>But everyone here basically does share a similar system of ethics. Even
>with apparent disagreements like the one between Sodom and David McF.
>about
>whether you should interfere with the actions of someone who has an
>unscientific belief system, there's an agreement that such issues are open
>for debate since they're not black or white. This is different from other
>meme-pools where *walking away from the discussion* is popular.
Then we have lost a valuable strategy. Being willing to just walk away is
highly
useful.
>Can you show me a reasoned argument that suggests that in long term
>interaction, it is better to take advantage of the other guy, based on
>ESS's?
As an example of the above... [silence]
>You are moving from the specific to the universal when judging marketing
>techniques. According to Darwinian marketing:
>1)There might be a better product out there, so don't get so cocky about
>advocating your current one--it should sell based on the intelligent
>decisions from the info available at the time.
This is not a successful strategy. Put it into practice and you will see
that. If your product isn't "the best" I don't want it.
>2)If you get away with cheating once, your strategy might not work
>again--there might be defense mechanisms evolving for detecting cheating.
And that mechanism can be used to your advantage. (Another effective form of
"cheating".)
>3)It's a numbers game--focus on making as many contacts as possible,
>instead of trying to force people to buy.
This, like so many similar ideas, is born out of an incomplete knowledge of
memetics. Focusing on a few key contacts, who are themselves well conected
and influental in their socal structures, is a much more sucessful technique
than trying to spread the word to everyone at random.
>The reason I bring this idea about marketing up, is that according to my
>theory it is part of this meme-complex--this memetic creature--which I
>believe exists not just in my own mind, but other peoples'. If it does,
>then such ideas about marketing (and other things not yet discussed) would
>be agreeable to others like you, who I think use a certain *kind* of model.
See below, for an example of how incorrect your modelling can be.
>> >>Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions of
>> >>sex acts. Our society should be purged of the perverts who provide the
>> >>media with pornographic material while pretending it has some redeeming
>> >>social value under the public's 'right to know'."
>> >>
>> >> -- Kenneth Starr, 1987, `Sixty Minutes' interview with Dianne Sawyer.
>
>>Now I would just love to forward it to everyone I know, but as of yet I
>>haven't been able to confirm that it is an actual quote.
>
>Why would you like to forward this quote? To build an opposition to it?
No, to make Ken Starr look like even more of a self-rightous, hypocritical
twit
than he already does. This country's sexual/private life facism has gone
far enough. Luckily the Right has an amazing ability to shoot themselves in
the foot whenever they're handed something like this and this case has
proven to be no exception. If Newt keeps openning his big mouth the
Democrats might actually win in November after all.
(BTW, Salon has done the research and shown the above to be a bogus quote.
But forward it to your friends anyway, "all's far in love & memes", right
David?)
-Prof. Tim