Rating: 
Summary: A great introduction to the field
Review: Susan Blackmore's THE MEME MACHINE is a terrific and very accessible introduction to the nascent field of memetics. She tackles a complicated subject with remarkable precision and clarity, and avoids the insidious trap of creating new jargon to suit her needs. After reading a lot of books on linguists, brain science, and other peripheral fields, this was exactly the book I was looking for.The term "memetics" sounds a lot like "genetics," and the similarity is not accidental. Working off ideas championed by Richard Dawkins in THE SELFISH GENE, memetics looks at the way ideas can spread and replicate in ways much like -- but not exactly like -- biological evolution. Dawkins urged readers to take a "gene's-eye view," where evolution is driven by genes competing to be copied. This theory will be familiar to anyone who has read Dawkins, or his contemporaries like Pinker or Gould. Blackmore skillfully summarizes the basic ideas, and Dawkins himself writes an introduction. Just as genetics focuses on the gene, memetics centers around the "meme," which can be thought of as a unit of information. Examples of memes can include stone tool-making, language, the song "Happy Birthday," democracy, or last year's out-of-nowhere "all your base are belong to us." What matters is not the content of the meme per se, but how effectively the meme can get itself copied. Just like a gene can only survive by putting itself into a new generation, a meme can only prosper by squeezing itself in new brains. In that way, memes are like mental viruses, but without necessarily negative effects. The exact means by which memes spread from brain to brain can vary: speech, writing, art, etc. The common thread is imitation, a uniquely human skill Blackmore and others argue can explain why humans have progressed so far beyond what could be expected through biological evolution alone. In fact, Blackmore asserts that memes can help answer one of the nagging questions in human development: how did our brains get to be so big? Her answer is that bigger brains can store more memes, which in turn allowed bigger-brained humans to outcompete their smaller-brained kin. After setting up the basic theories of memetics, and addressing recurring criticisms, Blackmore investigates some of the common touchstones of sociobiology: sex, altruism, religion and consciousness. In every instance, her meme's-eye view provides a lot of insight, and her sense of humor makes the whole process more enjoyable. Like a professor cramming too much into the final class of the semester, Blackmore stretches too far in the last chapter, aiming for closure and a sense of what-it-all-means that isn't really supported by the rest of the book. But by that point we're already mad about her, and ready to sign up for any other class she teaches.
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing - best taken with a grain of salt
Review: Memetics is a good idea looking for real life research and practical applications that will free it from the realm of the philosopher kings. Susan Blackmore's book is another in a line of several that have tried to do so. While raising some interesting questions and making some interesting points, Meme Machines fails in this regard. Mostly it succeeds in rehashing the same controversies that plagued this subject, creating more unnecessary problems, and resolving none of them. Despite the all-star cast of endorsements (Dennet and Dawkins) this book will mostly just succeed in making money for Blackmore, and perhaps spreading the idea of memes to new audiences that happen to think that Zen Buddhism is really groovey. In the mean time it may succeed in turning the idea of memes into the next new age fad - complete with prescriptions to free ourselves of the "tyranny" of the self - or as Blackmore the Zen guru might put it the "illusion of self". The book gets off to a poor start by miscasting its basic philosophical questioning not in terms of memes, memetics, culture, or evolution, but by asking what is it that makes humans different from animals? Predictably asking poorly framed questions leads to conclusions that have even less to do with memes or memetics. Here I am referring to her incredible declarations which she makes central in the end of the book. We do not have selves, according to Blackmore. It's all a lie. Our memes have "tricked" us into thinking that we do - pesky li'l things. We should all become Zen Buddhists to save our non-selves from the memes! I should hasten to add that along the way she makes many much less ridiculous and very good points. She provides some good behaviorist insight into true imitation, makes some interesting distinctions between that and social learning, and the roles that they play for memes. She provides some fertile ground for more applications of the genetic metaphor in her insightful distinctions between copying instructions vs. copying a product. She even makes some good cases for the role that such ideas like Platonic idealism play in memetic replication. All rich and worthwhile insights. On the whole, I found her book to be very intelligent and entertaining, if deeply flawed in some fundamental respects. There were some useful insights definitely worth taking home, but there were other incredible flights of fantasy that I would have rather left behind. If you don't have your mind set on reading something in particular, this is an intriguingly good book - but it is far from being a seminal landmark in any scientific sense. If you are waiting for the book that will actually serve to make the case for the scientific legitimacy of memetics, save your money. If you are interested in higher-quality peer-reviewed attempts at memetic theory without this irrelevant new-age fluff, I suggest you seek out a publication like the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transfer. There is better stuff out there even on the web other than the sources mentioned by Dawkins in his forward. If you are interested in a good treatment of cultural evolution that does not deal in still- being-questioned words like "memes", and steers clear of new age fluff, I would recommend Gary Taylor's book "Cultural Selection" to balance Blackmore's more hype-ish approach. -Jake
Rating: 
Summary: very poor in itself...
