The Meme Machine

Rating:
Summary: The Book of Common Sense
Review: Blackmore has taken a courageous step in producing this fine volume. She is, after all, a trained psychologist. Like any guild with deeply held traditions, resistance to the novel concept of the meme and its power is already strong. In itself, that's recommendation enough to read this book. Fortunately, building carefully on the foundation laid down by Richard Dawkins, Blackmore has erected an edifice that is both beautiful and useful. Those who claim that 'this isn't THE meme book' are misdirecting you. Anything more would be a ponderous, pedantic, psychology textbook. Memetics is only now gaining attention from academics. In the meantime, the rest of us can enjoy this excellent introduction to the idea.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the term 'meme' to supplant the lexicon of phrases previously conveying cultural ideas. "Shibboleth" is, of course, too 'foreign' for the WASP mind to grasp intuitively or even speak clearly. "Myth" is crisp and brief, but also has been relegated to minor worth as something 'pagan' or out of time. "Cultural icon" conjures up images of rock stars or charismatic politicians. "Meme" has the advantages of universality; it's easy to remember, and doesn't carry any prior cultural overtones. In an age of fast moving technologies, 'meme' is timely - after all, how many readers here haven't heard something about genetic research. "Memetics" sits easily on the mind and tongue alike. Which is exactly what memes do.

Blackmore demonstrates how and why memes exist and work so effectively, and why an understanding of them is important to us all. The most illogical concepts, like hereditary monarchy and christianity, remain with us against all reason. Does their survival convey validity? Only from the meme carrying them's point of view. Memes that are well entrenched and adaptable to many environments are difficult to dislodge - that that is a meme's strength. Blackmore has gone beyond Dawkins' original idea in dealing with these complex social issues. When a meme has become spread over a wide population it becomes a "memeplex." Her chapter "Religions As Memeplexes" lucidly portrays the mindless power of memes to replicate and spread across disparate groups. She is even able to link the forces of memes and genes as acting together in a feedback loop of replication and survival.

With a clear, unpretentious prose style, Blackmore offers all readers a look at what will become a fundamental treatise on how the human mind works. And why the human condition is exceptional. Human uniqueness is a basic issue in biology. With memes and genes able to co-evolve and even affect the evolutionary path the other takes, the special place of humans in Nature needs explanation. Blackmore provides answers to the many complex questions involved in defining humanity. Her responses don't always go to great depth, but no reader will be left in doubt as to their validity. She anticipates most objections to the meme concept. That may make a few readers run off to find the authors in her references, but there's no doubt she would welcome that.

If you're confused about much of today's world, you should read this book. If you have strongly held beliefs, unable to understand why others don't share them, you should read this book. If you're human, you should read this book.

Rating:
Summary: read the intro and skip the rest
Review: The concept of memetics is truly fascinating, and the intro by Richard Dawkins does an excellent job of introducing and explaining the concept. The rest of the book addresses numerous interesting questions related to memetics, but Blackmore's discussion of them could have benefitted greatly from peer review or more editorial rigor. She contradicts herself on a number of occasions, and bases arguments on flawed premises like bigger brains being equivalent to greater intellect (which has been disproven repeatedly--see Mismeasure of Man if you want a starting point). So the theory of memetics is compelling, but I found Blackmore's arguments and preachy "I thought about this, therefore I'm right" style very off-putting. In fact, I found myself arguing against her in SUPPORT of memetics. So the introduction is absolutely worth reading. And the rest of the book is good if you want to add to your "list of things to think about," but don't expect any good answers or compelling arguments from the author.

Rating:
Summary: Makes you think
Review: In this intriguing book, Blackmore picks up the ball of meme theory and runs with it. In my opinion I think she runs too far with it when she should stop and touch down at some point but it is still a book that will make you question exactly what you know.

One of the areas in which I find Blackmore's take on meme theory is the idea of self andf that self being "just a bunch of memes" or a selfplex in her own terminology. I think there is adequate evidence outside of memetics that points to personality being somewhat more than this. For instance, psychologists studying the effects of brain damage on personality, the effects of chemicals and drugs, twin studies and the numerous methods psychologists employ in defining character types all indicate other influences on personality than basically the acquisition of ideas and I think Blackmore realises this and fails to address it sufficiently.

