Meme Theory: How much of our beliefs are self derived?

[rousseau]

Every now and then I'll hear someone say something that obviously hasn't passed through any filters of critical thought. They heard it from someone, who heard it from someone, and so on. And they repeat it and hold the belief because it has social value.

So the question is: how common is this type of thing? How much of the every day man's beliefs are only informed by his/her environment, and not at all by critical faculties?

And further, what conclusions about human nature can we draw from this?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Every now and then I'll hear someone say something that obviously hasn't passed through any filters of critical thought. They heard it from someone, who heard it from someone, and so on. And they repeat it and hold the belief because it has social value.

So the question is: how common is this type of thing? How much of the every day man's beliefs are only informed by his/her environment, and not at all by critical faculties?

And further, what conclusions about human nature can we draw from this?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

I'm going with 100%. Only once in a while we find someone who thought something unique and they're forever remembered in philosophy books or books on science. If you're not a Nobel prize winner or a renowned philosopher I think chances are pretty good that it's all memes. Some of it can be argued is random unintelligible (or unintelligent) noise.

I don't think humans are as special as we like to think they are.

 

[skepticalbip]

Every now and then I'll hear someone say something that obviously hasn't passed through any filters of critical thought. They heard it from someone, who heard it from someone, and so on. And they repeat it and hold the belief because it has social value.

So the question is: how common is this type of thing? How much of the every day man's beliefs are only informed by his/her environment, and not at all by critical faculties?

Pretty much everything people believe is informed and shaped by their society and culture. Very little of our 'understanding of reality' is known from first hand experience and original thought.

And further, what conclusions about human nature can we draw from this?

We can conclude that humans are social animals that are heavily influenced by those we consider to be authority figures.

 

[rousseau]

Can we make a delineation between cultural beliefs that are accepted uncritically, versus those that are accepted critically?

I suppose what I'm asking isn't how much of our beliefs are culturally derived, but instead how much of our belief passes from culture through our critical faculties and is accepted/rejected based on our prior understanding. So by 'self' derived I'm assuming an examination of the input, rather than constructing new knowledge.

Then, depending on how uncritical we actually are, it would be memes that promote survival/reproduction survive with the most success, and their survival would be contingent on uncritical thinkers.

 

[Jokodo]

Can we make a delineation between cultural beliefs that are accepted uncritically, versus those that are accepted critically?

I suppose what I'm asking isn't how much of our beliefs are culturally derived, but instead how much of our belief passes from culture through our critical faculties and is accepted/rejected based on our prior understanding. So by 'self' derived I'm assuming an examination of the input, rather than constructing new knowledge.

Then, depending on how uncritical we actually are, it would be memes that promote survival/reproduction survive with the most success, and their survival would be contingent on uncritical thinkers.

In a teleological universe, maybe.

 

[rousseau]

Can we make a delineation between cultural beliefs that are accepted uncritically, versus those that are accepted critically?

I suppose what I'm asking isn't how much of our beliefs are culturally derived, but instead how much of our belief passes from culture through our critical faculties and is accepted/rejected based on our prior understanding. So by 'self' derived I'm assuming an examination of the input, rather than constructing new knowledge.

Then, depending on how uncritical we actually are, it would be memes that promote survival/reproduction survive with the most success, and their survival would be contingent on uncritical thinkers.

In a teleological universe, maybe.

Not sure I get your meaning.

 

[skepticalbip]

Can we make a delineation between cultural beliefs that are accepted uncritically, versus those that are accepted critically?

I suppose what I'm asking isn't how much of our beliefs are culturally derived, but instead how much of our belief passes from culture through our critical faculties and is accepted/rejected based on our prior understanding. So by 'self' derived I'm assuming an examination of the input, rather than constructing new knowledge.

Then, depending on how uncritical we actually are, it would be memes that promote survival/reproduction survive with the most success, and their survival would be contingent on uncritical thinkers.

Our 'prior understanding' comes from those we accept as authority figures for the most part not from some 'universal truth'. This is why, for example, we see such political polarization. Different groups accept different authority figures and principles they offer as 'truths'. What we consider to be critical thinking is testing some new information as to how well it fits into our 'prior understanding' that we accepted from our selected authority... if it doesn't fit with what we accept as true from our chosen authority then we reject it even if it may actually be a 'universal truth'.

ETA:
This applies even in the science we assume is true. For example, does someone accept string theory as a valid science or as mathematical philosophy? It depends on which authority they accept.

