Words to Think About: Interactive Collective Intelligence and Viral Memetics*

Part 1: The Problem - Collective Intelligence

Have you ever had someone send you an email or some note from Facebook that asks you to fill in some information just to allow you to talk about your favorite subject: yourself? What happens with all of that information? It may be true that some dark sinister forces are gathering all of that freely volunteered information to perform evil deeds at some date in the future, but how does all of that human data really affect you? Me? It is entertaining in the short term, we get glimpses and revelations about one another on a person-to-person scale, but where does that information go? What does it do? Answer: It doesn’t really do much - not apparently. Or does it?

We associate with each other often in Social Networking, creating an electronic community in which often real emotions and interesting ideas come and go. We share elements of our lives in electronic societies, which in turn become large elements of our lives. The Web itself has become a meta-culture, the Internet a Mega-Society.  I have a friend who called me a meat-space bigot once, because I enjoyed meeting people in person – which means that electronic society has at the very least become psychologically so tangible that those who prefer physical and face to face contact are distinguishable as something else, and for some, something less. I find this trend, at the very least, absolutely fascinating.

Do we together create a greater intelligence than our own does singly?

Part 2: Viral Memes

When I was a Freshman in High School, there was a Senior who was a natural-born frickin’ genius. He would make up a term, use it in an odd way, but use it persistently, until it caught on in the sub-sub-culture in which we were a part. I thought about that quite a bit over the years, until I stumbled over Dennett’s work on Memes and how they created a sort of knowledge or consciousness that is carried by virtue of copying behavior, and in the case of speech, repetition of a phrase, spoken in a new or interesting way to convey a specific, or sometimes non-specific, meaning or emotion. The term that comes to mind is, “As if!” which in the context in which I first heard it, implied “As if that were even close to being the case!” or simply “I don’t think so!” Later the suffix “-ish” became a word to itself, meaning “sort of” or “in the vicinity of being the case.” The meaning of these terms was almost immediately apparent from the original usage to the new, but there was enough of a variation to be interesting, and thus to engender the enjoyment from the new use.

For more information on Memes, check out the Wikipedia “Meme” article. It gives a basic overview, as well as excellent sources. The article by Susan Blackmore “Evolution and Memes: The human brain as a selective imitation device” [Blackmore] indicates that we became essentially human because we could not only understand communication, but replicate it. I know what you’re thinking: “As if!” Me too, but maybe not for the same reason. You may also find Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett interesting, even if you don’t end up agreeing with him. He is an entertaining writer (as well as speaker!). One of my Professors re-named it “Consciousness Explained … Away!” The chapter on memes, however, is worth the price of the fare.

So, what is a Viral Meme? Is it similar to Memetic Poisoning?
First, I would like to differentiate two different types of Memetic Poisoning, and then assert that both terms are problematic:

Case 1.    Poisoning BY Memes.
Case 2.    Poisoning OF Memes.

In the first case, Poisoning BY Memes, there is an inherent value judgment. Unless it is possible to prove that a thought, spread by replicated word, by itself can directly cause illness and death, with no recourse, then Memetic Poisoning is a term used by one group to indicate memes that strengthening an opposing group. “Poisoning the well” is an example – using carefully inserted adjectives and adverbs, or other descriptive, to describe someone else, or someone else’s stance, or viewpoint.

Chong’s article, “Thinking Errors in a Freethinker” shows multiple cases in which this poisoning of the well occurs. This is all the more ironic because the article he critiques, Stahl’s “Mind Viruses and Memes,” is an attack on Christianity, specifically Christian beliefs and proselytizing. I recommend reading both articles. My final take on both of them is that while they both have some good articles, they both fail in the use of bad philosophy. Stahl fails for exactly the reasons that Chong says he does – he employs some fallacious verbiage in his essay – i.e., poisoning the well. Chong fails because he does NOT address Stahl’s main argument – Faith, by definition, precludes purely Critical Analysis. While I will not take up sides in THAT debate here, let it be noted that those are two types of experiencing the world, universe, and deriving meaning, that are (mostly) incompatible. To watch a debate is sort of like watching blind people have a staring contest – it just makes no dang sense!

