Subject: Fwd: Herd instinct Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:33:01 -0400 x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" To: "Memetics Discussion List" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

Herd instinct

By John Yemma

Call it Nasdaq Obsession Syndrome. Victims everywhere describe wild mood swings, alternating euphoria and depression, depending on the apparently random behavior of what they commonly term "the naz.'' Sometimes this syndrome depends not on the Nasdaq but on the Dow or the S&P 500. Sometimes it has to do with whether Alan Greenspan is smiling or frowning. Whatever the case, the stock market is surely the obsession of the moment.

Let a trend start, let the chat rooms spread it, let the newspapers validate it and the networks amplify it, and suddenly all the nation goes gaga, vacuuming up Christmas toys, loading up stocks, popping St. John's wort, or flocking to the latest summer blockbuster.

"You get people finding their self-worth tied up with these obsessions," says Robert R. Butterworth, a psychologist in Los Angeles who monitors social trends for a group called International Trauma Associates. "With media consolidation, it doesn't take much to jump-kick a trend. Something gets going," he says, citing Pokemon, Tickle Me Elmo, and day trading as recent examples, "and people feel the need to get into it, too."

Robert Shiller, the Yale economist who scored a knockout earlier this year with his cautionary book, Irrational Exuberance, has done a masterful job of explaining the many reasons for the current market-obsessed Zeitgeist of America. At one point, for instance, Shiller neatly compares market mania to the Y2K bug, which got the whole world in a lather last year before proving to be a big nothing. While government and business experts still maintain that all the attention to the problem prevented a millennium meltdown, Shiller and many other skeptics suspect that this was a case of media-fostered mass obsession generated by the public's fascination with computers and, last year at least, the millennium.

As much as we worship individualism in this country, we can't wait to form herds, jump on bandwagons, and run a new thing into the ground with our collective enthusiasm for it. The golden mean, moderation in all things - those are hopelessly passe ideas. With that in mind, I'd like to propose 10 rules to help guide us through the next several obsessions:

1. Numbers are the path to truth. For some reason, ratings of popular TV shows and the the weekly box office take for new movies fascinate people, as do humidity and wind-chill indexes, opinion polls, calorie counts, heart rates, and those ubiquitous lists of 10 best and 10 worst everything. Numbers, of course, are the obsessed investor's idol - the monthly consumer price index, the quarterly gross national product, and the "whisper numbers" on corporate earnings. I keep CNN on at the office, sound muted, and have noticed how often visitors' eyes - and my own - dart up to check the "Dow" and "Nas" symbols in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen. Up arrow, good; down arrow, bad. It's America's mood ring.

2. Everything must be on the Internet. Or about the Internet, which is our current overarching obsession. The Net is not just a place to go for information about all the current obsessions; you also must invest in Internet-related companies, communicate via the Internet, buy things on the Internet, and worry about viruses that infect the Internet. A good social crusade to join is one in which children, the poor, and the elderly are guaranteed Internet access. When the great injustice of the day involves Internet access, you know we live in fat times.

3. If one is good, 16 are better. Call this the "category killer" rule. It's why there has to be a Starbucks on every corner. Every Harry Potter book has a place on the bestsellers' list The Sopranos, Survivor, Regis, Regis, and more Regis on TV is a rolling series of obsessions. Every lame-brained idea must become a dot-com. Every new model year must bring a more monstrous version of the sports utility vehicle. (Synergistic note to Detroit: Develop a driverless, Web-accessible SUV controlled by telecommuters. Could be big in the 2005 model year.)

4. If it was dangerous, it is interesting. This is why extreme sports have become so popular. Take epic endeavors like the climbing of Mount Everest. George Mallory froze to death in his Burberry. Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay nearly perished. Now every software exec from Redmond, Washington, to Waltham seems to be planning to attack Everest, notwithstanding - or perhaps because of - the many harrowing accounts of privation and death in recent years. But that's not enough. To bump up the stakes, getting to the top of the highest peak in the world now means doing it without oxygen or racing up in record time or staying at the pinnacle longer than anyone else. (Prediction for the 2001 season: Ameritrade simulcasts a backward sprint up the Khumbu ice falls by the Mountain Dew X-treme Sherpa skateboard team.)