 

[Jokodo]

Can we make a delineation between cultural beliefs that are accepted uncritically, versus those that are accepted critically?

I suppose what I'm asking isn't how much of our beliefs are culturally derived, but instead how much of our belief passes from culture through our critical faculties and is accepted/rejected based on our prior understanding. So by 'self' derived I'm assuming an examination of the input, rather than constructing new knowledge.

Then, depending on how uncritical we actually are, it would be memes that promote survival/reproduction survive with the most success, and their survival would be contingent on uncritical thinkers.

In a teleological universe, maybe.

Not sure I get your meaning.

In a universe where things have causes and not purposes, there's no reason to believe that "memes that promote survival/reproduction survive with the most success".

The original idea behind the meme model was that ideas perpetuate kind of like pseudo-lifeforms whose niche is the human mind. Starting there, there isn't really any reason to assume they'll be any more beneficial than the pseudo-lifeforms whose niche is the human body: Viruses. Sure, like with viruses, a meme that kills its host or makes him an outcast before it can reproduce is unlikely to succeed, but that's about as much as it "cares" for our wellbeing. Whether a meme spreads is more determined by easily it is transmitted than by its net cost/benefit to the carrier - and the ease of transmission in turn is determined by a variety of factors from innate cognitive biases, via how much it is compatible with experienced objective reality (or appears to help understand reality), mediated of course by how our senses perceive said reality, to how well it fits in with other memes present in that environment. A meme that makes everyone it infects commit suicide on the spot is unlikely to spread far, one who makes them spend a very substantial amount of their time and money on proselytising very well might.

You seem to be insinuating that uncritical thinking is encouraged by evolution because the memes that survive will be most beneficial ones, and they rely on uncritical thinkers to spread. You might as well say indiscriminate copying of DNA is encouraged by evolution because viruses serve the good of the species. In both cases, we're more talking about an unavoidable consequence: viruses/memes evolve too quickly to build hard-coded defenses, so all our best efforts at fending them off will sometimes fail - and the mechanisms they use to reproduce are too vital to turn them off altogether.

I'm not actually bought on the idea that the meme model is particularly good at offering an understanding of cultural evolution. But it deserves better than to be abused as an excuse for resurrecting God/telos.

 

[rousseau]

Not sure I get your meaning.

In a universe where things have causes and not purposes, there's no reason to believe that "memes that promote survival/reproduction survive with the most success".

The original idea behind the meme model was that ideas perpetuate kind of like pseudo-lifeforms whose niche is the human mind. Starting there, there isn't really any reason to assume they'll be any more beneficial than the pseudo-lifeforms whose niche is the human body: Viruses. Sure, like with viruses, a meme that kills its host or makes him an outcast before it can reproduce is unlikely to succeed, but that's about as much as it "cares" for our wellbeing. Whether a meme spreads is more determined by easily it is transmitted than by its net cost/benefit to the carrier - and the ease of transmission in turn is determined by a variety of factors from innate cognitive biases, via how much it is compatible with experienced objective reality (or appears to help understand reality), mediated of course by how our senses perceive said reality, to how well it fits in with other memes present in that environment. A meme that makes everyone it infects commit suicide on the spot is unlikely to spread far, one who makes them spend a very substantial amount of their time and money on proselytising very well might.

You seem to be insinuating that uncritical thinking is encouraged by evolution because the memes that survive will be most beneficial ones, and they rely on uncritical thinkers to spread. You might as well say indiscriminate copying of DNA is encouraged by evolution because viruses serve the good of the species. In both cases, we're more talking about an unavoidable consequence: viruses/memes evolve too quickly to build hard-coded defenses, so all our best efforts at fending them off will sometimes fail - and the mechanisms they use to reproduce are too vital to turn them off altogether.

I'm not actually bought on the idea that the meme model is particularly good at offering an understanding of cultural evolution. But it deserves better than to be abused as an excuse for resurrecting God/telos.

For some reason this kind of point keeps being brought up in response to my posts, but I'm a hard materialist with the same understanding of evolution as you. I don't presume purpose.

However, the heuristic that allows us to understand every aspect of human biology and culture is fundamentally survival/reproduction, which is why I'm framing the propagation of memes through that lens.

It wouldn't imply that memes are always particularly beneficial, but rather the most successful memes are, in fact, so successful and integrated into our culture that we just take them for granted.

 

[Jokodo]

Not sure I get your meaning.

In a universe where things have causes and not purposes, there's no reason to believe that "memes that promote survival/reproduction survive with the most success".