Review: if you would like to read something on memes one of the best books (Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme
by Richard Brodie )
it seems to me realy something clear about this new model or contruct or life paradigm.i may say something about susan b. book, it seems the truth about memes,like maybe one preacher telling one ot the gospel, ``subliminal authorrity manipulation``i would not say that.there is no deep reality(bohr)there is no chair(watzlawick).brodie is aware and a very clear with no preachings.another splendid quamtum... Liane Gabora home page on the net.
Rating:
Summary: The Meme Machine unleashed!
Review: Human bodies evolved by natural selection, just
as other animals. But still we are different.
According to Susan Blackmore thats because we are
capable of imitation. We can thereby copy ideas,
habits,inventions, songs and stories. I.e. memes.
And now memes are as powerful, if not more powerful,
than the good old genes, in directing human evolution. I find the idea intriguing, and certainly
Susan Blackmore argue well for the idea.
The (evolutionary) pressure for imitation skills
requires big brains. So we evolve big brains, as people
mate with the ones with the most memes.
Language is invented in order to spread memes.
Film stars, journalists, writers, singers,
politicians and artists become the most
attractive, as they are the ones who spread the
most memes.
Things that are hard to explain in a genetic
context (such as adoption, birth control, celibacy) are
easy to explain in a meme context
(the memes are happy with it, as it help spread more memes).
Science becomes a process to distinguish
true memes from false memes. Fax-machines, telephones,
etc. are created (by the memes) in order to spread more
memes. Writing is a battleground in the head between
memes wanting to be spread.
etc. It all rings true to me.
Except Susan Blackmores claim that the self
is a complex meme. Certainly it is puzzling
that blind people are reported thinking that their
"I" is located at their fingertips, when they
read Braille.
Still there are other explanations to what
a human "I" is than memes. Personally,
I prefer Antonio Damasios, as he explained
it in the book "the feeling of what happens".
Nevertheless, Susan Blackmores book is a very
exciting read, with lots of clever thoughts. -Simon
Rating:
Summary: The meme's-eye view
Review: This book is not always an easy one to follow, but I believe that is because its ideas are so rich and sometimes counter-intuitive. Blackmore is trying to perform a feat that is a cross between Darwin's introduction of the idea evolution, and Dawkins' "selfish gene" revolution, and I think she does a remarkable job. I do not expect her to be right about everything (neither was Darwin), but her book accomplishes the goal of pushing the reader to think from the perspective of a meme. As someone who's read quite a bit of evolutionary theory and sociobiology, time and time again I caught myself thinking about memes as being on a "leash" held by genes, as she puts it, and time and time again Blackmore helped me cut the leash and understand another possibility. Some of her ideas and explanations may turn out not to hold water--for example, perhaps altruistic behavior in humans *is* adequately explained by genetic considerations and memetics is unnecessary--but she does her best to state testable hypotheses for this very reason. The most important thing to walk away with is the ability to reason from a meme's-eye perspective, which I think this book explicates nicely.
Rating: 
Summary: Are memes Science?
Review: I happen to have read a few articles on memes before getting started with this book. After reading it, I still have this love hate relationship with the whole concept of memetics.