Where I feel memetics to be somewhat weak in the above case it is very very strong when it comes to the psychology of ideas and unlike some reviewers I can see how manipulation and acquisition of more and more complex memes could lead to an increase in brain capacity. This is what is happening with computers after all from the 48k Spectrum to the gigabyte hardrives of today.

With regard to religion Blackmore puts her finger on the reason why Western religions do not on the whole trust Eastern religions. She describes meditation as an inoculation of the mind against memes. This is why Western religions do not like Eastern ones as the emphasis is on the individual possessing clear thought and concentration to find their own answers whilst purging their mind of distracting memes. Once this practice is taken up it's hard for a western religion to get it's foot in the door and hand it's own views down from on high. Western religions seem to be pretty much down on any type of thinking, be it philosophy or science.

Some Christians attempt to synthesize Buddhism/Taoism and Christianity saying they all tap into the same thing. With the aid of meme theory we can see this as false. Whereas in Eastern religion meditation aims to negate the selfplex and permit access to the inner self which really makes the decisions, Christians have learnt the simple trick of convincing themselves there is a Christ to love and thus kicking in their own endorphins, the bodies natural opiates. This is why they are "high" on God, they're basically Jesus junkies.

In contrast the Eastern philosopher is looking for their centre (in the martial arts) or the "zone" as it is known in sport. The region where Musashi tells us thought becomes no thought and action/no action and the universe can be perceived in a subtly different way. As Blackmore states this is a serene mind state in which distraction can be ignored and reaction comes naturally (300 milliseconds quicker in sport or combat according to Blackmore). Anyone who's read an action novel will be familiar with the phrase "in that split-second". Now you know what it means.

Sadly the Eastern religions such as Buddhism have been affected by what I term the Alexander meme. Before Alexander the great reached India for 300 years Buddha was just a man. After Alexander the idea that men could be worshipped as Gods was taken on by some sects with the result that people make offerings and pray to Buddha. Historians reckon that Christ has also fallen victim to the Alexander meme (if he actually existed and there a half a dozen good reasons to assume he never did) with the result we see all around us.

And this is just what meme theory can tell us of religion. In this book it can and does explain a lot more. So inoculate your mind. And a note to those who think just because she quotes Marx the author is a Marxist, this book strikes me as undoubtedly Buddhist and the two don't really go together, ask the Tibetans.

Rating:
Summary: At play in the fields of the memes
Review: Blackmore romps across the memetic landscape like a puppy after a butterfly, and it is only when she worries over a bone of contention here or there that the results are less than delightful. If you read this book as an explication of sound scientific principles, you may be misled and -- worse! -- put off by tedious bone-worrying. So feel free to skip the occasional bit of tedium (I'm thinking particularly of material in the chapter "Three problems with memes") and go for the big ideas: why our brains are so big, why we talk so much, and most importantly, who we think we are.

I'd read nothing about memes before The Meme Machine and only a little about Universal Darwinism, but I found that Blackmore explained the principles well enough for argument's sake. When she hits her stride toward the latter half of the book, proof by hand-waving becomes the rule, and that's all to the benefit of the idea fest.

The ideas in the final chapters about memes of the self are well worth entertaining though sometimes self-contradictory (pun intended). I can admit to having an experience of self-shifting that can only be described as mystical -- enjoyable for me, but some might find it disturbing to have fundamental concepts of "selfness" discarded. For more ideas along these lines, I'd recommend The Invented Reality, ed. by Paul Watzlawick, and The User Illusion by Tor Nrretranders.

At the risk of making The Meme Machine sound like a pop-psych book (it's not), I'd add that the meme's-eye view allowed me to see that I had acquired world-view beliefs that were unhelpful and even psychologically destructive. "Meme-izing" these beliefs isolated them and rendered them harmless. Memes can indeed behave like psycho-viruses, but understanding memes offers a cure.

