|
|
|
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
|
|
|
The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review
13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
The meme machine unleashed!
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...
Published on 15 Sep 2002 by Simon Laub
|
› See more 5 star, 4 star reviews |
 |
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
The world is still waiting for "the book" on memes.
Ever since Dawkins wrote his chapter on memes in The Selfish Gene, people have become captivated by the meme meme. Several people have attempted to wrap their minds around the concept, and present it in a useful and comprehensive way. While Blackmore's attempt is, I think, the best yet, it tries to do too much, and ends up collapsing under its own weight. Some of the...
Published on 27 May 1999
|
› See more 3 star, 2 star, 1 star reviews |
|
|
13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
The meme machine unleashed!, 15 Sep 2002
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 explain edit in the book "the feeling of what happens". Nevertheless, Susan Blackmores book is a very exciting read, with lots of clever thoughts. Or should I say memes? -Simon
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
The world is still waiting for "the book" on memes., 27 May 1999
By A Customer
Ever since Dawkins wrote his chapter on memes in The Selfish Gene, people have become captivated by the meme meme. Several people have attempted to wrap their minds around the concept, and present it in a useful and comprehensive way. While Blackmore's attempt is, I think, the best yet, it tries to do too much, and ends up collapsing under its own weight. Some of the assertions, such as the development of large brains in humans being a function of memes' imperative, while possibly correct in part, lose the force of their argument by their overstatement. Humans are thinking machines, not copying machines, and brains evolved to think. Memes ride along, for better or worse, on the waves created by the constant motion of our thoughts. Not the other way around. I believe memetics will someday prove to be a valuable tool for understanding some cultural and behavioural aspects of humans. But right now, they still more resemble Gould's "meaningless metaphor" description.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
The Book of Common Sense, 21 Feb 2005
It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the term 'meme' to surpass the lexicon of phrases previously used to convey cultural ideas. "Shibboleth" is, of course, too 'foreign' for the WASP mind to grasp intuitively. "Myth" is nice and brief, but again has been relegated to minor considerations. It's 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 isn't carrying 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. It's only shortcoming is the hesitation one hears when others are trying to say it: is it 'meem' or 'meemee'. The former is correct, of course, but you might have to have read Dawkins first to pick up on that.Alien abductions and Near Death Experiences as expressions of memeplexes, complex, irrational memes. In 'Religions As Memeplexes' Blackmore explains how memes modify the genetic mechanism for altruism among kin by extending benificence to those who are 'like us'. This give great strength to religious memes, extending their influence over disparate groups. Religious memes did not set out to be successful, they have no more ability to foresee the future than do genes. Religious memes flourish in a given environment, with group selection rising above selection of individuals. The link of memetics to genetics and the reinforcing feedback loop of their interaction is the basis for successful religions. It's a useful exercise to read this book in company with Richard Brodie's VIRUS OF THE MIND. Where Blackmore takes Dawkins' idea and fleshes it out with additional background information, Brodie applies practical applications of how memes impact our lives, and what, if anything, the reader might wish to do about that.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
Great book and great hair, 22 Aug 2000
By A Customer
The fantastic Susan Blackmore, who has the best hair in replicator science (apart from Steven Pinker) has written a fine introduction to memetics. It's even more terrifying than The Selfish Gene - in fact, its a horror classic.The Meme Machine is very readable, and also serves as a great introduction to evolutionary psychology. Buy a copy for a teenager in your life who believes in UFOs, or someone you want to give sleepless nights to.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
A terrific book on a 'science' in decline, 18 Oct 2007
It is a shame that just as usage of the word 'meme' is becoming commonplace, the 'science' of Memetics is falling out of favour. This is largely due to its inability to actually predict anything. For a science to be accepted as such it has to be testable - so it has to be predictive. Memetics (so far) doesn't do that. All it does is offer explanations of things that have already happened, and so many of its enthusiastic early converts have since gone in other directions. This is a shame, because to anyone new to it Memetics does offer the most stunning of explanations and insights.
