves "into the next world" from the front seat of a truck loaded with high explosives, or induce untrained Iranians to volunteer to charge Iraqi machine guns, or the WWII Kamikaze "social movement" in Japan are all too well known. I have proposed the term "memeoid" for people whose behavior is so strongly influenced by a replicating information pattern (meme) that their survival becomes inconsequential in their own minds." 18 years later and in view of the rich developments in evolutionary psychology, I now think that the particular class of xenophobic memes that drives tribes (or nations) into wars is *tightly coupled* to genes. War was an adaptive response of genes to overpopulation and periodic privation/starvation during the vast majority of our evolution when we lived as hunter gatherers. For details of my horrified thoughts on this subject you can put "xenophobic memes" (with quotes) in Google. I am almost the only one using that term. Incidentally, war may be highly non-adaptive for technologies higher than hunter gatherer. For example, warfare in the American Southwest starting about 1250 CE and the response the tribes made (moving into forts) was incompatible with their corn farming technology. This incompatibility caused continuing privation driven war. The result was that most of the population died out in a generation. It is quite a story. http://www.athenapub.com/8prewar.htm Easter Island is another spectacular example of humans switching into war mode. In that case, war and starvation reduced the population to perhaps 1000 people from a peak that might have been up to 20,000. At the much lower population level the environment was able to recover somewhat and with the rise in per capita income (mostly food) warfare switched off. It is unnerving to discover what looks like an airtight evolutionary psychology based argument that humans have conditionally activated psychological traits that (among other things) massively impair rational thinking. This is because genes that turned off rational thinking in some circumstances did better over the long haul. If you can find a flaw in my reasoning on this subject, I would be very interested in hearing about it. Keith Henson (from the above URL) From AD 1150 to 1250, communities became more defensive in location and construction, incidents of violence increased, and the new social system disintegrated. The Late Period (AD 1250 to Spanish Contact) is described by LeBlanc as a time of "crisis and catastrophe." Within 50 years the entire population of the Colorado Plateau moved into approximately 100 very large communities constructed in clusters of 2 to 18 pueblos. Many were built with line-of-sight communication in mind. Over time the communities declined in size and most of them were completely abandoned. Finally, the entire Colorado Plateau was reduced to 3 clusters of sites: Acoma, Hopi, and Zuni. At the time of Spanish Contact, Acoma consisted of a single pueblo and Hopi and Zuni both had been reduced to 6 or 7 pueblos each. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:13 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror > > At 03:34 PM 30/03/04 -0800, you wrote: > > > > The truth is that sufficient violence ends violence. > > > > > > That is true enough. But that only works when you can seal the > > > outlines of the geographical area and flood the same with your > > > troops. > > > >It also works if you are violent enough to convince the rest of them > >they need to knock if off or they're next. Remember, we > don't want to > >occupy and control these countr
RE: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
Note to Keith: saying "meme" a lot doesn't make you intelligible. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:13 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror > > At 03:34 PM 30/03/04 -0800, you wrote: > > > > The truth is that sufficient violence ends violence. > > > > > > That is true enough. But that only works when you can seal the > > > outlines of the geographical area and flood the same with your > > > troops. > > > >It also works if you are violent enough to convince the rest of them > >they need to knock if off or they're next. Remember, we > don't want to > >occupy and control these countries. And the violence we've already > >visited on them has made a few of them blink (like Qaddafi Duck). > > > > > > I prefer to give them a memory of a mushroom cloud over Medina > > > > that will make them remember that they shouldn't fuck > with the adults. > > Quick comment on Mike's postings and related material such as > America the Theocracy. > > This spread of xenophobic memes such as Mike advances is to > be expected for both being attacked and widespread belief in > a tribe substitute (nation) that the future is bleak. The > US's economic situation--converting to a third world income > distribution--is such that a huge number of people in the US > have seen their incomes fall. > > If I am right about the way human psychological traits map > from the tribal days, this is one of the two things that > increase the circulation of > xenophobic memes. The other one is being attacked. The > evolved purpose > of spreading xenophobic memes was to sync a tribe's warriors > up to attack. > > If the build up of xenophobic memes continues long enough, > the US will see massive public support for attacks that will > kill millions, perhaps hundreds of millions. Hunter gatherer > tribes would sometimes kill everyone in an attacking tribe > though they usually just killed the males. > > Will it go that far? It's hard to say, it certainly did in Rwanda. > > Keith Henson > > > > > > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Meta Level was Winning the War on Terror
At 03:34 PM 30/03/04 -0800, you wrote: > > The truth is that sufficient violence ends violence. > > That is true enough. But that only works when you can seal > the outlines of the geographical area and flood the same with > your troops. It also works if you are violent enough to convince the rest of them they need to knock if off or they're next. Remember, we don't want to occupy and control these countries. And the violence we've already visited on them has made a few of them blink (like Qaddafi Duck). > > I prefer to give them a memory of a mushroom cloud over Medina that > > will make them remember that they shouldn't fuck with the adults. Quick comment on Mike's postings and related material such as America the Theocracy. This spread of xenophobic memes such as Mike advances is to be expected for both being attacked and widespread belief in a tribe substitute (nation) that the future is bleak. The US's economic situation--converting to a third world income distribution--is such that a huge number of people in the US have seen their incomes fall. If I am right about the way human psychological traits map from the tribal days, this is one of the two things that increase the circulation of xenophobic memes. The other one is being attacked. The evolved purpose of spreading xenophobic memes was to sync a tribe's warriors up to attack. If the build up of xenophobic memes continues long enough, the US will see massive public support for attacks that will kill millions, perhaps hundreds of millions. Hunter gatherer tribes would sometimes kill everyone in an attacking tribe though they usually just killed the males. Will it go that far? It's hard to say, it certainly did in Rwanda. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
