What do you think?
Rate this book
Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme
Book by Brodie, Richard
251 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
About the author
Richard Brodie
16 books21 followersRichard Brodie is best known as the original author of Microsoft Word. His self-help book, Getting Past OK, is an international bestseller. His groundbreaking book on memes, Virus of the Mind, spent 52 weeks on the Amazon.com Hot 100 and is used as a text in many college courses. An accomplished speaker, Richard has appeared on dozens of television and radio shows, including The Oprah Winfrey Show.Richard continues to pursue wide and varied interests, which he occasionally blogs about.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 156 reviews
March 4, 2010
A “meme” is a unit of culture which can be transmitted from one mind to another through communication. It was first coined by Richard Dawkins in his book “The Selfish Gene” in the mid-1970s. Dawkins suggested that an idea (take religion for example) propagates through a culture in much the same way as a virus replicates its genes. In the case of religion, it infects a host, who then passes on the meme through evangelism (as opposed to sneezing on them). This way of looking at things is an interesting one, and it offers a new way of thinking about the way ideas travel through a population.
In “Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme” author Richard Brodie attempts to explain memetics (the study of memes) and some of the benefits that can come from an understanding of the concept.
The main problem with memetics in general and this book in particular is that a “meme” is a metaphor. The metaphor being that an ‘idea’ has some of the same properties as a ‘virus’. Metaphors are useful in that they can help explain properties of the underlying object. For example – the statement that ‘my memory is foggy’ is a metaphor which implies that my memory of what happened is unclear; it is not a statement about the weather. You get into trouble when you begin treating the metaphor as if it were the thing itself. This brings us to the heart of the problem with Virus of the Mind. Genes physically exist and have real physical properties; a meme does not exist, it is merely a metaphor. When you begin to treat a metaphor as if it exists you begin ascribing real physical attributes and properties to it, and it doesn’t work any better than would an attempt to study a physical fog bank located in my head.
If Brodie had used the concept of the meme to illuminate and provide insight into the ways ideas can propagate through a population then Virus of the Mind may have been interesting. Instead he takes the metaphor to absurd extremes and in the process loses the value that the metaphor presents.
Later in the book Brodie loses all focus and makes a lame attempt to discuss evolutionary psychology, followed by an anti-government rant, a promotion of religion (even though he acknowledges that it is a fairytale), wrapping the mess up with a little Zen and a 3 level system of human flourishing which resembles something you might find in Scientology.
And what happened to the 'meme' amidst the scattered thinking, unsupported opinion and odd deviations? Well, it seems we all need to re-program ourselves with our own custom memes so that we can become level 3 people ... uh, right ... good luck with that.
In “Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme” author Richard Brodie attempts to explain memetics (the study of memes) and some of the benefits that can come from an understanding of the concept.
The main problem with memetics in general and this book in particular is that a “meme” is a metaphor. The metaphor being that an ‘idea’ has some of the same properties as a ‘virus’. Metaphors are useful in that they can help explain properties of the underlying object. For example – the statement that ‘my memory is foggy’ is a metaphor which implies that my memory of what happened is unclear; it is not a statement about the weather. You get into trouble when you begin treating the metaphor as if it were the thing itself. This brings us to the heart of the problem with Virus of the Mind. Genes physically exist and have real physical properties; a meme does not exist, it is merely a metaphor. When you begin to treat a metaphor as if it exists you begin ascribing real physical attributes and properties to it, and it doesn’t work any better than would an attempt to study a physical fog bank located in my head.
If Brodie had used the concept of the meme to illuminate and provide insight into the ways ideas can propagate through a population then Virus of the Mind may have been interesting. Instead he takes the metaphor to absurd extremes and in the process loses the value that the metaphor presents.
Later in the book Brodie loses all focus and makes a lame attempt to discuss evolutionary psychology, followed by an anti-government rant, a promotion of religion (even though he acknowledges that it is a fairytale), wrapping the mess up with a little Zen and a 3 level system of human flourishing which resembles something you might find in Scientology.
And what happened to the 'meme' amidst the scattered thinking, unsupported opinion and odd deviations? Well, it seems we all need to re-program ourselves with our own custom memes so that we can become level 3 people ... uh, right ... good luck with that.
October 10, 2012
I read about a quarter of this book. First off, I thought it would be more about the science than some sort of self-help approach. Probably my fault.
