Manga Index
2025-02-03
模倣子 Helper Memes & The Skin
Previous Essay - Memetic Index - Glossary - Next Essay
Introduction
I've been writing a bit about the idea of submemeplectic skins (1). These are interesting since this concept must be understood and well-defined in order to identify "a group" of agents and a memetic inventory as distinct from other groups and from the larger society as a whole. This has memetic engineering implications to do with improving the "effectiveness" of an existing group (such as a corporation, government agency, etc.) or dismantling "harmful" groups (cults, terrorist movements, etc.) without the need for resort to mass arrests or other draconian measures (which are generally not very effective anyway).
The value of skin theory to identifying groups in a rigorous way not to be understated, but a greater value may be found in understanding how the group under study protects itself from outside influences (2) and also projects its power into the outside world. Furthermore, identifying the skin of a group should allow elaboration of the memetic environment inside the group, which may inform memetic engineering efforts to create a suitable environment "outside" the submemeplex, which could enable effects such as memetic tunneling (3) to "evaporate away" member agents into the outer society, or supermemeplex.
Helper Memes (4)
In my previous essay, I looked at the probabilities of certain pathways between a simple set of states with a simple set of agents, however, I left out the effect of immunomemes and alliance memes. It is probably axiomatic that any action taken by any member of a cohort gives other, perhaps all, members of that cohort the ability to enact a response, perhaps in an infinite cascade (6).
In my previous essay, I looked at a simple memetic system with two agents and three states. An even simpler system would have only two states:
| State A | agent-a | agent-b | State B | agent-a | agent-b | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| meme-a! | 0% | 0% | meme-a! | 40%:StateA | 60%:StateA | |
| meme-b! | 10%:StateB | 90%:StateB | meme-b! | 0% | 0% |
This seems too simple to be interesting, but one could perhaps imagine a conversation between two people. The State A could be the one in which agent-a is speaking, State B while agent-b is speaking. The transition between states is the passing of the "talking stick" from one speaker to the other.
Unless the two speakers are just talking over one another, there must be some kind of orderly exchange, in other words, one speaker must "yield the floor" to the other in some way. That is to say, one speaker must make some kind of gesture to hand the floor over, and one must make the gesture to ask for the floor. In more advanced cases, one speaker may prompt the other, asking something like "What do you think?" or "What do you have to say?" or such.
This could be modeled by alliance and immunomemes. For instance:
agent-b wants to start talking, and is resisted by agent-a, to stay in State A where agent-a is still talking, or yields the floor to agent-b (null! meme), or encourages agent-a to keep speaking
StateA.agent-b.meme-b! agent-a.null! => StateB b request, a lets it happen
StateA.agent-b.meme-b! agent-a.meme-a! => StateA b requests, a resists
StateA.agent-b.meme-b! agent-a.meme-b! => StateB b requests, a encourages
StateA.agent-a.meme-b! agent-b.null! => StateB agent-a offers, b passively accepts
StateA.agent-a.meme-b! agent-b.meme-b! => StateB b actively accepts a's offer
StateA.agent-a.meme-b! agent-b.meme-a! => StateA agent-a offers, B refuses
Table 2. Deployment Descriptors
Six deployment descriptors (7). Is this a complete picture? A state change requires a deployment of the request, by either agent, two states, then the other agent can either passively acquiesce (null!), resist the transition, or actively accept / encourage it.
The deployment of any of each of these three memes brings the total number of possibilities to six.
If we leave out StateA.meme-a! (7) for now, we end up with only StateA.meme-b! and StateB.meme-a! and we can think of each of these as producing a "compelled" state (8) where the other agent, or the "targeted" agent, must react immediately in one of one or more clearly specified ways. This is what immunomemes and alliance memes do.
 |
| fig. 3. State Transition Diagram for "Conversation" |
Here we see how once the two compelled states, which I've named StateAB and StateBB, are reached, the agent whose memetic deployment invokes those states is now subject to what we could call "bullying opportunities" or "alliance opportunities" and we can see how they are symmetrical, and how the other agent is "compelled" to react, or, the other agent is "given the opportunity" to react. This is the sort of thing we see in the Triangular Baseball Model, that is, that the agent who is reacting does not have this opportunity to do so until the other agent has taken their action, and that whether the reaction is "beneficial" to the initiating agent is unclear from the network structure of the memeplex alone (9).
