放縱瘋狂的結 (wire_mother) wrote in eumemics,

Strengthening ideas

i've noted that there are several techniques (paradigms, systems, what have you) which propose to increase the force with which a meme impacts upon a given mental landscape. the ones which come immediately to mind include nlp, magick, propaganda, advertising techniques, and conditioning (aka "brainwashing"). most seem to operate by introducing disorientation to the processes which censor incoming information content, though each technique (in general) makes use of a different specific method to create that disorientation (eg propaganda attempts to link the new meme to sacrosanct prexisting memes such as "patriotism"; advertising typically relies on linking the meme to reproductive urges or other reptile-brain processes; conditioning uses an array of techniques from physical exhaustion to exploiting the social instinct). if a memeplex is structured around these "backdoor" techniques, and is also structured to incline the new mental landscape to attempt to retransmit the memeplex, this is a viral idea, a language virus. imagine, for instance, if Coca-Cola could include in its sloganeering the idea that, not only should one think that "Coke adds life", but that one should also convince others of that fact.

founding a religion is a good job, if you can stomach it. good hours, and the pay is great. however, it is a little bit difficult now, due to protective memes (for instance, the concept of "killer cults") which have arisen in the general population, restricting religions to those which either 1) pre-exist, or 2) can be tied to pre-existing religions. witness, for instance, all the hassles that the raelians are getting.

motivational speakers, though, are unaffected by religious xenophobia, but share many of the same characteristics discussed above (such as: those who are "motivated" by the speaker will also typically transmit invitations to friends and acquaintances to listen to the motivational speaker's message).

i think memetics, as a science, also needs to look at biophysical influences of memetic transmission. when a given mental landscape is affected by fatigue or chemical imbalance, the ability of a given meme to have an impact, even a lasting impact, is much greater. if accompanied by repetitive drumbeats, a given memetic packet tends to lodge more easily in a typical mental landscape (see William Sargant Battle for the Mind, among others).

just some random notes passing through my own mental landscape...
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

I think that most of the methods that you list for increasing the effectiveness of a meme fall under induction of a trance state of varying degrees. A good stage hypnosis book can list hundreds of ways to increase and control the trance state of an audience or individual.

To me, Scientology is one of the most fascinating self-replicating memes. It exists soley to replicate and gather money. Their methods of spreading the meme are incredible and varied. Watching what they do is like having access to a fantastic meme laboratory.
yes, they do all seem to be different trance state induction methods, which leaves me with the question: is a trance simply the bypassing of memetic censors? is ordinary consciousness defined by its limitation of allowed sensory input? this would seem at odds with the common ideas of trance as being a limitation from conscious norm to focussed trance.

scientology is fascinating, if repellent. fun to watch, but i'd prefer to keep sanitary around it. happily, sufficient protective memes exist, most to be found on the clambake site.
A simple trance can bypass most, but not all, of a person's memes. A simple trance cannot go against a persona central or core memes. In other words, you cannot hypnotize someone to kill if that goes against their central beliefs. Only real hardcore brainwashing techniques, like army basic training and school, can change those. The real trick with memes and control, it seems to me, is never to try and completely change someone. You just keep adding beliefs onto what they aleady think until they do what you want them to do.

This is called "matching" in hypnotic patter and NLP. The more you can get a person to say yes, the more likely he is to say yes when try and exert control.

So, you induce a trance state and then say things that person is feeling or that you know they agree with. The more you match with what is already in their head the more they listen to you. Ericksonian stories are my personal favorite method of induction.
I am fascinated by scientific psychology...but just wondering -- where does the occult stuff come in? I'm pretty sure that Dawkins, a skeptic and a rationalist, would be ashamed to have his beautiful term sullied by associations with pseudoscience. Pseudoscience being the kind of meme that uses a scientific language and style of argument of science in order to make itself seem more credible (and this operates because the trappings of science can fool those less informed about what science really means but who nonetheless extend it a basic trust, because it in the common experience so often works -- i.e. television, the most effective mass meme-transmitter to date).
1) because occultism is not necessarily what you think it is.
2) why should i care about Dawkins' opinions? and what makes you so sure that he would really be "ashamed"? do you presume to speak for the man?
3) "pseudoscience" is a null word. it can be applied (and has been) to any type of science you disagree with, from psychology to quantum mechanics, without regard to the actual ("real") value of the discipline.
4) most people who call themselves "scientists" are really dogmatic purveyors of the scientism meme. people who call themselves "rationalists" may include some small number who really are, but i have never met one. they usually curtail the implications of the rationalist stance with appeals to the authority of the group ("that might logically follow, but it results in a worldview that would be really strange to most people" was one comment i've gotten from a "rationalist") or similar logical fallacies.

while i have utmost respect for the discipline that Dawkins accidentally created, and for Dawkins' role in the same, i won't bow down and worship at his feet, as some seem willing to do. his thoughts on matters of opinion and esthetic mean no more to me than those of George W. Bush.

if Dawkins were honest, and approaching this idea from the point of view of the memeticist, i think that he would be likely to be more interested in the way that the idea of "eumemics" is a mutation of the fundamental idea he spawned, and might be curious to understand why memetics is so interesting to people who are also interested in the ideas of Renaissance magicians and modern occultists. then he might read some of the books listed in the various bibliographies here, and discover that "occultism" means different things to different people, and that some of them don't have a worldview that is all that incompatible with his.

chances are, though, that he would simply retreat into the dogma he finds comfortable, and dismiss it all angrily. c'est la vie.
Er, and by language of science I mean more generally a specialized terminology that seems obscure and therefore somehow "higher" than the vernacular. And by style of reasoning I mean complicated, but yet not owing any regard to the scientific method or possessing any rigor of explanation.
undoubtedly. the scientific method is one, very effective, way of examining the universe - probably, it is the best of all possible methods of exploring the physical properties of the universe.

it is also, however, not the best possible method of exploring certain aspects of the universe that are not so easily amenable to simple measurement, and this is the weakness of the argument that "science" should be the only allowed system of intellectual organization. examples of branches of philosophy (to use this term in its earlier sense of "body of knowledge") which are not well-suited to the scientific method include, but are not limited to: psychology, paranormal event investigation, esthetics, philosophy in its more modern sense, and poetics. now, psychology can be approached from the scientific method, but this tends to result in Skinnerian and Pavlovian nightmares, as the method leaves no place for spirit and soul, those having no physical presence and no measurable aspect.

since methods which do take ideas of spirit and soul into account (for instance, Jungian psychology) tend to be more useful in achieving their goals without falling into dysfunctional scenarios of dehumanizing debility, it would seem that, even without a measurable presence, there must be some sort of reality to spirit and soul. if there weren't, then there would not be such a large difference in the result between soulless and soul-seeking methodologies, n'est-ce pas?

so, "pseudoscience" or not, i'll take what works in a given situation, rather than what dogma demands of me. belief is for those who can't handle the messy chaos of reality.