Rating:
Summary: Horrible book
Review: Blackmore seems clueless how Universal Darwinism works. She fails to explain how memes account for brain size and human language. After non sequitur and non sequitur, she leaves the intelligent and skeptical reader clueless and begging for clarification. Perhaps she has good ideas but fails to explain them in any logical and lucid manner. As a big admirer of Richard Dawkins and the meme concept, I am very disappointed with this book.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but Take it with a Grain of Salt
Review: This book is excellent until the last few chapters. The analyses of memes as replicators, and of memetic transmission, are impeccable, and much more in-depth than some other books provide. The writing is intelligent and witty, and concepts are always presented clearly. Examples and anecdotes are used effectively to illustrate many important points. It may just be because I REALLY like Dawkins' books, but I also found the Foreword one of the best parts of the book.

However, the final part of the book seems to veer off on a strange path...the portions that criticize the "sense of self" seem almost to espouse an odd kind of memetic determinism. The author's statement that a blank mind is waiting to be filled with a meme is true enough, but to extrapolate that decisions can be made by waiting for a meme to fill a blank mind reeks of pop psychology (just take a deep breath.....). Not to mention the implications for such things as individual responsibility. (A criminal defense presents itself: "It's not my fault! It was that nasty MEME!")

In short, the book is excellent but a little too extreme. The view of consciousness as interactions between memes is right on target, but we can't forget to factor in the human reasoning capacity, which can allow us to FILTER the memes that "pop" into our heads. Moreover, while some evolutionary psychologists emphasize behavioral adaptations and give short shrift to memes, this book seems to go a little too far the other way, emphasizing memetic evolution and adaptation at biology's expense. I recommend this book, but be sure to take it with a grain of salt, and read something else to balance it out. Depending on your interests, this could be "Thought Contagion", "The Selfish Gene", or even "The Moral Animal" (if you want the evolutionary psychology perspective)...

Rating:
Summary: The Meme Machine
Review: Susan Blackmore's bold and fascinating book "The Meme Machine" pushes the new theory of memetics farther than anyone else has, including its originator Richard Dawkins. The reader should already be well-acquainted with the concepts of memes and Universal Darwinism before tackling this book. Those who are not would do well to first read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (and even better to also read Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea).

Dawkins himself wrote the Foreword to this book, giving it his enthusiastic endorsement, and providing some enlightening remarks about the origin of the meme concept. He concedes however, that his original intentions were quite a bit more modest, and that Blackmore has carried the concept further than he had envisioned.

The central thesis of this book is that imitation is what makes humans truly different from other animals, and what drives almost all aspects of human culture. A meme then, is a unit of imitation. Anything that can be passed from one person to another through imitation -- such as a song, a poem, a cookie recipe, fashion, the idea of building a bridge or making pottery -- is an example of a meme. From the meme's point of view, Blackmore claims, we humans are simply "meme machines", copying memes from one brain to another.

This book is highly speculative. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means the claims have not been proven scientifically. To Blackmore's credit she does clearly highlight the areas of speculation. She also points out the testable predictions made by her theory, and describes possible experiments that could be performed to validate or falsify them.

One such prediction is that specific neural mechanisms would be found in the brain that support imitation -- the key requirement for replication of memes. The recent discovery of mirror neurons seems to satisfy this prediction and provide a powerful validation of the theory.

This book is ambitious. It purports to be nothing less than a comprehensive scientific theory which answers such major scientific questions as the "big brain" problem, and the evolutionary origins of language, altruism, and religion -- all currently unresolved problems. Blackmore's presentation of these issues to be persuasive and insightful, though in some instances she has overstated her case. For example, while memes may have been a significant causal factor in the origin of language, it is not necessary to adopt a purely non-functional explanation for language.

The most controversial part of the book is likely to the last two chapters, where Blackmore discusses the concept of the "self", the real you which holds beliefs, desires, and intentions. Like Dennett, Blackmore believes the idea of a "self" is an illusion but unlike Dennett she does not see it as benign and a practical necessity. In her view, the illusion of the self (what she calls the "ultimate memeplex") obscures and distorts consciousness, and advocates adopting a Zen-like view to actively repel the self illusion.

