anti-rational meme video

[tmt...@googlemail.com]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

(CDP Grey is the guy who made the 'Lord of the Rings Mythology Explained' video.)

I think this is the first non-DD discussion of *anti-rational memes* that I've come across though he doesn't use that term.

Specifically, Grey claims that memes which elicit emotion, especially anger, spread more easily. 

(see chart at 1:07)

Here's a guess as to why. 

If some 'internet meme' like a news report or captioned photo makes Joe angry, the context whereby the memory of it is stored includes anger and is therefore harder to access in other moods. This is because memory storage makes no distinction between content and context. Memory recall begins from a partial construction of the context which is then completed by the act of recall (btw, *creativity* might occur as a result of errors in this process).

So Joe can criticise it all he likes in calmer moments but if he gets angry later on the meme may still be recalled and possibly re-posted. 

Some other points:

0:40

Popperians can recognise this as a serious error. Memes don't get transferred directly into other brains; they spread because brains guess the *meaning* of what is being *enacted* by other brains (see the stick figures on p.376 of BoI). Germs can spread from person to person even if they don't cause disease, because symptom-free people can act as carriers. But memes *must* be enacted. In the case of internet memes enactment takes the simple form of posting a picture or messaging a link to it.

3:00 

This is nice. I hadn't thought about symbiosis between memes on opposing sides of an argument before.

5:01

>'When opposing groups get big they don't really argue with each other they mostly argue with themselves about how angry the other group makes them'

True but increasingly prevalent is looking for evidence about how angry the *other* group are. Public accusation of hate is a new and powerful form of attack (e.g. calling the opposition a 'hate group').

-- Tom Robinson

[Elliot Temple]

On Mar 31, 2015, at 12:30 AM, tmt...@googlemail.com wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
>
> (CDP Grey is the guy who made the 'Lord of the Rings Mythology Explained' video.)
>
> I think this is the first non-DD discussion of *anti-rational memes* that I've come across though he doesn't use that term.

I wish people with 2 million view videos would make transcripts.

I watched the first 10 seconds and it looks super annoying to watch and really trendy, and screams unseriousness. Which fits with the 2 million views. So I’m really skeptical there’s as much substance as you suggest. Also using video and no transcript looks more unserious.

here is an example of an 80k view video with a transcript:

http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/andrew-klavan-obama-conspiracy-conspiracy

cuz these people care more in some good ways. the video also manages not to communicate unseriousness in the first 10 seconds (or later).

(btw i’m not recommending this particular video/transcript, it’s ok but not great. it’s not very hard to find better content at http://www.frontpagemag.com ).

> Specifically, Grey claims that memes which elicit emotion, especially anger, spread more easily.
>
> (see chart at 1:07)
>
> Here's a guess as to why.

If you’re guessing why, instead of him knowing something more than an assertion, I’m not impressed.

You may think: there isn’t much stuff in the world, it’s rare, so take what you can get!

But I disagree. One reason is I think there are objective standards for e.g. what kind of person would be interested in rational discussion with paths forward (http://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward), and what kind wouldn’t. If he’s in the wrong category there, it doesn’t matter if he’s the 10th best person in the world, it wouldn’t be good enough.

And is the idea that static memes are involved with emotions like anger something I can learn from? No I already knew that. It’d take e.g. an intelligent elaboration with some interesting reasoning why for me to learn something new.


FYI we kinda all moved to FI list now: http://fallibleideas.com/email-discussion

You can post here if you want, but if you want to read active discussion by others, or get more replies, try there.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us

[Erin Minter]

On Mar 31, 2015, at 3:30 AM, tmt...@googlemail.com wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
>
> (CDP Grey is the guy who made the 'Lord of the Rings Mythology Explained' video.)
>
> I think this is the first non-DD discussion of *anti-rational memes* that I've come across though he doesn't use that term.

he doesn’t seem to understand the difference btwn anti-rational and rational memes. And there’s no mention of how anti-rational memes disable creativity as a means to keep from being criticized.

> Specifically, Grey claims that memes which elicit emotion, especially anger, spread more easily.

ya, his main point seems to be that you can take *any* meme and the ones which elicit the most emotion (especially anger) will spread the fastest. but that’s not how rational memes spread. and it is not clear to me that it is how all anti-rational memes spread. for example, lots of ppl learn monogamy and marriage memes without getting angry about them and without spreading them more due to anger.

> (see chart at 1:07)
>
> Here's a guess as to why.
>
> If some 'internet meme' like a news report or captioned photo makes Joe angry, the context whereby the memory of it is stored includes anger and is therefore harder to access in other moods. This is because memory storage makes no distinction between content and context. Memory recall begins from a partial construction of the context which is then completed by the act of recall (btw, *creativity* might occur as a result of errors in this process).
>
> So Joe can criticise it all he likes in calmer moments but if he gets angry later on the meme may still be recalled and possibly re-posted.
>
>
> Some other points:
>
> 0:40
>
> Popperians can recognise this as a serious error. Memes don't get transferred directly into other brains; they spread because brains guess the *meaning* of what is being *enacted* by other brains (see the stick figures on p.376 of BoI). Germs can spread from person to person even if they don't cause disease, because symptom-free people can act as carriers. But memes *must* be enacted. In the case of internet memes enactment takes the simple form of posting a picture or messaging a link to it.
>
> 3:00
>
> This is nice. I hadn't thought about symbiosis between memes on opposing sides of an argument before.