At times, I find the concept enlightning. Ideas presented by Dr. Blackmore on gene/meme coevolution in shaping the human brain and in developing a language are the main strength of this book. Thinking about human culture as a group of memes that shape the thought of its members seems to make a lot of sense. But the question remains, does common sense equal Science?
Obviously not. There is hardly any evidence that would substantiate the presence of memes as replicators. Maybe it would have been much more scientific to say that memes in human culture is an extension to the Baldwin effect. It could also be that memes "go off" sometimes and set selectional pressures on organisms reaching outcomes that would not be predicted by sociobiology and evolutionary pschycology.
Until a biological correlate for memetics is found, memetics can only be regarded as a social theory. For it to make it into biology, alot of work should be done. However, if one day this replicator was found, Dawkins, Blackmore and Dennett will be Golden. Their memes would be immortalized in the cultures of generations to come.
Rating:
Summary: Stretching the facts to fit the theory: a scientific nemesis
Review: If you're not familiar with the terms "memes" or "memetics" or havent stumbled onto books by Richard Dawkins this would not be a bad place to figure out what this relatively fresh scientific fuss is about.
A meme is an idea that "seeks" to occupy a brain, use it as a host and then as a tool to spread. Many memes form memeplexes and memeplexes in turn form behaviors. The more powerful a meme is the better its chances to be "hosted" (accepted) and thus spread regardless of its usefullness or not and regardless of its "goodness" or "badness": if it's strong enough it will be replicated and spread.
This, in a nutshell, is the theory about memes and memetics presented in this book.
In my opinion it doesnt take too much convincing for this theory to appear pivotal in the process of understanding the works of the human brain. It is so strikingly obvious that this is exactly what's going on in the every day wars of the minds around "our" world that what is actually interesting is to what extend this process stretches.
And while S.Blackmore does a great job in laying out her theory and explaining memetics she does eventually fall into the great trap such scientific theories are prone to: overgeneralising and dogmatising.
To an extend, memetics do provide an adequate explanation for human behavior, but on the other hand, they leave certain areas as dark as they were before memetics were conceived. For example, memetics do not provide an explanation as to why memes that actually work towards our self-destruction as a species get copied anyway. Stating that they are replicated because "they are strong" is too simplistic because
a) masses of people might not replicate such memes yet they do prevail because of the structure of our societies
b) what does it say about our "intelligence" (the very same intelligence that helps us understand memes) if we do indeed copy self-destructful memes?
It is especially about this second question that this book and in general the theory about memetics fails to be fulfilling the way memetists would wish for.
I would personally have no problem to entertain the idea that our "intelligence" is way overrated and that our brains are majorly flawed but such an idea is not offered to me as an option in this book, and not only that, but the exact opposite is basically at times claimed and at other times implied in the "Meme machine". Memes do exist (massively so) and do influence what we are and what we do (undeniably so). But where is the line drawn and is there such a line?
Memetists state that such a line probably does not exist and that memes are directly and solely responsible for every human behavior that we see around us. That would be too holistic and too nihilistic at the same time. Why do i say that?
Well, for starters it is actually totally hilarious that we are actually a species that admits it can only use a sorry 5% of its brain and yet with this 5% it claims to understand the other 95% as well. Memetists (and scientists alltogether) seem to somehow overlook this "tiny", "little" detail not only when they examine the human brain but also when they take on other, bigger (??) issues on, such the universe and so forth.
The theory that seems to be a great dogmatic aspect of our current science: "there's only what meets the eye" (and memetics stands on exactly that premise when you analyse it down to its core) is one that never convinced me and actually, the more i read and acquire what little knowledge i can as a human the more inplausible it becomes. This is not the view of a theist (I'm very far from that) but the view of a realist, whatever realism my personal 5% usage of my brain allows me to. Understanding what memes are and how they work will help you understand our current predicaments more than anything. The fact that most of the time we imitate without discrimination, without applying judgement is obvious but is it our nature? What if we taught children how to NOT imitate in such a pathetic way or how to filter and process every single thought that goes or gets created in their brains? What would happen then and where would that put the whole memetics theory? To finish things off, i do recommend this book. I do in no way recommend to accept it in the overwhelmingly dogmatic fashion it presents itself.