More importantly, the author makes unsupported assumptions about many topics not directly related to memes. The one that made me give up was when he trotted out the age old myth about too many "dumb people" breeding leading to a lowering of general intelligence. Over the past century, measurements of general intelligence have actually grown significantly (despite the fact that this barely disguised class-ist concern has been around the whole time).
If the author is so lazy in holding offensive views about general topics, I have a hard time having faith in the rigor of his beliefs about memetics.
Read The Tipping Point instead. It doesn't use the trendy meme word, but it covers a lot of the same topics in a more compelling, more rigorous way.
More importantly, the author makes unsupported assumptions about many topics not directly related to memes. The one that made me give up was when he trotted out the age old myth about too many "dumb people" breeding leading to a lowering of general intelligence. Over the past century, measurements of general intelligence have actually grown significantly (despite the fact that this barely disguised class-ist concern has been around the whole time).
If the author is so lazy in holding offensive views about general topics, I have a hard time having faith in the rigor of his beliefs about memetics.
Read The Tipping Point instead. It doesn't use the trendy meme word, but it covers a lot of the same topics in a more compelling, more rigorous way.
June 5, 2009
I regard most of these books
as extended essays
and as such deserve a lower rating
since much or all of the material is filler
but if you are not aware
of the definition and the concept
of the meme
this is a good place to start
The overall premise
is you can't avoid their influence
but you can learn to spot them
when they're thrown at you
and you can learn to pick and choose
as extended essays
and as such deserve a lower rating
since much or all of the material is filler
but if you are not aware
of the definition and the concept
of the meme
this is a good place to start
The overall premise
is you can't avoid their influence
but you can learn to spot them
when they're thrown at you
and you can learn to pick and choose
March 17, 2007
This guy was in Microsoft, got really rich, and quit. But he shouldn't write a book on memetics just because he's rich and bored.
November 20, 2022
كتاب جيد في الميمات الثقافية
الميم هو مصطلح صكه عالم الأحياء التطوري الشهير "ريتشارد دوكينز" في كتاب (الجين الأناني) وقصد به الوحدة الأساسية للنقل الثقافي أو وحدة التقليد، هذه الوحدة تتكاثر وتنتشر وتتطور، مثالها الألحان والأفكار وموضة الأزياء، فالميم هي وحدة معلومات مخزنة في العقل يؤثر وجودها على أحداث ما لصنع نسخ عديدة عن ذاتها في عقول أخرى.
الميم هو مصطلح صكه عالم الأحياء التطوري الشهير "ريتشارد دوكينز" في كتاب (الجين الأناني) وقصد به الوحدة الأساسية للنقل الثقافي أو وحدة التقليد، هذه الوحدة تتكاثر وتنتشر وتتطور، مثالها الألحان والأفكار وموضة الأزياء، فالميم هي وحدة معلومات مخزنة في العقل يؤثر وجودها على أحداث ما لصنع نسخ عديدة عن ذاتها في عقول أخرى.
April 10, 2017
Получи се почти пълно съответствие между мемите, с които съм инфектирана и тази книга. Единственото нещо, което не ми стана ясно е как така психическите вируси служат само на себе си. Но може би се има предвид, че даден мем (вирус) не може да бъде контролиран от хората, щом веднъж бъде пуснат на свобода.
Книгата не е кой знае колко изчерпателна, по-скоро маркира проблема. Поражда много повече въпроси, отколкото отговори дава. Напр. не ми стана ясно защо някои меми се разпространяват много по-добре от други. Възможните отговори биха могли да се съдържат в бутоните, които определен мем натиска или в евангелизма, който изисква и проповядва. Но защо хората много по-охотно се съгласяват да разпространяват едни меми в сравнение с други? И как така се появяват меми, които водят до добруването на хората? Напр. идеите за свобода, равенство и братство, за злата природа на робството, за правата на жените и децата, за защита на животните, за опазване на околната среда, за либерализма?
Особено ми хареса частта за влиянието на телевизията, рекламите и журналистиката. Тук вече ми се получи пълно съответствие. Макар че аз съм инфектирана доста отдавна с този начин на мислене. Не беше новост, но винаги е приятно когато открия разпознаваем мем някъде.