I wonder if this is true. For example, is there a symbiotic relationship between capitalism vs socialism memes? Btwn TCS vs conventional parenting memes? I don’t think so. First of all, TCS ideas are not anti-rational memes and don’t spread by anti-rational meme mechanisms (unlike many conventional parenting memes).

3:20 of the video:

> Thought germs can burn out because once everyone agrees, it’s hard to keep talking and thus thinking about them. But if there’s an opposing thought germ, an argument, then the thinking never stops.


Anti-rational memes don’t just “burn out” once everyone agrees about them, at least if "burn out" means people stop believing in them. Maybe he’s just saying that the rapid spreading of anti-rational memes stops when everyone agrees. But if everyone agrees, then everyone holds the anti-rational meme. From the meme’s POV, what the problem? Seems to be sitting pretty good to me.

Also, its common that people do keep talking about stuff they already agree with others about. That’s actually what most people do - they talk back and forth saying all the stuff that they already know and agree on. There may be little variations here and there within like the socially-approved options of what to talk about.

Erin

[tmt...@googlemail.com]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 8:56:45 PM UTC+1, Elliot Temple wrote:

I watched the first 10 seconds and it looks super annoying to watch and really trendy, and screams unseriousness. Which fits with the 2 million views.

 [...]

If you’re guessing why, instead of him knowing something more than an assertion, I’m not impressed.

 [...]

it doesn’t matter if he’s the 10th best person in the world, it wouldn’t be good enough.

 

When I wrote that post I was interested in memes and writing mainly for my own benefit. By comparison, issues about how to make videos, who is impressed and who is the best at philosophy are boring and off-topic. They don't lie at The Beginning of Infinity. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, the proper business of man is the conquest of nature, not the conquest of other men.

-- Tom

[tmt...@googlemail.com]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 2:23:24 AM UTC+1, Erin wrote:

On Mar 31, 2015, at 3:30 AM, tmt...@googlemail.com wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
>

he doesn’t seem to understand the difference btwn anti-rational and rational memes.  

Yes. In fact, he doesn't refer to 'memes' at all.

I think by 'memes' people are now referring either to those humorously captioned photos on the internet a.k.a. 'internet memes', or to anti-rational memes.

Internet memes aren't obviously useful but humour does typically depend upon new ideas so I guess they're a mixture of rational and anti-rational memes.

I've no problem with the second usage because anti-rational memes, considered *as* memes, are far more interesting.

Some people seem to have concluded that, because internet memes are apparently silly and trivial, the whole concept of memes is now debunked. But this is straightforwardly false because (1) humour is intellectual in nature, (2) those aren't the only memes.

 

One useful thing about looking at internet memes is that, unlike most memes, they are easy to track. 

Another exception is *words*, which are memes that can be pronounced. Btw, are there anti-rational words? (Like perhaps 'racist', or swear words?)

And there’s no mention of how anti-rational memes disable creativity as a means to keep from being criticized.

Indeed, not beyond some distinction between different emotions. I've tried to supply some of the 'how'.

 

 
> Specifically, Grey claims that memes which elicit emotion, especially anger, spread more easily.

ya, his main point seems to be that you can take *any* meme and the ones which elicit the most emotion (especially anger) will spread the fastest.  but that’s not how rational memes spread.  and it is not clear to me that it is how all anti-rational memes spread.  for example, lots of ppl learn monogamy and marriage memes without getting angry about them and without spreading them more due to anger.

Good point.

 

However, it's commonly known that angry people usually deny that they're angry, at least at the time. Also that anger can be 'hot' or 'cold'.

There's an important difference between merely having an emotion and actually *feeling* it. In the former case it's more accurate to say that the emotion *has you*. Whereas, if you can actually sense what's happening in your body then you have context and perspective, and thus the ability to act more rationally.

But beyond all this your point holds assuming a meme can trick you completely, if it's sufficiently subtle and you lack the knowledge. If no part of your mind understands what's going on, there's no role for anger.

 

> This is nice. I hadn't thought about symbiosis between memes on opposing sides of an argument before.

I wonder if this is true.  For example, is there a symbiotic relationship between capitalism vs socialism memes?  Btwn TCS vs conventional parenting memes?  I don’t think so.  First of all, TCS ideas are not anti-rational memes and don’t spread by anti-rational meme mechanisms (unlike many conventional parenting memes).

Well, it needn't always apply but the possibility makes sense. Another example or analogy is the co-evolution in animals between stotting in prey and recognising stotting in predators: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr5Sru8gGSk#t=1m

-- Tom

[Elliot Temple]

i read your post as saying that

1) you have several major disagreements with me (so much so you’re already accusing me of wanting or trying to conquer men, because i made a comment trying to explain that standards for good videos are objective not relative, which you quoted out of context)

and

2) you are unwilling to discuss the disagreements. if i try to discuss it, you’ll soon go silent (again). you declare some or all of our disagreements “boring and off-topic”, even though i consider them relevant, and you don’t intend to explain to my satisfaction why i should change my mind and consider them “boring and off-topic”. nor do you intend to seriously and fully reconsider your views on what’s interesting or relevant because you think that project itself would be boring and off-topic.

this would not be surprising given i don’t think these disagreements are new (primarily), and you have been silent for years.

where are the paths forward?

am i wrong about this? how so?

what do you expect me to do about this situation, that you think would be satisfactory to you, and also to me? do you have any ideas? do you think this problem between us isn’t soluble, or isn’t soluble with mutual benefit, or something like that?

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us