Memetics

1 Innovation diffusion theory

Models such as the Bass diffusion model impose an epidemiological structure on the contagion of products, with a survival analysis flavour. See innovation diffusion.

2 Invasive arguments

In ecology, we have invasive species. In rhetoric, we have invasive arguments. I am collecting a library of these.

3 Belief

Is belief related to true states of the world, or is it a pure signifier of group membership, or something else again? Surely belief is a complicated phenomenon, but working out what aggregate of causes underlies any given belief is difficult for us for any given instance. The experience of having a belief is the same, as seen from inside our skulls regardless of what causes it.

4 Elite capture

See collective action.

5 Girardian mimetic violence

That’s mimetic not memetic, although there are points of contact. Girard apparently wrote about our desires being often about being something rather than having something. Alex Danco summarizes a few choice morsels:

at a deep neurological level, when we watch other people and pattern our desires off theirs, we are not so much acquiring a desire for that object so much as learning to mimic somebody, and striving to become them or become like them. Girard calls this phenomenon mimetic desire. We don’t want; we want to be.

I do not know what neurological level he is attempting to evoke. Perhaps some of that mirror neuron business. In any case, needs work, citation required.

Modern status forums like Instagram are designed explicitly to bring out this dual admiration/resentment emotion within us. Instagram’s real product isn’t photos; it’s likes. The photos and the events they depict are just the transient objects that bubble up to the surface; what really matters is the relationship between the people. But the fact that Instagram’s product is built around the objects and not the models isn’t an accident: it’s sneaky. It creates way more space and oxygen for resentment and desperation to grow beneath the surface. It’s not about the photo or what it depicts; it’s always about the other person.

Or see Byrne Hobart again:

We’re used to thinking of desire as something that emerges organically: you want something, and you try to get it. Sometimes, it’s easy; sometimes, there’s competition.

To Girard, that’s all wrong: you want something because of competition. Success is just a story you tell yourself about your desire for your rivals to fail.

6 Stand alone complex

Stand Alone Complex is a handy word in this domain.

A ‘Stand Alone Complex’ can be compared to the copycat behaviour that often occurs after incidents such as serial murders or terrorist attacks. An incident catches the public’s attention and certain types of people “get on the bandwagon”[…] It is particularly apparent when the incident appears to be the result of well-known political or religious beliefs, but it can also occur in response to intense media attention. For example, a mere fire, no matter the number of deaths, is just a garden variety tragedy. However, if the right kind of people begin to believe it was arson, caused by deliberate action, the threat increases drastically that more arsons will be committed.

What separates the ‘Stand Alone Complex’ from normal copycat behaviour is that the originator of the copied action is not even a real person, but merely a rumoured figure that commits said action. Even without instruction or leadership a certain type of person will spring into action to imitate the rumoured action and move toward the same goal even if only subconsciously.>The result is an epidemic of copied behaviour—with no originator. One could say that the Stand Alone Complex is mass hysteria-with purpose.

Directed use of this I have seen referred to as stochastic terrorism, as covered in economics of insurgence.

7 Hybrid social-pathogenic contagion

TBD. I think Peter Watts wrote a science fiction story about this. More contemporary, the question of what the effect of socially-transmitted beliefs about disease does to socially-transmitted disease. If the anti-vaxxers tend to know each other and meet up, what does this do for broader social immunity?

8 Hyperselection of transmissible beliefs

Yudkowsky’s memetic collapse post:

I’ve had the sense before that the Internet is turning our society stupider and meaner. My primary hypothesis is “The Internet is selecting harder on a larger population of ideas, and sanity falls off the selective frontier once you select hard enough”.

To review, there’s a general idea that strong (social) selection on a characteristic imperfectly correlated with some other metric of goodness can be bad for that metric, where weak (social) selection on that characteristic was good. If you press scientists a little for publishable work, they might do science that’s of greater interest to others. If you select very harshly on publication records, the academics spend all their time worrying about publishing and real science falls by the wayside. On my feed yesterday was an essay complaining about how the intense competition to get into Harvard is producing a monoculture of students who’ve lined up every single standard accomplishment and how these students don’t know anything else they want to do with their lives. Gentle, soft competition on a few accomplishments might select genuinely stronger students; hypercompetition for the appearance of strength produces weakness, or just emptiness.

A hypothesis I find plausible is that the Internet, and maybe television before it, selected much more harshly from a much wider field of memes; and also allowed tailoring content more narrowly to narrower audiences. The Internet is making it possible for ideas that are optimised to appeal hedonically-virally within a filter bubble to outcompete ideas that have been even slightly optimised for anything else. We’re looking at a collapse of reference to expertise because deferring to expertise costs a couple of hedons compared to being told that all your intuitions are perfectly right, and at the harsh selective frontier there’s no room for that. We’re looking at a collapse of interaction between bubbles because there used to be just a few newspapers serving all the bubbles; and now that the bubbles have separated there’s little incentive to show people how to be fair in their judgment of ideas for other bubbles, it’s not the most appealing Tumblr content. Print magazines in the 1950s were hardly perfect, but they could get away with sometimes presenting complicated issues as complicated, because there weren’t a hundred blogs saying otherwise and stealing their clicks. Or at least, that’s the hypothesis.

This kind of trap sounds like Moloch.

9 Pluralistic ignorance

A classic stylised phenomenon. See pluralistic ignorance.

10 Sidebar: cargo cults

Worth mentioning because the metaphor is powerful and we humans are all indebted to early 20th century pacific islanders for demonstrating something about us humans so photogenically for us all.

🚧TODO🚧 clarify

• Vlad Sokhin, Cargo Cults of Melanesia
• Paul Raffaele’s piece is a basic tourism narrative but has lots of local detail of one contemporary cargo cults:In John They Trust
• Richard Feynman in Cargo Cult Science gave the term some of its modern implication

11 Incoming links

YY Ahn

Giulio Rossetti, author of various network analysis libraries such as dynetx and ndlib.

Francesco Bonchi

Sune Lehmann

Clara Vandeweerdt

I work on public opinion, media and climate politics. My latest paper talks about how reporting on events looks very different depending on the ideological colour of the media outlet.

Writ large, Everything is Obvious (once you know the answer) is Duncan Watts’ laundry list of examples of how all our intuitions about how society works are self-justifying guesses divorced from evidence, except for his, because Yahoo let him build his own experimental online social networks.

• Contagion and self-fulfilling dynamics
• Minimum viable superorganism is a famed introduction to the prestige economy.

Via Byrne Hobart, Odlyzko and Tilly (2005):

This note presents several quantitative arguments that suggest the value of a general communication network of size $n$ grows like $n\log (n)$. This growth rate is faster than the linear growth, of order $n$, that, according to Sarnoff’s Law, governs the value of a broadcast network. On the other hand, it is much slower than the quadratic growth of Metcalfe’s Law and helps explain the failure of the dot-com and telecom booms, as well as why network interconnection (such as peering on the Internet) remains a controversial issue.

• Memetic downside risks: How ideas can evolve and cause harm

12 References