Книгата не е кой знае колко изчерпателна, по-скоро маркира проблема. Поражда много повече въпроси, отколкото отговори дава. Напр. не ми стана ясно защо някои меми се разпространяват много по-добре от други. Възможните отговори биха могли да се съдържат в бутоните, които определен мем натиска или в евангелизма, който изисква и проповядва. Но защо хората много по-охотно се съгласяват да разпространяват едни меми в сравнение с други? И как така се появяват меми, които водят до добруването на хората? Напр. идеите за свобода, равенство и братство, за злата природа на робството, за правата на жените и децата, за защита на животните, за опазване на околната среда, за либерализма?
Особено ми хареса частта за влиянието на телевизията, рекламите и журналистиката. Тук вече ми се получи пълно съответствие. Макар че аз съм инфектирана доста отдавна с този начин на мислене. Не беше новост, но винаги е приятно когато открия разпознаваем мем някъде.
June 18, 2010
Pretty awful writing here. Also, a very big book for a very small idea. Every social thought = a 'good' (not qualitative) meme. If something is pervasive through society (i.e. American Idol contestants, or a politician folly) it is a 'good' meme (again, 'good' is not qualitative).
Essentially, this is the idea of the book. Common sense will tell you that we are programmed with social, cultural, religious, traditional memes. The important thing is to be aware of them.
Meh.
Essentially, this is the idea of the book. Common sense will tell you that we are programmed with social, cultural, religious, traditional memes. The important thing is to be aware of them.
Meh.
February 19, 2011
Oh this is a bad book.
He does say in the introduction '...even reading these words might make you angry...'. This was true for the following 200 pages. I don't normally finish things I don't like. But as it was short I guess I wanted to get to the end to see if my anger was justified.
I could go on about what's wrong with it, but I'll just describe the formula for each chapter.
1. Make a general statement about a big idea.
2. Expound on it in 'ordinary' language. Miss the point completely.
3. Digress onto something irrelevant.
4. Repeat.
5. Slip in some reference to neo-conservative values like they're fact. (Careful - he's trying to spread his meme's!)
6. Repeat again. This time with the text in a box.
He thinks your stupid.
I think he's an idiot.
This book says nothing of value about the world.
It says 2 things of interest about the author.
1. He made a lot of money with Mico$oft. He thinks they're wonderful. Sure, their successful at spreading the 'Get people to spend a lot of money on something they don't even know they're buying' meme. Not something designed to make you popular.
2. On page 187 he casually refers to the influence of Scientology....
Start backing slowly away.
OK - I know the statement in point 1 is not a meme. But that's the sort of sloppiness this book is full of.
If your interested in Memetics have a poke around the internet. Read
The Raw Shark Texts even. Avoid this book.
Its drivel.
There. Feel better now.
He does say in the introduction '...even reading these words might make you angry...'. This was true for the following 200 pages. I don't normally finish things I don't like. But as it was short I guess I wanted to get to the end to see if my anger was justified.
I could go on about what's wrong with it, but I'll just describe the formula for each chapter.
1. Make a general statement about a big idea.
2. Expound on it in 'ordinary' language. Miss the point completely.
3. Digress onto something irrelevant.
4. Repeat.
5. Slip in some reference to neo-conservative values like they're fact. (Careful - he's trying to spread his meme's!)
6. Repeat again. This time with the text in a box.
He thinks your stupid.
I think he's an idiot.
This book says nothing of value about the world.
It says 2 things of interest about the author.
1. He made a lot of money with Mico$oft. He thinks they're wonderful. Sure, their successful at spreading the 'Get people to spend a lot of money on something they don't even know they're buying' meme. Not something designed to make you popular.
2. On page 187 he casually refers to the influence of Scientology....
Start backing slowly away.
OK - I know the statement in point 1 is not a meme. But that's the sort of sloppiness this book is full of.
If your interested in Memetics have a poke around the internet. Read
The Raw Shark Texts even. Avoid this book.
Its drivel.
There. Feel better now.