5. The more preposterous, the better. Financial gabster James Cramer, the jester-cap-wearing Motley Fools, Don Imus, Chris Matthews, Kid Rock - pop culture is now populated with over-the-top characters. The most extreme examples are histrionic beasts in pro wrestling with their steel-cage smackdowns and trailer-park molls. So popular have they become that one is the governor of Minnesota and others regularly show up to flex their muscles on mainstream TV. (Fall TV idea: genius day-trading kid stuck in pro-wrestling family.)

Did I say I had 10 rules? That seems obsessive. Let's stop at the golden mean - 5.

)2000 Boston Globe Newspapers.

This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

-- passerby (amzed@this.place), July 05, 2000

Answers

Memetics IS a fascinating topic, Doc. When it leads to someone becoming afraid of others because "they" are under the influence of a meme, it's at that point when memetics becomes its own type of meme.

Perfect love casts out fear

-- Thought (for@the.day), July 05, 2000.

When Richard Dawson proposed the concpet of a meme, he usefully recast an old idea into a new light, giving it new vitality.

The article posted here is nothing more than a good example of how journalists can take a useful thought and trivialize it for the purpose of a moment's entertainment.

A good example of the accuracy of this kind of writing is the following quote: "Now every software exec from Redmond, Washington, to Waltham seems to be planning to attack Everest ..."

In other words, this has about as much resemblance to the truth as a Dave Berry humor column. Good for a giggle. Not much else. If this article in any way typifies the intellectual stature of The Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, then I'll take a pass.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 05, 2000.

Richard Dawkins is the memetics guy. Richard Dawson was the "Family Feud" guy. Not that "Family Feud" couldn't be analyzed using memetics...

-- Privateer (ironic_detachment@hotmail.com), July 05, 2000.

>> Richard Dawson was the "Family Feud" guy. <<

My bad. Mental fart. Thanks for the correction.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 05, 2000.

Actually, Brian, the article itself was published in The Boston Globe and, aside from being distributed to a mail list associated with the Journal of Memetics, has nothing to do with the Journal of Memetics. At least, that's the way I read this post.

I'm kind of curious, though, what you find false in the actual article (not in "memetics"); though let me state that I wholeheartedly agree with your point concerning the trivialization of issues by "journalists". Perhaps the article is a bit exaggerated, though I have to stretch to even believe that. Do you deny these "fads" and "trends" as stated in the article exist?

About the only part of the article that I felt was "untrue" was the reference to "media-fostered mass obsession" with regards to Y2K. I didn't see the media coverage as excessive until around mid-December, kind of like the "Christmas rush" type of syndrome. And even then I would stop well short of calling it an "obsession"; jeez, "Pokemon" got more, and constant, media coverage.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 05, 2000.

Well I liked this article,,,,some may not like seeing themselves in it...

The herd will not stir while the grass is good.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), July 05, 2000.

Patricia, you wonder what I find actually false about the article. To which I would answer first: the tone. It makes no attempt to substantiate any of its claims, and in my view, to call it "a bit exaggerated" is like saying the Tower of Pisa is a bit off center.

For example, take this quote: "[...] suddenly all the nation goes gaga, vacuuming up Christmas toys, loading up stocks, popping St. John's wort, or flocking to the latest summer blockbuster."

Not only does the imagery get overheated ("vacuuming up" toys), but to say "all the nation" does any of these things is simply to indulge in the verbal equivalent of whipped cream. It is pure nonsense.

As for the existance of fads. Yes. There are fads and some people indulge in them. Most often young people, gullible people and shallow people. But merely to say this is boring. It is to restate a fact that has been recognized since the 1920s, when crazes seemed to spring out of nowhere. Remember the Black Bottom? The Charleston? Raccoon coats?