The original idea behind the meme model was that ideas perpetuate kind of like pseudo-lifeforms whose niche is the human mind. Starting there, there isn't really any reason to assume they'll be any more beneficial than the pseudo-lifeforms whose niche is the human body: Viruses. Sure, like with viruses, a meme that kills its host or makes him an outcast before it can reproduce is unlikely to succeed, but that's about as much as it "cares" for our wellbeing. Whether a meme spreads is more determined by easily it is transmitted than by its net cost/benefit to the carrier - and the ease of transmission in turn is determined by a variety of factors from innate cognitive biases, via how much it is compatible with experienced objective reality (or appears to help understand reality), mediated of course by how our senses perceive said reality, to how well it fits in with other memes present in that environment. A meme that makes everyone it infects commit suicide on the spot is unlikely to spread far, one who makes them spend a very substantial amount of their time and money on proselytising very well might.

You seem to be insinuating that uncritical thinking is encouraged by evolution because the memes that survive will be most beneficial ones, and they rely on uncritical thinkers to spread. You might as well say indiscriminate copying of DNA is encouraged by evolution because viruses serve the good of the species. In both cases, we're more talking about an unavoidable consequence: viruses/memes evolve too quickly to build hard-coded defenses, so all our best efforts at fending them off will sometimes fail - and the mechanisms they use to reproduce are too vital to turn them off altogether.

I'm not actually bought on the idea that the meme model is particularly good at offering an understanding of cultural evolution. But it deserves better than to be abused as an excuse for resurrecting God/telos.

For some reason this kind of point keeps being brought up in response to my posts, but I'm a hard materialist with the same understanding of evolution as you. I don't presume purpose.

However, the heuristic that allows us to understand every aspect of human biology and culture is fundamentally survival/reproduction, which is why I'm framing the propagation of memes through that lens.

It wouldn't imply that memes are always particularly beneficial, but rather the most successful memes are, in fact, so successful and integrated into our culture that we just take them for granted.

A successful meme doesn't make a successful human. I believe I explained that.

Also you appear to be implicitly entertaining some kind of group selection theory. You may want to read up on why that's generally not accepted as valid.

 

[rousseau]

For some reason this kind of point keeps being brought up in response to my posts, but I'm a hard materialist with the same understanding of evolution as you. I don't presume purpose.

However, the heuristic that allows us to understand every aspect of human biology and culture is fundamentally survival/reproduction, which is why I'm framing the propagation of memes through that lens.

It wouldn't imply that memes are always particularly beneficial, but rather the most successful memes are, in fact, so successful and integrated into our culture that we just take them for granted.

A successful meme doesn't make a successful human. I believe I explained that.

Also you appear to be implicitly entertaining some kind of group selection theory. You may want to read up on why that's generally not accepted as valid.

Nope, I'm not. From where did you draw that conclusion?

 

[Jokodo]

For some reason this kind of point keeps being brought up in response to my posts, but I'm a hard materialist with the same understanding of evolution as you. I don't presume purpose.

However, the heuristic that allows us to understand every aspect of human biology and culture is fundamentally survival/reproduction, which is why I'm framing the propagation of memes through that lens.

It wouldn't imply that memes are always particularly beneficial, but rather the most successful memes are, in fact, so successful and integrated into our culture that we just take them for granted.

A successful meme doesn't make a successful human. I believe I explained that.

Also you appear to be implicitly entertaining some kind of group selection theory. You may want to read up on why that's generally not accepted as valid.

Nope, I'm not. From where did you draw that conclusion?

"Then, depending on how uncritical we actually are, it would be memes that promote survival/reproduction survive with the most success, and their survival would be contingent on uncritical thinkers."

This is not something that in any way, shape, or form follows from evolutionary thinking. It might be made to follow (adding only a couple minor additional unspoken assumptions) if you assume group selection.

 

[rousseau]

A successful meme doesn't make a successful human. I believe I explained that.

A meme doesn't directly contribute to an individual's success, however cultural memes which create an environment that is conducive to humans surviving and reproducing, and which act on people who treat them as non-arbitrary, are the most likely to succeed.

For instance, think about how pervasive Nationalism is. In real terms, supporting the economic unit to which you belong has enormous survival benefits, and so what we see is pervasive acceptance of nationalism. Or think wedding/mating rituals. These are the kind of things which are so ingrained into our culture that they're just taken for granted.