August 27, 2015
My mind has been hijacked, and so here I am, vector for Richard Brodie's meme. First hypothesized by Richard Dawkins in the 1970s, "memes" are to the human mind what viruses are to the world of cellular biology--fragmentary gewgaws whose sole "purpose" is to hijack their host and use it to churn out copies of themselves. In brief, the idea behind "memetics" is that these memes and their propensity for replication are the fundamental driving force behind most human behavior, individually and collectively. Because of this, the most effective means to change human behavior, whether for good or ill, is by using memes (e.g., theories, beliefs, institutions, "-isms") consciously and intelligently. Tautologically, those memes that are most prevalent are those that are best at replicating; make your memes more amenable to replication and they will replicate more. Brodie argues that an understanding of memetics will allow the reader to gain a meta-level perspective on their beliefs, hot buttons, etc., which will in turn allow them to select which memes lead to happiness and to pass these memes along. While these ideas are intriguing, the book is disappointing. The author could have spent a whole lot fewer pages (and questionable Libertarian digressions) getting his point across.
July 22, 2011
Going to have to re-read this one, I have some serious gripes with it that I can't quite articulate yet. On the whole it was a good read, some really useful information, but also a few parts that really set off my bullshit detector. Should have taken better notes.
Among the claims this book makes that I found dubious: The author claims that racism is linked to our selfish gene's desire for self replication, but then goes onto claim that the reason we love other mammals is that they share so many genes with us. I don't understand the disconnect here, humans share 99+% the same DNA, most mammals share less. By this logic shouldn't racism be counter to the "wants" of our DNA?
Some of his other claims about genes bugged me too. Especially since the book was written prior to the completion of the human genome project, which makes me think many of the claims about our own DNA are unfounded. He certainly doesn't make references to papers/research, at the end of the book is a short list of related reading, books not research. The footnotes are often anecdotal. All in all, very bad science going on in here.
If you're looking for authoritative account of memes look elsewhere.
Among the claims this book makes that I found dubious: The author claims that racism is linked to our selfish gene's desire for self replication, but then goes onto claim that the reason we love other mammals is that they share so many genes with us. I don't understand the disconnect here, humans share 99+% the same DNA, most mammals share less. By this logic shouldn't racism be counter to the "wants" of our DNA?
Some of his other claims about genes bugged me too. Especially since the book was written prior to the completion of the human genome project, which makes me think many of the claims about our own DNA are unfounded. He certainly doesn't make references to papers/research, at the end of the book is a short list of related reading, books not research. The footnotes are often anecdotal. All in all, very bad science going on in here.
If you're looking for authoritative account of memes look elsewhere.
September 23, 2010
A great read, and certainly makes you think about where your own 'ideas' and beliefs actually come from - who planted those, and do they really serve you? It's made me have a really good close look at the basics like, why do I eat this, why do I live life according to this particular routine? Has given me great license to "de-bug"!! And I'm with them on the TV - greatest virus spreader of all time. Certainly worth reading if you have kids, so you can be more aware of how and where their influences can creep in. Now of course, everything I have said here is just a meme, so over to you to decide whether or not you let it infect you!
February 2, 2021
Second time through, and I probably thought it was better the second time, although more impacting the first. It's nice to read a book about how life works without any references to google, Facebook, social media, or the internet, and the fact that this book is still completely relevant (and descriptive of our times) is amazing. Maybe it's time for Brodie to add an epilogue, although I just checked his twitter and he's mostly talking about NFL these days. I guess he's reached 'level 3 thinking'.
July 20, 2011
This was an intelligent book. Unfortunately, I did not feel that it brought any new "memes" to the table. I got bored reading information that was not at all new, even though the author presented it in an entertaining manner. I would have better spent my time washing my hair.
April 18, 2012
I can has mind hijack?
August 10, 2018
This is another one of those books that's going to stay with me for a long time, and deeply affect my thinking. So, well done Richard Brodie, you've successfully infected me with the memetics meme. I don't know if I should clap, grimace, or what.
I especially enjoyed the discussion about religion, and how religious memes work. I've instinctively known many of these things for years, but wasn't quite sure how they all worked. I hadn't really considered that ideas are themselves products of natural selection, but it makes so much sense. Religions, such as Christianity, that have survived as long as they've survived, and replicated as much as they've replicated, have done so by randomly mutating along the way and providing for themselves self-defense mechanisms, and propagation mechanisms. I've seen this for a few years in how certain doctrines work in the church - inerrancy protects the shared text (the bible). The personhood of the holy spirit is a layer of insulation against looking closer into the divinity of Jesus. The divinity of Jesus is a further elevation of Jesus' status so that he becomes more important and more central to the 'saviour' and 'messiah' meme of Christianity. 'Sovereignty' protects Christianity from those who would just realise that what happens, happens naturally, while 'free-will' protects against those who would argue that suffering etc shouldn't happen while a loving God is in charge. These are all slight mutations that happened along the way in people's thinking, and have persistent because they are more survivable iterations of the meme. 'Unity' is another type of self-defense against anyone who would question 'inerrancy' or 'divinity' or anything like that. Each layer protects an existing element and perpetuates a more robust version of the meme. It's exciting to see it for what it is, but it's also sad and overwhelming, and I'm not sure what the cure is. Fortunately the 'burn at the stake' mechanism didn't survive the enlightenment meme.