Memetics are useful and we need them in our effort to understand. But if we try to turn them into another scientific religion we will achieve the exact opposite.
Rating: 
Summary: A linguistic quirk of little value
Review: Susan Blackmore grips feverishly to Richard Dawkins' coattails and cites him as a memetic authority throughout this book. Dawkins tagged a few pages onto the end of The Selfish Gene (1976) to acknowledge that the gene can't go it alone. Then everyone went scooby ra-ra because they'd got a 'scientific' explanation for human behaviour and culture. Well they hadn't! Even Dawkins has back peddled on the meme since 1976. Just because something is couched in scientific terminology doesn't mean that it's science. It seems perfectly plausible to accept that genes shape behaviour without having to invoke an analogous cultural equivalent to bridge the gaps left by the sociobiological perspective. As for challenging superstition and naïve humanism; the notion of a palpable, replicating unit of social transmission shaping behaviour is as plausible as astrological determinism. Blackmore ejects the chimera of the self and replaces it with the chimera of the meme. Raze subjectivity and consciousness if you feel that you must, but please replace them with something more plausible than the will-o-the wisp meme. There is nothing rigorous or systematic about ladling the concepts of biology onto social science without recognising the incommensurability of their respective subject matter. Without a definite empirical correlate the meme is a vacuous conceptual tool: the meme has no substantive foundation and never will. As there is no such thing as a meme, memeticists have had to expand memetic terminology to match the scope of the subject matter that they are attempting to explicate. The all-powerful meme isn't powerful enough so it had better be supplemented by memepools, memeplexes, surface-memes, deep-memes and so on. It has taken social sciences such as sociology over a century to develop an insular self-referential lexicon. In just over 25 years memetics has achieved the same thing. Well done Blackmore and co!
Rating:
Summary: It could have been a fiver!
Review: By allotting them more substantiality than they deserve, writers tend to forget that memes (and thus memetics) are nothing more than a certain kind of ideas, opinions, or (whether true or false) knowledge. Lies and misapprehensions can form them as well as workable truths. Lies are more catchy because they require only an emotional response from recipients for their adoption. Truth has the disadvantage of requiring attempts to make proof, which actually puts it in the weaker position. Proponents of the "selfish gene/selfish meme" phenomenon may be on the right track by placing the study of idea replication under its own heading, but seem to have forgotten these are merely components of life and human existence. Of course it is true that we must use whatever nature provides to us in order to survive as animals upon this planet, but we must appreciate a mentality that enables us to enhance the quality of our lives, if we so choose it. We always have the choice to make, whether to follow an emotional course based on misapprehensions and lies and disavow all else, or whether to pursue stark, workable truths. Such truths represent useful memes we can learn to recognize and apply if we so choose, rather than feel we are 'used' by them. Our role requires us not to view ourselves as victims, whatever problems life has us face, but to learn to manage reality's components, discover our place in the grand scheme of things, and purposefully pursue whatever roles destiny has handed us-even if it turns out that destiny requires us to make that choice. Stephen Hawking makes a noteworthy example I can point to: Almost completely paralyzed, he has overcome odds most people would find overwhelming to succeed at his interests. While rabbits or small fish might have to accept that they are prey, our large brain has discovered that for us,in many cases, it is a matter mostly of attitude by which we can force our circumstances to yield to our desires. Susan's book is a worthwhile source of information on the subject of memetics, an almost necessary read at this stage of our knowledge, if one can overlook the often justifiable victim's stance she took to finish it. It has to be left to experiment and future investigators to determine exactly what roles memes (and genes) occupy in our lives.
Rating:
Summary: Nice place to start
Review: For a readable and interesting expansion of Blackmore/Dawkins' meme theory called tenetics, see Ian McFadyen's Mind Wars!
| 