It's not about how much it actually contributes to the individual's success in real terms, it's about how easily the meme is accepted when accepting it promotes survival.

 

[Jokodo]

A successful meme doesn't make a successful human. I believe I explained that.

A meme doesn't directly contribute to an individual's success, however cultural memes which create an environment that is conducive to humans surviving and reproducing, and which act on people who treat them as non-arbitrary, are the most likely to succeed.

That's a straightforward group selection argument.

For instance, think about how pervasive Nationalism is. In real terms, supporting the economic unit to which you belong has enormous survival benefits,

Does it though? That is, unless you accept group selection?

and so what we see is pervasive acceptance of nationalism. Or think wedding/mating rituals. These are the kind of things which are so ingrained into our culture that they're just taken for granted.

Being ingrained or taken for granted is neither here nor there with respect to wether they contribute to an individual or group's survival and success.

It's not about how much it actually contributes to the individual's success in real terms, it's about how easily the meme is accepted when accepting it promotes survival.

fify

 

[rousseau]

That's a straightforward group selection argument.

For instance, think about how pervasive Nationalism is. In real terms, supporting the economic unit to which you belong has enormous survival benefits,

Does it though? That is, unless you accept group selection?

and so what we see is pervasive acceptance of nationalism. Or think wedding/mating rituals. These are the kind of things which are so ingrained into our culture that they're just taken for granted.

Being ingrained or taken for granted is neither here nor there with respect to wether they contribute to an individual or group's survival and success.

It's not about how much it actually contributes to the individual's success in real terms, it's about how easily the meme is accepted when accepting it promotes survival.

fify

I'm talking about the meme's success, not the individual or the species' success.

 

[Bronzeage]

Every now and then I'll hear someone say something that obviously hasn't passed through any filters of critical thought. They heard it from someone, who heard it from someone, and so on. And they repeat it and hold the belief because it has social value.

So the question is: how common is this type of thing? How much of the every day man's beliefs are only informed by his/her environment, and not at all by critical faculties?

And further, what conclusions about human nature can we draw from this?

It's as common as grass and it explains why some people think the Earth is flat.

Human nature is accept things for what they appear to be. At some point, the globular nature of the planet became a factor in human activities and the Earth began to appear more round than flat. It's really just a matter of getting the job done.

 

[Jokodo]

That's a straightforward group selection argument.



Does it though? That is, unless you accept group selection?



Being ingrained or taken for granted is neither here nor there with respect to wether they contribute to an individual or group's survival and success.

It's not about how much it actually contributes to the individual's success in real terms, it's about how easily the meme is accepted when accepting it promotes survival.

fify

I'm talking about the meme's success, not the individual or the species' success.

" In real terms, supporting the economic unit to which you belong has enormous survival benefits," sure doesn't sound like being about the meme to me

 

[rousseau]

I'm talking about the meme's success, not the individual or the species' success.

" In real terms, supporting the economic unit to which you belong has enormous survival benefits," sure doesn't sound like being about the meme to me

Apparently.

 

[Jokodo]

I'm talking about the meme's success, not the individual or the species' success.

" In real terms, supporting the economic unit to which you belong has enormous survival benefits," sure doesn't sound like being about the meme to me

Apparently.

So you were trying to say " bsupporting the economic unit to which you belong has enormous survival benefits," to the meme? Kid yourself.

 

[Torin]

Every now and then I'll hear someone say something that obviously hasn't passed through any filters of critical thought. They heard it from someone, who heard it from someone, and so on. And they repeat it and hold the belief because it has social value.

So the question is: how common is this type of thing? How much of the every day man's beliefs are only informed by his/her environment, and not at all by critical faculties?

And further, what conclusions about human nature can we draw from this?

I don't think the "meme" framework should be accepted to begin with.

Ask yourself what the difference is between:

1. "Memes propagate through a culture"

and

2. "People accept ideas and tell them to one another."

These don't say the same thing, or we wouldn't have the "meme" language. So what's the difference?

The answer is that the first is based on thinking of ideas as agents or living organisms that control their hosts, whereas the second is based on thinking of people as agents that consciously accept or reject ideas. The entire purpose of the concept of a meme is to remove from consideration the existence of the thinking, choosing, critical individual.

This isn't an accident, it is quite deliberate. Dawkins accepts Dennett's illusionist account of consciousness, and he's a determinist. He doesn't think people are conscious agents in the traditional sense.

I think Dawkins is a genius for coming up with such a clever way of injecting the denial of conscious agency into the culture.