I think one thing that the book doesn't do really well (it kind of does, but I think it could be better), is explain that memes etc are not intelligent beings, and they're not really 'looking' for survival. A better way to explain it is, there are things that survive, and things that don't. The things that don't, don't exist anymore. The things that do, have something about them that allows them to continue existing. Over time, these things will either stop existing, or they will continue existing, depending on whether or not they're 'fit' for the current environment. Environments are dynamic, and memes are dynamic. Memes gradually mutate. Mutations that make the meme less fit for survival, don't survive, and we don't think about them anymore (if we did think about them anymore, they would be surviving). Mutations that make the meme more fit, survive better. Mutations that make the meme more able to replicate, replicate more. The system of existing and not existing filters all things, so that things that aren't good at existing, don't exist; likewise, things that are good at existing, exist. The most highly refined viral memes of today are not exactly designed by the meme, they're just the mutations of it that replicate better than other mutations, and survive better than other mutations. This is why 'bad' ideas can persist. Ideas don't persist because they're 'good'; they persist because they mutate into forms that are more replicable and more survivable. If they didn't, they would cease to be.
So, it's not that a meme tries to become more replicable/survivable, it's just that whatever mutation is more replicable/survivable is the one that wins out in the struggle for existence and non-existence.
The book ends with a call for living at 'level 3' of consciousness, which basically means to be intentional in what we want and not being controlled by memes that are simply satisfying their own needs at our expensive. It kind of begs the question, "What are _we_?" which is quite complex. According to my current understanding of consciousness, we're not really any one particular thing with one particular will, such as Descartes' pineal gland observer soul thingy. We're an accumulation of simultaneously competing and complimenting memes and genes. Identifying 'ourselves' as one thing is a tricky task. But I think if we can come to an understanding of what overall brings us life and happiness, we can work toward those ends and experience life and happiness. Self-understanding is probably the biggest first step, and then recognising memes and genes that compete against our health and happiness is the next step, beyond which most people never get.
I feel pretty empowered by this book, as well as overwhelmed. The myth of self and eternal life and the centrality of humans is fading.... I don't quite like the idea that everything that exists is simply vying for existence against everything else, but maybe there's a way to make it work and still love and enjoy life. I need to think about how best to achieve that. And I need (want) to read some more books on this topic.
I especially enjoyed the discussion about religion, and how religious memes work. I've instinctively known many of these things for years, but wasn't quite sure how they all worked. I hadn't really considered that ideas are themselves products of natural selection, but it makes so much sense. Religions, such as Christianity, that have survived as long as they've survived, and replicated as much as they've replicated, have done so by randomly mutating along the way and providing for themselves self-defense mechanisms, and propagation mechanisms. I've seen this for a few years in how certain doctrines work in the church - inerrancy protects the shared text (the bible). The personhood of the holy spirit is a layer of insulation against looking closer into the divinity of Jesus. The divinity of Jesus is a further elevation of Jesus' status so that he becomes more important and more central to the 'saviour' and 'messiah' meme of Christianity. 'Sovereignty' protects Christianity from those who would just realise that what happens, happens naturally, while 'free-will' protects against those who would argue that suffering etc shouldn't happen while a loving God is in charge. These are all slight mutations that happened along the way in people's thinking, and have persistent because they are more survivable iterations of the meme. 'Unity' is another type of self-defense against anyone who would question 'inerrancy' or 'divinity' or anything like that. Each layer protects an existing element and perpetuates a more robust version of the meme. It's exciting to see it for what it is, but it's also sad and overwhelming, and I'm not sure what the cure is. Fortunately the 'burn at the stake' mechanism didn't survive the enlightenment meme.