All this author has done is attempt to leave the rather breathless impression that there are more fads now than ever before. A false impression in my view. Nothing in the article convince me otherwise.

What about hula-hoops, Davy Crockett, the Twist? What about the Beatles, Nehru jackets, bell bottoms? Goldfish swallowing? Seeing how many co-eds could fit in a phone booth? Flagpole sitting contests? Marathon dancing?

This guy should read about the golden age of the yellow press, William Randolph Hearst and all his imitators. Then he might have a clue how long hoopla and hype have dominated the popular press and fads have come and gone. He should read about Phineas Barnum and his many famous stunts. He should read about Mark Twain's newspaper days and the Cardiff Giant.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 06, 2000.

Patricia, you wonder what I find actually false about the article. To which I would answer first: the tone. It makes no attempt to substantiate any of its claims, and in my view, to call it "a bit exaggerated" is like saying the Tower of Pisa is a bit off center. For example, take this quote: "[...] suddenly all the nation goes gaga, vacuuming up Christmas toys, loading up stocks, popping St. John's wort, or flocking to the latest summer blockbuster." Brian you need to get out more often. If you need verification for this "light" piece of journalism, you need a vacation. Exaggerated? ya think Einstein?????

Not only does the imagery get overheated ("vacuuming up" toys), but to say "all the nation" does any of these things is simply to indulge in the verbal equivalent of whipped cream. It is pure nonsense.

Here YOU need to understand the scope. When a "Survivor" leads the Neilson's, this ain't some small pocket of people. In fact, this is the jist of the article. That today the speed and reach of what you call FADS, is like never before. In addition, and most accurately, most of what is, seems to be nothing but what you call fads. The whole TV band is fads, so is much of radio and most else. Nothing is more profitable short term than promoting these ridiculous behaviors. Many "fads" crash and burn that lack a certain something. I will leave the reader to ponder what "that something be".

As for the existance of fads. Yes. There are fads and some people indulge in them. Most often young people, gullible people and shallow people. But merely to say this is boring. It is to restate a fact that has been recognized since the 1920s, when crazes seemed to spring out of nowhere. Remember the Black Bottom? The Charleston? Raccoon coats?

To you it is boring, but you are still coming-off a Y2k high so what in the hell do you NOT know? The average age of a Y2k doomer had to be 45, is this debatable? Were these folks just gullible people and shallow people? I would love to think so, but I KNOW better. And when I KNOW many who should have known better, bought "the Y2k fad", one would do one benefit to entertain a bit more than a craze was at work, now wouldn't one?

All this author has done is attempt to leave the rather breathless impression that there are more fads now than ever before. A false impression in my view. Nothing in the article convince me otherwise.

Course not, cause you cannot fathom that YOU did anything wrong regards Y2k but miss the HAMMERHEAD SHOT of reality to your noodle. You just missed all good news, or was it nonexistent? or spun? or as you have shown on this thread, you still have the virus and IT DON"T like you reading stuff which challenges its standing in your being? maybe? no, probably.

What about hula-hoops, Davy Crockett, the Twist? What about the Beatles, Nehru jackets, bell bottoms? Goldfish swallowing? Seeing how many co-eds could fit in a phone booth? Flagpole sitting contests? Marathon dancing?

What about them? Dig this....is it even remotely possible many of these fads are inherent at a genetic level within us? Simply sprouting when conditions are met? you bet. The article again is "light", and merely, and accurately, shows the scope and speed of these things today compared to yesteryear if not mentioned outright, it is inferred. Which is OBVIOUS to one not in a state defending a mind viruses which you still have, congratulations!

This guy should read about the golden age of the yellow press, William Randolph Hearst and all his imitators. Then he might have a clue how long hoopla and hype have dominated the popular press and fads have come and gone. He should read about Phineas Barnum and his many famous stunts. He should read about Mark Twain's newspaper days and the Cardiff Giant.