Anyway, back in 2000, while everyone else dithered, Susan Blackmore nailed her colours to the mast and wrote this brilliant book full of insight and daring conjecture. You might disagree with a lot of what she says - it might even annoy you - but you will find it a fascinating read, and the best book (yet) on the subject.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
It's All About Imitation, 14 Mar 1999
By A Customer
It is exciting that Oxford has come out with a book on memetics, and Blackmore does a nice job of fleshing out the basics. The Meme Machine follows through on Dawkins' (1976) fascinating suggestion that culture, like biology, evolves through the processes of variation, selection, and replication. It explores how viewing culture as a hereditary system can shed light on many aspects of the human experience, such as why we gossip, believe in alien abduction, and get enthusiastic about sex. (Though the chapter titled 'An orgasm saved my life' never gets around to explaining how an orgasm saved someone's life.) Her central thesis is that what makes humans unique is their ability to imitate, and she takes the 'imitation is where it's at' thesis very seriously. The idea is: once humans became able to imitate, ideas could be transmitted, and cultural evolution took off. Unfortunately, there are deep problems with this proposal. First, the claim that animals don't imitate is highly controversial, and current consensus seems to sway in the opposite direction. (An article by Byrne & Russon in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 1998, and accompanying commentary, provide an insightful review.) Second, Blackmore correctly notes that the archeological record reveals a sudden INCREASE in tool variety. However, if imitation were the bottleneck, then prior to the origin of culture there would have been variation everywhere, and the onset of imitation would have funneled this variation in the most useful directions, i.e. variety would have DECREASED. The evidence is, in fact, consistent with the thesis that creativity, rather than imitation, was the bottleneck to culture. The 'imitation drives culture' hypothesis leads Blackmore to restrict the definition of a meme to something that can be transmitted from one human to another by imitation. So, for example, if a child learns to peal a banana by watching her mother, a meme has replicated. But if the child learns this skill from a cartoon character on tv, no replication has taken place. By the end of the book (particularly in the chapter on the internet) she eases up on this a bit. Human-made artifacts now seem to play a role in her vision, though elements of the natural world still don't. Thus if a child gets the idea for how to peal a banana by watching the petals of a flower unfold, her flower-inspired 'how to peal a banana' meme is NOT transmittable. In the blink of an eye, Blackmore discards the possibility that any experience can be food for thought and thus food for culture, on the grounds that it is "extremely confusing" (p. 45). The worldview impled by the Shroedinger equation is extremely confusing too, but its batting average as a predictor of experimental outcomes is unsurpassed. 'Confusing' is not synonymous with 'wrong'. Blackmore also claims that "perceptions and emotions are not memes because they are ours alone and we may never pass them on" (p. 15). It follows that the feeling evoked by a painting of a stormy night at sea has no relationship to what the artist was feeling at the time... that a teacher's attitude of compassion has no impact on the cultural dynamics of the classroom. Thus it is not clear how Blackmore's narrow definition of meme clears up the confusion. Readers should be aware that, despite the Oxford label, the book the book does not reflect the current level of sophistocation in the field. It presents many ideas without referencing where they were first introduced, or mentioning influencial work in the area (e.g. memetic altruism, memetic explanations of the origin of culture, memes & language, memes & the internet, etc.). Blackmore does not delve deep into evolutionary theory, on the grounds that borrowing concepts from biology could lead cultural theorists astray. To my mind, this is like ignoring what we already know about snow skis when developing the first prototype for waterskis. In fact there is some disparity between the 'science rules' attitude and the lack of theory or data. If the title leads you to expect material on computer models, cognitive science, complexity, information theory, etc. you will be disappointed. There isn't much on the workings of the memetic machinery. But if you like examples of manipulative memes, you will find it interesting. And the potential significance of memetics should not be underestimated. It is not inconceivable that the next century will usher forth more books on cultural evolution than this century has on biological evolution.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
A bold attempt to turn an excellent idea into a good theory., 16 Mar 1999
By A Customer
Are people suddenly catching on to the idea of memes? Or is the idea of memes suddenly catching on to people? Memes, having been in the doldrums for at least 20 years, has certainly started to gain more interest - and I hope this book will help to stimulate still more. There is, in my opinion, a long way to go before memetics can call itself 'the science of culture'; currently meme theory is an excellent idea, but not a very good theory. However, given the ability and enthusiasm of many of its proponents, this situation may soon change. This book may mark a turning point in the way that science approaches the subject of human culture.The Meme Machine is a carefully researched book and lays a useful foundation stone for the future of meme theory. It is also an excellent read! It systematically explores many of the issues and problems of meme theory, and carefully builds up to conclusions which are fascinating, and in some cases shocking. Like The Selfish Gene, The Meme Machine changes the way you think about the world and your place in it. I'm happy to give it a full 5 star recommendation.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Great theory, let's apply it., 30 Jun 2007
I found this book both thought provoking and slightly disturbing. The arguments are well constructed and make perfect sense. The implications of the meme 'mind virus' are far reaching, I guess intuitively we all know this happens but now have a theory about the mechanism (like natural selection for genes) that illuminates the process. I am now wondering how this might help in my work in the area of organisational change...? I have a lot of thinking to do, perhaps create a meme or two.
Great Book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
Memes have a lot to answer for., 22 May 2004
The concept and idea of memes is such a simple, but extraordinary idea, originally hatched by Dawkins. The cultural Gene is expanded on, and explained to make an interesting and provoking subject by Blackmore. Full of strong arguments for memes as an evolutionary component and force to the increase in brain development, and therefore of consciousness. Weather the meme played such a role is hard to say, but undoubtable the meme presented as successful ideas, evolving through people and cultures certainly exists, and it is very interesting to consider the effects they have and which become successful and which don't and how they have, and continue to shape humanity. The beauty of the book is that fundamentally the meme is a simple concept to grasp and to follow and to understand how Blackmore reached her conclusions. An intelligently written and enjoyable book to read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
A fascinating theory carried to doubtful extremes., 13 Oct 2000
By A Customer
Susan Blackmore's latest work provides the potential for making sense of many things which have long seemed to defy logic and understanding. I thought that she perhaps got a little carried away, with an almost religious zeal, and forced her fascinating theory into a kind of 'Professional Sceptic's totally Revised History of the Universe.' I found the ideas so fascinating that I did not see the need to support it with subjective opinion. Whilst sharing her obvious scepticism regarding religion, the occutl, parapsychology, etc. I am nevertheless reminded of Isaac Newton's much quoted rejoinder when being riduculed for his interest in Astrology; "I have studies Sir," he said. "you have not." Similarly, lumping alien abduction together with homeopathy and her altogether unconvincing explanation of altruism, with regard to animals, took the edge off an otherwise excellent book. Having said that I look forward to her next work.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Amazon Home