Immunomemetic Notation
As I started to do in Triangular Baseball, I use a shorthand to remove the compelled states to do with immunomemetic (and alliance meme) transitions to just be a series of memes that are interdependent and interrelated by putting these group memes into the memetic transition matrices. This starts to imply a causal relationship, which may be imposed artificially. In principle, however, a given deployment causes a "bullying opportunity" or an immunomemetic deployment opportunity, which then sends the system to a given "other" state, different to the one "intended" by the initial deployer.
| State A | agent-a | agent-b |
|---|---|---|
| meme-a! | Compelled State AB b.b! => B b.null! => B b.a! => A |
|
| meme-b! | Compelled State BB a.b! => B a.null! => B a.a! => A |
| State B | agent-a | agent-b |
|---|---|---|
| meme-a! | Compelled State AA b.null! => A b.a! => A b.b! => B |
|
| meme-b! |
Compelled State BA a.null! => A a.a! => A a.b! => B |
fig. 4. Transition Matrices, Immunomemetic Notation
This is problematic, since how does one ascertain what the initial deployer "intended" and what would've happened had the bully not deployed their immunomeme? This would appear to come back to the problem of defining what a state is.
In figure 4 above, the helper meme transitions in italics can be thought of as immunomemetic, since they defeat the deployer's "intent" and prevent the transition that would've otherwise happened as a result of the initial deployment. In simpler terms, agent-b "wants" to go from State A to State B, and when agent-a deploys meme-a!, this transition is thwarted, so to speak. In practical cases, this "intent" may not be so clear-cut (14).
Summary & Conclusions
The problem of how to define a memetic state is still troubling, since states are ultimately
not measurable in the way that memes are. Memes are "well-marked" (11) and so may be identified by observation, reported in memetic hacking sessions, and take place in a time series (12) which is also observable.
There may be an "infinite cascade" of possible different meme deployments which lead to a given state. This may be a way to define a state, and perhaps even the n-space in which memetic systems function. The probability of a series of memes being deployed in sequence, and by which agents, may be a way of defining said space, and may even give rise to ideas such as "memetic momentum" (13) which could lead to predicting the behavior of large organic systems.
The memetic matrix model may be problematic in terms of its use as a tool for analyzing real systems, or large systems. It relies on the artificial idea of a "state" and perhaps needs to rely on ideas such as the probability of certain memetic sequences, but this remains to be explored.
_________________________________
(1) A submemeplectic skin, or "a skin," derives from the concept of a submemeplex, which is a memeplex within a larger memetic environment, or a supermemeplex. I've written about this in at least one previous essay. It is a theoretical concept which I am still exploring and working to define. Think of it as a boundary or bubble around a faction, cultural subgroup, organization, cult, etc., where on the "inside" there are different memetic interactions, presumably much "richer" and more numerous, between agents. Inside and outside, and at the boundary, the immunomemetic and alliance meme profile are presumably interestingly different, and in which ways remains to be explored.
(2) All stable (sub)memeplexes contain conservative pathways, typically involving things like immunomemes (see elsewhere) that maintain its stability over time, prevent the memeplex from changing, e.g., new memes being introduced willy-nilly, agents behaving in novel ways, engaging with agents not inured of the memeplex, etc. Theoretically a stable, isolated submemeplex has a powerful and effective immunomemeplex that may or may not be concentrated in the skin (this remains to be seen). Careful study might reveal how memes may be introduced across the skin, for example, allowing a submemeplex to be diluted, contaminated, or dismantled, or the skin itself might be manipulated or adulterated so as to blunt the ability of the submemeplex to exert influence outside itself.