I think one thing that the book doesn't do really well (it kind of does, but I think it could be better), is explain that memes etc are not intelligent beings, and they're not really 'looking' for survival. A better way to explain it is, there are things that survive, and things that don't. The things that don't, don't exist anymore. The things that do, have something about them that allows them to continue existing. Over time, these things will either stop existing, or they will continue existing, depending on whether or not they're 'fit' for the current environment. Environments are dynamic, and memes are dynamic. Memes gradually mutate. Mutations that make the meme less fit for survival, don't survive, and we don't think about them anymore (if we did think about them anymore, they would be surviving). Mutations that make the meme more fit, survive better. Mutations that make the meme more able to replicate, replicate more. The system of existing and not existing filters all things, so that things that aren't good at existing, don't exist; likewise, things that are good at existing, exist. The most highly refined viral memes of today are not exactly designed by the meme, they're just the mutations of it that replicate better than other mutations, and survive better than other mutations. This is why 'bad' ideas can persist. Ideas don't persist because they're 'good'; they persist because they mutate into forms that are more replicable and more survivable. If they didn't, they would cease to be.
So, it's not that a meme tries to become more replicable/survivable, it's just that whatever mutation is more replicable/survivable is the one that wins out in the struggle for existence and non-existence.
The book ends with a call for living at 'level 3' of consciousness, which basically means to be intentional in what we want and not being controlled by memes that are simply satisfying their own needs at our expensive. It kind of begs the question, "What are _we_?" which is quite complex. According to my current understanding of consciousness, we're not really any one particular thing with one particular will, such as Descartes' pineal gland observer soul thingy. We're an accumulation of simultaneously competing and complimenting memes and genes. Identifying 'ourselves' as one thing is a tricky task. But I think if we can come to an understanding of what overall brings us life and happiness, we can work toward those ends and experience life and happiness. Self-understanding is probably the biggest first step, and then recognising memes and genes that compete against our health and happiness is the next step, beyond which most people never get.
I feel pretty empowered by this book, as well as overwhelmed. The myth of self and eternal life and the centrality of humans is fading.... I don't quite like the idea that everything that exists is simply vying for existence against everything else, but maybe there's a way to make it work and still love and enjoy life. I need to think about how best to achieve that. And I need (want) to read some more books on this topic.
February 13, 2019
As a seasoned veteran of The Great Meme War of 2016, it was a bit underwhelming. However, this book could function as a perfectly acceptable introduction to memetics for normies. Either way, its good to brush up on the basics for the upcoming battle in 2020.
January 13, 2020
Summary: Great book, especially for having been written in 1996 before the concept of the Meme became the major thing. Really easy writing style despite being a tough topic. Full marks.
P. 29 - Here he defines the psych definition after presenting the bio-definition from Dawkins. (which I read and hated.) I now realize from my review why everyone speaks about Daoism. My reaction was the same, but I didn't realize how old that book was and how much it embodied weird things in science. So I, of course, love Brodie, for taking Dawkin's idea and making it a better version. "A meme is the unit of cultural heredity analogous to the gene. It is the internal representation of knowledge." I dig and I also think I'm seeing my research in the same vein.
P. 56 - There is a chart that compares the evolution of species, computers, and the mind. I love this chart. Notice where Brodie puts machine learning (DNA, machine learning, internal brain representation of knowledge) and Artificial Intelligence (genetic evolution, artificial life, cultural evolution).
The whole chart is pretty remarkable. I love it. Just that chart is amazing-sauce.
P. 74 - Evolution, not engineering. He describes both and says, that the way we get memes, which remember, relates to cultural shifts, is by evolution, not engineering. This is quite profound. Think about how many people call it "social engineering." This suggests that's not how it works at all.
p. 87 - He shifts to this idea of idea and meme transfer (i.e. the virus part of his book) as communication. He says there are 2 parts to this, talking louder, listening better. Now, you can also think "talking" at scale a la social media, or listening/reading or increasing the amount you hear. But the point he makes is attention span.
He then goes on to talk about what the body naturally has the attention span for, food, safety, sex, etc.
p. 88, he lays out the idea that the brain did this for 5 reasons: Crisis, Mission, Problem, Danger, Opportunity
p. 127 - He talks about the roles of fear and kinship. These are about survivorship of the mental memes. This is an interesting way to think about what finding your tribe is all about.
p. 154-5 - Continues on this idea with the spreading of faith and the nature of evangelism.