Ya ya and you need to read about the Michangelo Virus. Maybe you will SEE the meme, or is it some mundane hula hoop craze digitally? -- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 06, 2000.

-- passerby (amazingyou@reso.dense), July 06, 2000.

And *I* need to learn how to spell Michelangelo. If interested, here is a link to Michelangelo info.

-- passerby (amazing@this.board), July 06, 2000.

Can you imagine telling your kid he can't buy a Kid Rock CD because Kid Rock is a meme?

-- Elvis (is@meme.too), July 06, 2000.

So then.... What type of thing that exists in my mind ISN'T a meme? (Just trying to understand how far this thing is trying to go in what it explains.)

It's 3 am.... that's a meme because knowing how to read a clock is a meme. I got it from another brain.

I am very sleepy now ... I guess that's not a meme!

Picturing myself going to bed.... That is a meme since there's no reason a person MUST sleep in a bed, and I got that idea from someone else (when I was a baby)?

Sometimes I like to sleep on the floor, though. I didn't get that idea from anyone else; it's original. (My DH thinks I'm nuts.) I just like to do it every now and then. Doesn't sound very memetic.

(Questions aren't as flip as they sound! .... If I wanna know, I guess I oughta read some more..... but am almost falling asleep now..... zzzz zzzz)

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), July 06, 2000.

Brian,

I don't see where, in this particular article, the writer has to "substantiate any of [his] claims", for if you simply look around, isn't that substantiation enough? Turn on ESPN at any "off-hour" and what do you see? Extreme Sports. What's the first thing you see when you go into a toy store? Pokemon and/or the latest "toy craze". What are the most prevalent ads on, say, MSNBC? Day trader/online trading firms. "Dot- com" this and "online that" and "your kid MUST have this toy" and "summer blockbusters". What more substantiation do you need?

Now perhaps you live your life in such a way that you are never exposed to such nonsense; well, if you have a minute, can you tell me how I can do that? Face it, unless you live in a cave (in which case you probably wouldn't have an Internet connection), this is what you see all around you, pretty much 24/7.

Sure, there have always been fads, trends, crazes, stupidity and the like; as I'm sure there always will be. But we aren't in the 1920s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, etc. It's the here and now, so what would you expect the author to write about? I doubt this was supposed to be a nostalgia piece; in fact, if I had to guess (and I do), it was probably "filler". Big deal and big duh. Nothing to work up a lather over (that was my "embellishment").

I kind of disagree with you on another point.....I believe there are more "fads, trends, crazes" etc. today than in times past, simply because it is easier to spread these days, thanks in no small part to the Internet and a culture of "instant gratification". It's unfortunate, but people (in general) will sacrifice a "need" for a "want". I see that as much more prevalent than in times past. Then again, perhaps I just notice it more; which could be the case.

Personally, I don't feel that the article is an exaggeration. Oh sure, saying "all the nation" is technically an exaggeration, but do you not "embellish" when you write (reference your "whipped cream" remark)? Like you said, to simply state "fact" is boring. To "embellish" gives the article a bit more flair. I found it quite humorous and found myself nodding in agreement.

You make the assumption that the writer knows nothing of "...the golden age of the yellow press, William Randolph Hearst and all his imitators...". Well, isn't that "embellishing" a bit to make your point? You don't know this for a fact, do you?

Obviously you can separate the fluff from the fact, so I'm at a loss to see exactly where your problem lies. Seems to me (and I don't "know"; this is simply my "observation") but based on your other postings to this board (especially your recent bout with fall- on-the-floor humor), you must have been having a bad day when you read this thread. This seems out of character for you.

Then again (and excuse me for this) perhaps Will (above) hit the nail on the head.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 06, 2000.

I feel like I live in a cave now, Patricia. This thread reminds me very much of the one Cherri posted regarding commercials. Commercials have never played a role in my life, and still don't.