After having read the book you may feel, that Blackmore has gone too far; that she has pulled some sleight-of-hand and come up with an outlandish conclusion. However, upon further reflection, the thoughtful reader will be forced to admit that Blackmore has made a forceful case and told at least a plausible, if not utterly convincing story.
Rating:
Summary: We're still special
Review: To me, this book filled in a gap in my understanding of humans. If you already subscribe to genetic evolution and to sociobiology, you may think meme theory is unnecessary. Many readers will no doubt tend to view Blackmore's thesis as an impressive theory that fits well with the natural world, but that meme's "aren't really what drives us." That genetic evolution, because of its unquestionble sucess (ok, not Kansas) in explaining our biological existence, is also, ultimately, responsible for our culture. What makes this theory so powerful for me is that it claims that humans truely are "different" from other biological organisms. We're not simply different by degree from other animals, we are different in kind. We aren't just smart primates, we are a different kind of primate. This is the most important implication of the theory.

It is not disputed that genes are 'replicators' that make copies of themselves and compete with eachother for a continued existence. What makes this book shocking is its claim that there is a second replicator that dominates our existence (indeed, is partly responsible for it). Ideas spread themselves, and compete for a piece of the limited thought-space in our brains.

Is this just a clever way of explaining humankind's complex behavior, or is it something real?

A friend of mine argued that Meme's couldn't be "real" because they were just the manifestation of our physiology. To this I counter, does this mean that a sound wave is not "real", after all, it's just relative motion of a bunch of air molecules (or what ever medium the wave travels in). I don't want to get into philosophy, because I never see an end to these kinds of debates. But if Meme's aren't real, then I would suggest that gene's aren't real either because they are "just" a bunch of organic molecules (which are just comprised of atoms, which don't really exist, because they are just the manifested behavior of protons, neutrons, and electrons, which themselves are nothing more than...) which happen to get together in a stable form and cause other organic molecules to arrange themselves in the same fashion.... So, if you read the book, you'll see that this human's mind has been colonized by the Meme meme. Happy reading.

Rating:
Summary: Memes, Blackmore, and Marx.
Review: Blackmore explores "memes" originally proposed by Richard Dawkins. Memes are cultural units that replicate themselves in a neutral fashion. The chief criticism of memes has always been that these replicators are dependent on biological advantage. Simply put, if an idea or a meme is advantageous, then it is widely accepted; and if a meme is found to be harmful, then it is rejected. However, Blackmore argues for the independent nature of memes irrespective of biological advantage.

Although her overemphasis of imitation behavior in humans is baffling at first, one begins to realize that the meme idea conveniently provides a theoretical basis for a Marxist ideology. The latter rests on the assumption that the human mind is highly flexible thereby allowing us to create a socialist state and the memes (not genes) would be the ones to provide this flexibility to our brains. Blackmore's quote of Karl Marx on page 235 is a sure give-away!

Rating:
Summary: Very important book for certain people
Review: This book would probably deserve more than 5 stars but unfortunately only for certain readers (including myself). I strongly recommend this book if you:

- believe in the natural laws of evolution (as first outlined by Darwin)

- believe in genes and their influence on our brain functions, behaviour and hence culture

- if you do not seek for supernatural or unexplainable elements in our existence

Readers who accept the claim that our brain is a computer and understand modern technologies will find memetics even intuitive. If genetics explains the "hardware" part of our existence - then memetics offers the "software" explanation. Blackmore's introduction to memetics builds on ideas of Dawkins and Dennett and represents the only "must have" book in this field to date. (On the negative side: Blackmore tends to focus on the "conflicts" between memes and genes - rather than the co-evolution. Moreover, Blackmore includes some private interpretations of spirituality, which I share, but which might seem inappropriate to some people and should have better been omitted.)

I do NOT recommend Blackmore to readers who believe that there must be more than the "feeling" of a real self in life. People who believe that the term soul or self is an absolute and beyond science would probably dislike this book.