P. 179 - He's got a really interesting conversation on Taxation. This comes from 1997 remember. He's like, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is about limiting taxation to close to zero. But then we have 16th Amendment (post-Civil War) that pseudo repeals that, but not really. I mean, I don't even remember talking about the 16th Amendment in my AP Amer History class. It gets glossed over. But it's an excellent point. He then talks about the memes that were necessary to move people toward this and socialize and the idea that taxation is a part of American duty. Fascinating.
The book is good for anyone good across a host of fields, marketing/branding/advertising, psychology/thought/learning or anyone who just wants to understand the art of communication. Props...
P. 29 - Here he defines the psych definition after presenting the bio-definition from Dawkins. (which I read and hated.) I now realize from my review why everyone speaks about Daoism. My reaction was the same, but I didn't realize how old that book was and how much it embodied weird things in science. So I, of course, love Brodie, for taking Dawkin's idea and making it a better version. "A meme is the unit of cultural heredity analogous to the gene. It is the internal representation of knowledge." I dig and I also think I'm seeing my research in the same vein.
P. 56 - There is a chart that compares the evolution of species, computers, and the mind. I love this chart. Notice where Brodie puts machine learning (DNA, machine learning, internal brain representation of knowledge) and Artificial Intelligence (genetic evolution, artificial life, cultural evolution).
The whole chart is pretty remarkable. I love it. Just that chart is amazing-sauce.
P. 74 - Evolution, not engineering. He describes both and says, that the way we get memes, which remember, relates to cultural shifts, is by evolution, not engineering. This is quite profound. Think about how many people call it "social engineering." This suggests that's not how it works at all.
p. 87 - He shifts to this idea of idea and meme transfer (i.e. the virus part of his book) as communication. He says there are 2 parts to this, talking louder, listening better. Now, you can also think "talking" at scale a la social media, or listening/reading or increasing the amount you hear. But the point he makes is attention span.
He then goes on to talk about what the body naturally has the attention span for, food, safety, sex, etc.
p. 88, he lays out the idea that the brain did this for 5 reasons: Crisis, Mission, Problem, Danger, Opportunity
p. 127 - He talks about the roles of fear and kinship. These are about survivorship of the mental memes. This is an interesting way to think about what finding your tribe is all about.
p. 154-5 - Continues on this idea with the spreading of faith and the nature of evangelism.
P. 179 - He's got a really interesting conversation on Taxation. This comes from 1997 remember. He's like, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is about limiting taxation to close to zero. But then we have 16th Amendment (post-Civil War) that pseudo repeals that, but not really. I mean, I don't even remember talking about the 16th Amendment in my AP Amer History class. It gets glossed over. But it's an excellent point. He then talks about the memes that were necessary to move people toward this and socialize and the idea that taxation is a part of American duty. Fascinating.
The book is good for anyone good across a host of fields, marketing/branding/advertising, psychology/thought/learning or anyone who just wants to understand the art of communication. Props...
November 4, 2011
Virus of the Mind is a mix between Dawkins ideas of the meme, self help, poor philosophy (which can be blamed on Dawkins),and a championship of Zen meditation. So this book was a mixed bag.
I am not a fan of Dawkins ideas about religion. I don't think that man has a clue about what he is talking about. However, I do think his ideas of genetics being used to explain evolution is a clever idea, and applying evolution to the spread of ideas is also an interesting concept. Richard Brodie does a very good job explaining Dawkins ideas of genetic evolution, and the meme and makes it accessible to a wide audience. Understanding the theory of memetics is worth the price of admission.
Unfortunately, I think Brodie takes the idea too far. He goes as far to say that everything is a meme, that we can not know an absolute truth, and that religion is all just a meme. At that point it should be pointed out that the idea of that we can not know any absolute truth must in and of itself be absolutely true if it is to be believed. In other words Brodie is just putting forward a new "clever" form of postmodernism... yawn.
A lot of the rest of the book is actually good advice. We should not be too tuned into the tv, and movies. We should learn logic and learn how to analyze the ideas that are being put into our head. We should be aware of what makes certain ideas stick and not be fooled into believing bad ideas just because they are sticky. Unfortunately, his answer is more postmodernism, with a zen twist. I am not saying that meditation is not a useful practice, but I will point out that most religions do advice some form of meditation, and not just zen. Christianity practices meditation, Islam does, Buddhism does, Native Americans do as well. Zen is not unique. And most of the ideas of memetics have been known since the Middle ages, just look up the medieval idea of the mind worm.