(3) Memetic tunneling is the idea that if the resonance of two memetic environments (for a given agent) were equivalent, such as within a cult and within a nearby mainstream church outside the cult, a inured agent might be able to "hop" from a place within the cult to the outside church, and still enjoy similar enough access to bible study, religious services, social functions, childcare, spiritual counseling, etc. If enough of the conditions could be attuned, this should be possible, and would tend to happen automatically thereafter. Obviously this happens all the time in the Corporate World, where employees who become dissatisfied, want more money, or have to move for personal reasons, simply change from one company to another, since the environments are all fundamentally similar. The same goes for schools, police departments, etc. Alcoholics Anonymous is a particularly ringing example, where the same simple format of meetings is studiously maintained, and individuals freely go to multiple groups, even in different countries with different languages, and change groups with practically no disruption. The idea that a memetic tunneling opportunity could be established to extract individuals from a cult, fanatic cell, or any other group is hardly far-fetched. The trick is to find what the individuals are "getting" from their membership in the submemeplex, and produce an environment that provides these things as well or better, or with bonuses.
(4) The term "helper meme" is a bit deceptive. In my Triangular Baseball model, and real-life cases such as The Candy Conspiracy, I discovered that immunomemes and alliance memes behave in a very similar way, almost indistinguishable, in fact. This symmetry is broken in ways which I am still working to nail down. One idea is the presence or absence of "rules" (5) and another is whether the initial meme-deploying agent suffers residual memetic debt. One question is the order in which helper memes may be deployed. Also, both immunomemes and alliance memes (ally memes?) seem to involve a (hidden) compelled state. They both seem to have the property of "unassailablility" in that the deployer is guaranteed resonance, or the support of the cohort. Some of these properties to do with timing need to be nailed down. Can both be deployed before or after the "initiator"? For instance, I make it possible for you to apply for a job and be sure to get in, or you tell me you applied, and I pull my strings afterward? Similar, but really two different things. Also, a bully can attack someone seemingly without provocation, or they may bully some action by the victim after it happens.
(5) See also "Free Play" and "Memetic Hell"
(6) One could imagine that the effect of an infinitely diminishing cascade of possible deployments, becoming increasingly immunomemetic, i.e., certain, could cause all of the pathway probabilities to converge to very certain values. This would of course be consistent with the conservative nature of memeplexes, if this idea could be elaborated.
(7) In addition to the meme to change states, e.g., StateA.meme-b! => StateA, one can imagine StateA.meme-a! => StateA, i.e., where one of the agents asserts keeping the system in the same state. This would also provoke a helper meme response from the other agent. We can perhaps look at this addition later.
(8) A compelled state is one in which an agent must immediately choose one or more memes which they must deploy.
(9) We take it as fairly obvious that immunomemes are deleterious to the initiating agent, i.e., rather than asking for help and thus giving a kind and altruistic other agent the chance to be virtuous by helping, an example of an immunomeme might be to give another a chance to embarrass one publicly, and this other taking it. Of course, being publicly embarrassed is a high-ticket service in some circles, and indeed, a child threatened by a parent with spanking for some prespecified misbehavior might nonetheless commit said behavior and thereby force the parent to inflict the spanking, i.e., put the parent into a compelled state, or still yet force the parent to relent (10), which still makes it a compelled state. Being able to put another into a compelled state may be a practical example of power, about which more needs to be written. The point here is that the line, if any, between immunomemes and alliance memes may be murky, or that we have not yet added the properties that distinguish them in our examples so far.
(10) By forcing a parent to relent rather than inflict a threatened punishment, the child reveals that there were other memes at play, about which more could be written.
(11) How "well-marked" a meme is is one of its properties, but in the end a meme that is too badly marked, i.e., not identifiable as a meme by agents in the environment, ceases to be a meme in any practical sense. This is something of an inside joke with "The Blue Man Group" by the way--their longer and more obscure moves become less and less specific, clear, or identifiable (more on this later). In short, memes are inherently "well-marked" to some degree.
(12) Memes happen in time sequence, as opposed to being "caused" by one another, which is a more subjective, attributive judgement, and thus outside of the domain of Macromemetics.
(13) Memetic Momentum is a new term, as yet undefined. We can wonder whether some kind of "memetic energy" can be defined, and whether we can talk about the tendency of a memeplex to gravitate towards one configuration or another.