I think the bigger question is "How do we establish our NEEDS?" In our youth, we knew little about NEEDS. We only knew WANTS. In the thread Cherri posted regarding commercials and their influence, I mentioned how my girls saw the "doll that peed" on T.V. They THOUGHT they wanted that doll until I explained to them that this was simply a doll with a hole in the mouth into which one inserted a bottle of water, and a hole in the bottom through which water ran out. We could easily take an old doll and perform the same function. In the same way, we were able to take an old, failing T.V. and hook it up as a monitor for a computer. The differences were strictly cosmetic.

None of us want to be so different from the herd that we STAND OUT. This is particularly important in the formative years. For instance, young men wouldn't want to be sent to school wearing knickers when all the other young men wore slacks. In the same way, I wouldn't be caught DEADwearing boots to school as a teen....even if the snow was 4 feet deep. It just wasn't "cool", and there's a need for a teen to FEEL that they're not an outcast. The hormones are doing quite enough to reinforce that self- image without external influences.

Most people outgrow these insecurities by the time they're out of their teens and into the early 20's. If they haven't, we see the type of behavior demonstrated on this forum of late: "I'm better than you BECAUSE..."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 06, 2000.

Patricia,

No. There is nothing that says the author of this article must substantiate his claims. However, in my case, no substantiation equals no persuasion. I concede that the author was not attempting to persuade anyone, but merely to strike a note. Surely, the desired note was struck, but it did not chime with me.

I find it kind of amusing that the very idea that there are more fads, or they are happening more quickly than ever before could itself be called a meme. It is a catchy idea, an impression, mostly conveyed through the media. This article first appeared in a mass-circulation newspaper and then was reproduced through email and the Internet.

I don't need you to remind me that this kind of fluff shows up as filler all the time. I know that. I agree with you that it amounts to fluff and was probably conceived as filler.

But in posting this fluff, passerby tacked on this postscript:

This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

To me, this suggested that passerby believed that the article had somehow risen above the level of fluff and filler and conveyed some meaningful information. passerby's other contribution to this thread reinforces this impression.

I still say it is nothing more than spun sugar and bright coloring, also known as "cotton candy" in my part of the world.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 06, 2000.

passerby,

You said a lot of interesting things in your response. Let me quote them and comment.

>> ...today the speed and reach of what you call FADS, is like never before. <<

Speed and reach are measurable quntities. So, how can you make quantitative comparisons, without making measurements and comparing them?

>> In addition, and most accurately, most of what is, seems to be nothing but what you call fads. <<

I think I live in a different world than you do. In my world, "most of what is" consists of useful work and family responsibilities, loving relationships, books, music, weather, and similar experiences or objects. TV plays a very minor role in my life and fad-driven TV gets extremely short shrift.

>> The whole TV band is fads, so is much of radio and most else. <<

Thank goodness watching and listening aren't mandatory! I find that when a medium mostly conveys advertising messages and inanity, I don't get much value out of it. So I stop paying attention. Try it sometime. It works.

>> Many "fads" crash and burn that lack a certain something. I will leave the reader to ponder what "that something be". <<

Phlogiston, perhaps?

>> ... when I KNOW many who should have known better, bought "the Y2k fad", one would do one benefit to entertain a bit more than a craze was at work, now wouldn't one? <<

How has this benefitted you?

>> Dig this....is it even remotely possible many of these fads are inherent at a genetic level within us? Simply sprouting when conditions are met? you bet. <<

I can dig it. But I prefer to think about it this way:

Our brains evolved generalized intelligence as a means of survival. The human brain is a heuristic instrument, registering impressions and working by guesswork and approximation. This is the only known way to acheive generalized intelligence. Otherwise, memory and instinct are all that are required.

Some fads mimic impressions that our brains want to interpret as important or desirable. Those fads are like cuckoo eggs laid in our brains. They have no substance or importance, but mimic those attributes. Y2K came under this cover. It mimicked a survival situation.

