Talk:Meme

Meme should be pronounced miːm to rhyme with gene, not mɛm

Racism as a meme

Why would racism be a meme? Is there any study or validation to support that racism is a meme?

Racism might just as well be described as an empiric behavior. We can only guess how it's activated or spreads.

If there is agreement on the uncertainty on whether racism is a meme I would suggest to review the relevant section. Maybe it may just be a matter of adding sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.54.27 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view, racism can be either empiric or memetic in its activation. For example, if your father was a slave owner and, when you were young, told you how "those gaddam niggers" (in his words) don't deserve freedom, then that's memetic, especially if you live in an area where racism is common and, in effect, taught. However, if you have had a traumatic experience with a member of some ethnicity, or your youth was filled with members of that ethnicity acting poorly, then that would be empiric, though it's bad empiricism. tehgrisp (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not fairies?

This post is intentionally polemic, but think about this. The idea of a meme began when Dawkins tried to think of a way how beliefs are transmitted through population and different generations. He knew much about biology, so taking a gene as a basis he coined the term "meme", which should be somehow be comparable to a gene in culture (self-replicating, survives through generations). The concept of a meme is full of hot air right now: there's no research about its structure (assuming it is a material entity). There's no research about how it exactly spreads through population. Please point out if there really is something hard (empirical evidence, not philosophical talk) to grasp on this subject. The current examples of memes kind of contain everything how a person influences other people. So now the big question: why not Invisible Raindow-colored Forest Fairies? They also have power to influence people with their magic wands. Of course some evil fairies want to wreck havoc and make people to use violence. The good fairies give us jokes and a sense of humour. How is this different (on empirical basis) from memes? 86.50.9.167 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Because there's no empirical evidence to suggest that fairies spread culture, as opposed to people. People influence each other, not fairies (at least no empirical evidence can show it), and when a person influences another person to do or think something a certain way, the meme is said to spread. Don't think that memes aren't material; I believe they have been characterized as "information packets" or a "unit of cultural information", abstract ideas yet better than material manifestations. tehgrisp (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can get people to believe in Fairies, it's a meme. If you can get enough people to act as if they do, then it's also a meme.

I don't see the relevance of structure, and I don't think Dawkins (or anyone else) has suggested they are material entities. As to there being no research about how they spread, I suggest advertisers might disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.119.190 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversial subject

It is most likely that "meme" or "memetics" is not mature enough concept to be a scientific consensus. It should be noted on the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.9.167 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For sure there's a lack of scientific consensus about the prospects of developing a useful science of memetics, but since the opening paragraph defines "meme" as a popular neologism denoting any "learned thought, feeling or behavior" and there's little doubt about the existence of those it's misleading to suggest that the existence of memes is controversial. (And the statement "A meme is currently a controversial subject in the scientific community" embodies a confusion of levels: the *idea* of memes may be controversial, but individual memes need not be controversial subjects; for instance, the idea of an electron is a meme but not particularly controversial.) I'm removing that claim of controversy. (And also removing the claim that "meme" = "cultural trait"; that's too specific.) Gareth McCaughan (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Are languages[1] carried by memes? They are passed from person to person, but not genetically. The article mentions literature, poems etc - but how about the building blocks those are constructed from?

[1] I mean like French and German, not Fortran and C++. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.119.190 (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Words as memes

I know Dan Dennett suggested words could be considered memes. This certainly seems true of slang, the way new words quickly spread within certain groups. And if it is true of some words, why not all? So I guess using this logic, each language would count as a memeplex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.113.106 (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Memes do not imply any Duality

Accepting the idea of memes certainly does not create a dualism. The type of problematic dualism which is alluded to in the article is of a different type from that which is propped up for examination. The problematic dualism is one in which the individual is truly and completely separate from the rest of reality as in the famous "cogito ergo sum". The thinker sees his "virtual head space" as immaterial in the normal sense and so separate from all that is "outside" it including the body and the rest of reality.

The "duality" created by the acceptance of the idea of memes is a different thing - probably a semantic error. To prove the point, I am a body, part of the universe, and memes run as personality software on my brain. There is no implied duality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.2.68 (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)