(14) Determining if a meme is an immunomeme based on the "intent" of the meme it's reacting to may only work in the simplest, and most contrived of cases. It may lead to circular definitions, moreover, since the idea of "intent" (as in "I intend to go from State A to State B and so am deploying meme-x") implies that we a priori know that there is some target state and that whichever meme deployed has some "purpose" all of which are effectively anathema to the science of Macromemetics. All we know is what happened and who did it, and what that may enable others to do, typically based on the "predisposition" of the memetically-linked cohort. Hence quantities such as the change in residual memetic debt or the deployment profile opportunity obtaining at the end of the deployment cascade may be more relevant quantities. In this sense, the distinction between immunomemes and alliance memes may actually be murky (15), i.e., their symmetry may not be clearly broken.
(15) In addition to first-order memetic engineering considerations such as marking and closure, higher-order factors such as changes to residual memetic debt and deployment opportunities should probably be regarded carefully and optimized. For instance, memetic pathways that lead agents that follow them to larger and larger inventories, access to memetic nexuses, lowered risk of incurring residual memetic debt (also something of a marking issue) can be analyzed and optimized. Additionally, pathways in which others who might "oppose" them are at risk of elevated levels of residual memetic debt could be seen as more secure and desireable.
2025-02-01
2025-01-30
2025-01-29
2025-01-28
2025-01-27
Sci-Fi Parodies, Trek, Who
Generic Trek
Generic Time Travel
Darth Trump - I think I posted this before, actually...
模倣子 Microchips and Memetic Matrix Modeling
Introduction
There are tools for designing and modeling of microchips, which are enormously complex, with millions of devices. The effects of the states of these devices and the state of the whole chip may be similar to the states of a memetic system, with agents in "states" and disposition to deploy memes which changes the state of the whole system.
These tools, or something resembling, might be useful in modeling the behavior of a memetic system. There may even be tools to detect closed pathways and such and find the "skins" of memetic systems.
Propagation Speeds
One issue is what "propagation times" look like in a memetic system model. In a microchip, it's the clock speed, i.e., in principle a computation that involves a certain number of gates in series requires that same number of clock cycles to complete. However, computations may in principle proceed in parallel, even to the point of competing results being thrown out at the end.
In a memetic system we can think of a "result" that the memeplex reaches after propagation through some series of pathways, and there may be multiple such pathways (1).
In a memeplex, the propagation time of a step may be thought of as the meme that is most likely to be deployed by some agent, to lead to another state. The reasoning here is that whichever agent is able to deploy something the fastest, that is what is going to happen. In practice, we think of each available meme as having a "weight," so some kind of probability of being deployed.
So we're back to the idea of the probability of given memes being deployed in given states, and so the probability of given pathways happening.
Pathways
First off, in a sense all pathways are ultimately closed (2). In practice, no pathways are truly closed. There is always some non-zero probability that memetic exchanges will reach beyond some arbitrarily defined (or enforced) boundary (3).
What does a pathway look like? We need some notation here. I attempted to make a start on this in my previous essay on Closed Pathways. Obviously, deployment descriptor notation is at least somewhat suited to this:
State.agent.meme! => NewState
Each agent in each state has a weighted probability of deploying a given meme. Hence we could write something like:
W:State.agent.meme! => P:NewState
We can start to see the idea of Game Theory-like truth tables emerging. The simplest system is one with two agents and three states, with two memes available to each agents in the first state. We can write the state matrix for the first state as follows (5):
| State A | agent-a | agent-b |
|---|---|---|
| meme-b! | 20%:StateB | 30%:StateB |
| meme-c! | 10%:StateC | 40%:StateC |
Here we assume that the same meme deployed by different agents leads to the same final state, which is not required.
How do we interpret this? The most likely deployment (40%) is agent-b.meme-c! => StateC, however, there is a total 50% chance that somebody will deploy meme-b! => StateB. Game Theory gives us the idea of equilibrium states. In Macromemetics, agents try to maximize their own deployment opportunities (4). In practice, the important bit for an agent is that they themselves be the one to deploy the meme, as opposed to where the meme leads, as such. For instance, let's imagine that both StateB and StateC lead back to StateA in a closed path:
| State B | agent-a | agent-b | State C | agent-a | agent-b | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| meme-a! | 50%:StateA | 10%:StateA | meme-a! | 10%:StateA | 40%:StateA | |
| meme-c! | 10%:StateC | 30%:StateC | meme-b! | 20%:StateB | 30%:StateB |
To sum up in deployment descriptors:
A.a.b! => B.a.a! => A (probability? 20% x 50% = 10%?)