Other fads simply deliver a quantum of what is called "fun". Our brains like fun stuff. People will go out of their way to have fun, in spite of the fact that fun won't pay off in higher reproductive success. Don't ask me why. Fun is mysterious.

>> The article ... accurately, shows the scope and speed of these things today compared to yesteryear if not mentioned outright, it is inferred. Which is OBVIOUS to one not in a state defending a mind viruses which you still have, congratulations! <<

Ah, yes! The OBVIOUS conclusion that I am just blind to. I am blind because I am obstinate and won't see what is OBVIOUS (although there is no direct path from the available evidence to the conclusion).

That takes me back to the good old TB2000. Same old tune, but a different meme being defended. This particular meme is especially insidious, in that it only strikes those who believe they are innoculated against memes, because they read about them and have seen them in action.

Funny stuff, these memes!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 06, 2000.

This article may be fluff but the point stands,,,take a drive through suburbia...this is uniformity, it is the mass of our population....if your looking for diversity find the homes with no TV.

I don't know anything about memes, but if I could not feel the vibe of the industrial marketing machine then I might just start wondering about mind viruses.

I'll take that as a compliment Patricia. :)

-- Will (righthere@home.now), July 07, 2000.

>> take a drive through suburbia...this is uniformity, it is the mass of our population <<

Possibly. But I really have very little reliable knowledge of "the mass of our population." I wonder where yours comes from.

The difficulty is that most of what I have been told about the mass of our population is based on samples that collect volunteered information, such as surveys or the census. There is an old adage that "no one knows what goes on behind closed doors" and this rings true to me.

One of the formative lessons of my younger years was going to play at the homes of my schoolmates. It sure opened my eyes to the fact that every house I entered and every family I encountered was remarkably different in some very surprising ways, once you got behind the front door. They ate foods I was unaware of, had rules and standards that seemed foreign and wierd, interacted strangely and spoke a secret language I could often only guess at.

Just seeing the same cars parked in the same layout of house side by side is not much of a clue to the secret life of the family within those walls. I am pretty sure of this. If you base your conclusion on surveys and polls, remember that the poll-takers rarely ask the kind of revealing questions needed to get at the homely differences between families and opinions. They merely want to identify commercially or politically useful aggregations. As such, their questions seek to identify commonalities and simplifications that can be turned to profitable uses.

Uniqueness has no commercial or political value. I believe that is the major reason why we hear so little about it.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 07, 2000.

>> But I really have very little reliable knowledge of "the mass of our population." I wonder where yours comes from. <<

Mine comes from not caring about what is said inside SUV's but that millions are owned by millions,,,, this is true for all products of the industrial machine... wether infotainment or some other *product*. This homogeneous arrangement is not diversity,,,,, but it is reality.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), July 07, 2000.

The design of stone tools used by many Paleolithic cultures changed little or not at all for tens of thousand of years. Each one is, admittedly, a bit different, due to the fracturing qualities of the stone being used. But the makers were clearly attempting to coax each flint core into a product as much alike as humanly possible.

If you were to look at the clothing of peasants in the year 1000 in, say, modern Alsace, the chances are good that every peasant wore homespun dyed the same color and made to the same pattern. In addition, they used the same building materials and building style for their homes, and if they owned a scyth, it was pretty neaqrly identical to their neighbor's scyth.

Does this mean that humans have never been big on diversity, as compared to uniformity and conformity? Can I conclude that not only are you like every one else in your town, but everyone in your town has always been more or less alike since the town was founded?

Is that reality?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 07, 2000.

I get the impression we are talking about different things.

Tools and clothing of old were imperative to survival...but SUV's in suburbia are not, only a tiny fraction of the population really need a SUV yet one can see many have them. Modern consumption habits of wants (not needs) is not about survival objects of old.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), July 08, 2000.