In fact, I would challenge anyone to find a hard, solid case where pure memetic poisoning existed. The funny part here is this… if such a thing DID exist, it would be, in all likelihood morbidly self-editing. Until proven otherwise, I hold that memetic poisoning is a poor term, a politically-charged term used by one person or group to critique the communication and philosophy or cosmology of another person or group. If it is the case that there is some Lovecraftian concept out there that, just by knowing it or passing along the information, causes harm or destruction, it would be interesting, but I have not yet seen such a thing, nor do I understand how it could exist. I can and DO admit that memetic competition, or more extremely, memetic war, might exist… two individuals or groups using competing memes or meme-sets to establish a societal paradigm.
The second case, Poisoning OF Memes, is the idea that a meme can be poisoned by another meme, or have its meaning altered such that there is a poisonous effect of some kind. I allow that changes can be made to a meme, whether symbol, symbol-set, word-phrase, thought/idea, or belief system when injected with another meme or ideology. For example, the Swastika is actually a symbol meaning life, the turning of the seasons, etc., but was changed (it was turned to rotate the opposite direction, and put on a corner) forever by the National Socialist Party of Germany in the 1930’s, and has come to be synonymous with mass-murder done at the hands of Adolph Hitler. I submit the meme’s meaning has changed, it was not per se poisoned.

A better term here would be meme mutation. A successful mutation is one in which the meme endures, whereas an unsuccessful mutation is one in which the meme dies – we lose interest for some reason or another, and it fails to spread. If one posits that the mutation creates a meme that is poisonous, we default to the first meaning – it is a value judgment. That value may be invested with any number of historical and personal facts or emotions, but it is still a judgment.

Viral Memetics is a term that refers to the tendency for a strong meme to spread. Memes can be strengthened by intentional consistent use of one or more persons, a media source, or sometimes just by seeming to “catch on,” organically, or naturally. In Memetic Competition, a successful meme will emerge as the primary information-carrying-unit, imitated by a greater number of people, and widely accepted. In Memetic Mutation, a successful meme will keep its main, or central meaning, even if it is altered somewhat in form.

3. E-Communities, Viral Memetics,
and Collective Intelligence

Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter, are amazing test-beds of social experimentation. While the finery of subtle body language and tone of voice is often lost in text alone, we can use YouTube to augment some of the audio-visual cue requirements. This “Web 2.0” total interactive World Wide Web environment has begun to create complete sub-societies, without much regard to distance. Interests, previous friends and acquaintances, THEIR friends, and the like, become part of an ever-growing web of organic e-communities.

Through the process of viral memetics, ideas pour rapidly. Oddly enough, visual cues, such as logos and logotype, become more important here – branding and business identity, when successful, become part of the memetic framework. There are those who have become adept at strengthening the viral ability of those memes, such as using a viral marketing campaign or election campaign. For example, Obama’s ubiquitous “O” was virally marketed to every conceivable social networking community – a visit to his website will quickly show how different communities his brilliant marketing strategists covered with that visual viral meme.

I posit that even in a casual community – my Facebook Friend community for example, there is a relaxed but present flow of memes. Some may create them, others may carry them forward, but the entire process is apparent, it’s fast, and it’s fascinating.

The final question is this: do we become stronger, smarter, better humans in such an environment? The answer is, of course, a resounding Yes! Ideas, life experiences, verified quite often by a phone call, or if necessity requires, a personal visit, give a richness to our lives unavailable in a regular neighborhood, town square, shopping mall or classroom. We become connected, we share images and ideas and word-thoughts almost instantaneously, forming another intelligence, or perhaps consciousness, via the viral memetic network.


November, 2009
Frisco, Texas

-----
* This essay is a first foray of my own into the strange world of Memes, and should probably be read prior to my essay on Vemes. Note: Although "viral" and "villainous" both start with "v," "veme" is not a composite of "viral+meme," but, rather, of "villainous+meme."