A.a.c! => C.a.a! => A ( 10% x 10% = 1%?)
A.a.b! => B.a.c! => C.a.a! => A ( 20% x 10% x 10% = 0.2% )
A.a.c! => C.a.c! => B.a.a! => A ( 10% x 20% x 50% = 1% )
A.b.b! => B.b.a! => A ( 30% x 10% = 3% )
A.b.c! => C.b.a! => A ( 40% x 40% = 16% )
A.b.b! => B.b.c! => C.b.a! => A ( 30% x 30% x 40% = 3.6% )
A.b.c! => C.b.b! => B.b.a! => A ( 40% x 30% x 10% = 1.2% )
What does this mean? It seems the longer pathways are less likely. 36% of pathways...to what? These are closed pathways in which one agent, agent-a or agent-b, deploys all the memes that make the circuit. There are others in which one agent deploys the first meme and the other the second.
A.a.b! => B.b.a! => A ( 20% x 10% = 2% )
A.b.b! => B.a.a! => A ( 30% x 50% = 15% )
A.a.c! => C.b.a! => A ( 10% x 40% = 4% )
A.b.c! => C.a.a! => A ( 40% x 10% = 4%)
This gives us another 25% for a total of 61%. What about the other 39%? In practice, there are infinitely many pathways in which we go from State A to State B or C, and then bounce back and forth for an indeterminate period before returning to State A. How much do these pathways contribute to the "total" and what does that even mean?
We could compute the probability of jumping back and forth between State B and C without going to State A for however many iterations.
B => C => B
B.a.c! => C.a.b! => B ( 10% x 20% = 2% )
B.b.c! => C.b.b! => B ( 30% x 30% = 9% )
B.a.c! => C.b.b! => B ( 10% x 30% = 3% )
B.b.c! => C.a.b! => B ( 30% x 20% = 6% )
How meaningful is this?
Closed Systems
One thing is clear, and that is that the three states, A, B, and C, form a closed system, in that there are no routes out to other states, states from which the system might never return.
But return from what? Who or what, if anything, is "moving" or "not returning?"
It would seem to be the collective state of all of the agents in the submemeplex (6), but how do we define agents being in or not in the cohort of a submemeplex? Can they be members, or inured of, other submemeplexes? What determines things like the memetic inventory of a submemeplex or the cohort of a submemeplex?
What about the ways in which the system can exit and enter given states or constellations of states? For example, what are the relative probabilities of the ways in which the system can exit and enter State A?
P:A => B = W:A.a.b! + W:A.b.b! = 20% + 30% = 50%
P:A => C = W:A.a.c! + W:A.b.c! = 10% + 40% = 50%
P:A => [ B, C ] = 100% (closed system)
So it's even money whether we go from State A to either State B or C. What about the other states?
P:B => A = W:B.a.a! + W:B.b.a! = 50% + 10% = 60%
P:B => C = W:B.a.c! + W:B.b.c! = 10% + 30% = 40%
P:B => [ A, C ] = 100% (closed system)
P:C => A = W:C.a.a! + W:C.b.a! = 10% + 40% = 50%
P:C => B = W:C.a.b! + W:C.b.b! = 20% + 30% = 50%
P:C => [ A, B ] = 100% (closed system)
So when it States A or C, there is an even chance of going to either of the other two states, but in State B there is a higher chance of going to State A than going to State C.
What about the probability of a given agent being the one to deploy a meme in a given state (10)? What is a good notation for this?
P:A.a.[ b!, c! ] = W:A.a.b! + W:A.a.c! = 20% + 10% = 30%
P:A.b.[ b!, c! ] = W:A.b.b! + W:A.b.c! = 30% + 40% = 70%
P:B.a.[ a!, c! ] = W:B.a.a! + W:B.a.c! = 50% + 10% = 60%
P:B.b.[ a!, c! ] = W:B.b.a! + W:B.b.c! = 10% + 30% = 40%
P:C.a.[ a!, b! ] = W:C.a.a! + W:C.a.b! = 10% + 20% = 30%
P:C.b.[ a!, b! ] = W:C.b.a! + W:C.b.b! = 40% + 30% = 70%
So we see that agent-a has more "power" in State B, while agent-b has substantially more in both State A and C. This is all just a coincidence of the numbers I chose arbitrarily, and this coincidence extends to how agent-a is twice as predisposed to A => B state transition, where B is a more favorable (4).
Summary & Conclusions
Things are a bit murky yet. How to express the sum of probabilities of paths between states, even of a simple memetic system needs work? This is the Feynman Diagram thing, i.e., that the sum of all paths, with decreasing likelihoods, is the probability that a given state change will eventuate.
In principle, agents try to steer the system towards states in which they themselves have more influence, or the chance to deploy more influential memes. I take this idea as a kind of given, but it may be flawed, however. Game Theory or other such modeling techniques may be relevant, but also psychology, i.e., is this really a good description of agents' motivation?
It may be good in future to optimize over paths, which might tie better into Game Theory concepts. Agents want to deploy certain memes in certain states in the effort to effect certain paths, i.e., paths into other states where they're likely to have access to future memes and paths, so it may be more about a set of possible paths that an agent is looking for, as opposed to a given immediate meme.
There is the problem of immunomemes, and also alliance memes, their shiny counterpart (13). Memes are deployed based on a fear of immunomemes or the promise of alliance memes.
The problem of how to define a "state" is a bit murky, and may run into circular definitions. The same goes for a "submemeplex" (6) and the cohort and memetic inventory for same. The overlap between submemplexes of their cohorts and inventories.
A submemeplex can only be discussed in terms of some supermemeplex (9). We want to get at the concept of a (sub)memeplectic skin, and this implies memetic contact (8) between a submemeplex and a larger supermemeplex across which the memetic intercourse (12) characteristics change, presumably in some dramatic, consistent, and readily identifiable way. In other words, is there a boundary condition which may be identified?
I didn't really explore the idea of how memetic matrices and microchip layouts might be alike, and thus how analysis systems and software might apply. More work for a future essay.
_______________________________________
(1) It might be interesting to take a system such as Robert's Rules of Order as an example of a system that reaches decisions through the actions of multiple individuals, leading to "enabling states" and "compelled states."
(2) The definition of a "cohort" is a group of agents who are memetically connected. That may be by a common language, geographic proximity, some electronic network (phone, on-line game, etc.), or other such. In other words, a group of agents (usually people) who are able to exchange memes. Hence, pathways that lead "out" of this cohort in a sense do not really exist.
(3) Hence the idea of a "memeplectic skin" is an unavoidably nebulous concept, but nonetheless a valuable one to define and quantify.
(4) An agent tries to steer the system towards states where they themselves have more and more opportunities for deployment of future memes. What this all means in a practical modeling sense needs to be better defined. How is this reflected in the weights of deployment opportunities in a state matrix, for instance?
(5) It often makes sense for there to be a meme deployment that leads back to the same state. For example, an agent discussing a motion (discuss!) in a committee may or may not lead the system out of the Discuss(ion) state.
(6) It may be useful to define a submemeplex as a collection of agents and memes in which one or both form a subset of those of a larger memeplex (7). Also implied is that the agents of the submemeplex are in memetic contact (8) with those of the supermemeplex (9).
(7) A subculture or a counter-culture could be a submemeplex.
(8) Memetic Contact: Otherwise able to exchange memes, i.e., not impeded by physical distance or isolation, lack of a common language, or lack of access to communication technology.
(9) Supermemeplex: A memetic system which contains additional agents, memes, or allowed state transitions
(10) The idea is that agents favor deploying memes that lead to states where they are even more able to deploy further memes (11). This may or may or may not be reflected in our example, by the way, since the weights are selected arbitrarily. This may be where Game Theory or other methods of analysis come in. For example, State B favors agent-a, and this is somewhat reflected by how agent-a is twice as likely to favor meme-b! in the State A and State C matrices, but I could have just as well have selected other weights.
(11) The ability to deploy memes may be related to agent "status" or "power." For example, agent-a only has a total of 30% control over which meme gets deployed in State A, while they have 60% control in State B and again only 30% in State C. One could imagine that such a system would "settle" to each agent leaning 100% into wanting to jump to the state where they have the most power, but what would such a "settling" look like? Some kind of cooperation from other agents? This suggests other states.
(12) The type of memetic intercourse, or exchange of memes, across some posited skin is unclear at this point. One can imagine a much lessened number of memes that can cross this boundary (again, still a murky concept), or that the proportion of contact memes would shoot up (or decrease?), and that there would be a sharply different immunomemetic loading profile (again, either up or down). Again, the "dimensionality" of the space in which all of this takes place is yet to be elaborated.
(13) Immunomemes and Alliance Memes appear to be symmetrical. Symmetry-breaking factors appear to be the resulting benefit to the agent deploying the original meme, but also the presence of "rules". In the Triangular Baseball thought experiment, and also the Candy Conspiracy "experiment" we see how alliance memes and immunomemes "help" one agent to acheive a state transition that would otherwise be impossible. This is not reflected in the model in this essay, but might solve some problems. Perhaps for a future essay!
Trumpulations First Week
This was a month (or more) ago—how are things now?
Leeja Miller—the first 48 hours
Legal Eagle—first raft of exec orders
Trump's gone pro-Ukraine?
Project 2025
Mary Trump: Donald Trump will FAIL
2025-01-26
Downfall Analysis & Parodies
I need to get this movie...probably on Blu-Ray, and finally watch it...auf Deutsche!
Cleveland Downfall
Downfall Scene Explained
Why downfall is the greatest
Downfall Blu-Ray
Hitler’s Greatest Defeat
Nonsense Bullying Stereotypes
Dopamine Detox
I should maybe do something like this. I did cancel all of my streaming services so I can focus on just watching Japanese movies for the next two years to support my Japanese proficiency...which is maybe a similar thing. I'm less tempted to watch English shows because they‘re not available.
2025-01-25
Funniest Funeral Joke Ever
A man stepped out of a convenience store to behold an unusual funeral procession.
One hearse was leading, with a group of several dozen people walking behind.
Behind them was a second hearse, followed by a man waking a dog. Behind the man was a procession of some hundred or more men walking in single file.
The first man stepped up to the man with the dog and said, "I have never seen a funeral procession like this before. Who's in this hearse?"
"My mother-in-law," the man replied.
"And who's in the first hearse?" the first man asked.
"My wife," the man with the dog replied.
"Oh, dear. I'm sorry for your loss. What happened to her?" the first man asked.
"She was yelling at me," the man with the dog explained, "and our dog attacked and killed her. Then my mother-in-law came running in, yelling, to help my wife, and the dog killed her, too."
The first man pondered this for a moment.
Then he asked, "Can our borrow the dog?"
"Get in line," the man with the dog replied.
2025-01-24
Insightful Dutch Feminist
Don't need men...?
The “friend zone” is toxic
Online Dating Effects on Women
hypergamy, etc., the addictive effect of on-line dating apps, etc.
Red Pill Pick-me Girl Pearl
When she realized Feminism is a lie
Women are miserable but don’t know it
Again, bad motives unfairly attributed to men
2025-01-23
Parents Taking Their Kids to the Bogs
One daughter and girl scout leader4y
I had to go to the bathroom at the grocery store. There was an anxious man lurking at the bathroom door. I just gave him a look and went in and found an empty stall. I really didn’t think much of the guy at the door until I heard a small voice in the next stall. She asked me my name and if I had and animals and how old my kids were. We discussed cartoons until I finished washing my hands. I asked her if she needed any help and she told me no. As I was leaving, having the door open she talked to her dad for a minute. I patted him on the shoulder, gave him the this too shall pass. Called him Father of the Year and left. I would have felt OK having him in the same restroom but people are weird about that. I grew up with 5 people and one bathroom and not shy. Most people aren’t like that.
There's a post about how they do public restrooms in Scandanavia. Then there's all the trans activism around restrooms. Maybe we need a totally different solution. Of course, when you're a parent, using the 'loo in front of your small children is a thing--or you're going to make life difficult for yourself. Like when you're on a crowded ferry between Italy and Greece with your small child and you get a call of nature for example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)