I am not a fan of Dawkins ideas about religion. I don't think that man has a clue about what he is talking about. However, I do think his ideas of genetics being used to explain evolution is a clever idea, and applying evolution to the spread of ideas is also an interesting concept. Richard Brodie does a very good job explaining Dawkins ideas of genetic evolution, and the meme and makes it accessible to a wide audience. Understanding the theory of memetics is worth the price of admission.
Unfortunately, I think Brodie takes the idea too far. He goes as far to say that everything is a meme, that we can not know an absolute truth, and that religion is all just a meme. At that point it should be pointed out that the idea of that we can not know any absolute truth must in and of itself be absolutely true if it is to be believed. In other words Brodie is just putting forward a new "clever" form of postmodernism... yawn.
A lot of the rest of the book is actually good advice. We should not be too tuned into the tv, and movies. We should learn logic and learn how to analyze the ideas that are being put into our head. We should be aware of what makes certain ideas stick and not be fooled into believing bad ideas just because they are sticky. Unfortunately, his answer is more postmodernism, with a zen twist. I am not saying that meditation is not a useful practice, but I will point out that most religions do advice some form of meditation, and not just zen. Christianity practices meditation, Islam does, Buddhism does, Native Americans do as well. Zen is not unique. And most of the ideas of memetics have been known since the Middle ages, just look up the medieval idea of the mind worm.
April 14, 2011
ok book about the "meme", coined by Richard Dawkins to describe unit of cultural evolution analogous to gene as unit of biological evolution. Key idea is that a successful meme is an idea that replicates itself from one mind to another. Advice is given on how to inoculate yourself against memes that others (evangelists, advertisers, etc.) may be deliberately spreading in much the same way that an evil hacker spreads computer viruses that take over your hard drive.
It gets interesting when he digs into a specific topic -- e.g., the chapter on religion, and analyzes what makes some memes more successful than others (emphases on tradition and ritual ensure that the meme will be repeated a lot; emphasis on punishment for transgression will keep the wavering in line and discourage variation/novelty/splintering).
But a lot of the book seemed to consist of (a) describing a very familiar observation (ads incorporate sexually attractive people even when this feature is irrelevant to the product.......), (b) labeling the phenomenon in meme language (they're using classical conditioning to spread the meme "buy this product"), and (c) congratulating himself on seeing through what is going on, on doing you the favor of letting you in on it, etc.
It gets interesting when he digs into a specific topic -- e.g., the chapter on religion, and analyzes what makes some memes more successful than others (emphases on tradition and ritual ensure that the meme will be repeated a lot; emphasis on punishment for transgression will keep the wavering in line and discourage variation/novelty/splintering).
But a lot of the book seemed to consist of (a) describing a very familiar observation (ads incorporate sexually attractive people even when this feature is irrelevant to the product.......), (b) labeling the phenomenon in meme language (they're using classical conditioning to spread the meme "buy this product"), and (c) congratulating himself on seeing through what is going on, on doing you the favor of letting you in on it, etc.
November 23, 2014
The author's enthusiasm for the subject is appreciated and does lend an element of enjoyability to the book. I thought his writing was lacking in a few ways though. I just couldn't get past the fact that he was so convinced that what he was writing was so revolutionary and powerful rather than an interesting different perspective on well understood ideas. As a person of faith I thought he was particularly sloppy in addressing the topic of religion - making condescending generalizations and fitting his ideas about memes to criticize religion (yes he came back around to recognize some of the value of religion but that came across as hollow ramblings of a writer who tries to be eclectic in his life philosophy). I was a bit surprised after his general critique of religion that he went on to try to use his ideas around memes to fit fairly generic self-help themes. Despite the criticisms I felt he book provoked thought and provided a perspective on modern life that was different from what I currently have and thus held some value.
May 21, 2015
Richard Dawkins mentions this book in The Selfish Gene, as a discussion of memetics. And it is a concise discussion of the subject of memes, along with some libertarian digressions, elements of self-help and attempts at consciousness raising.
As such this book tries to be a popular science text, a socio-political manifesto of sorts, and a motivational essay on adding meaning to one's life. Because of that split it's not very good in any of the three categories.
As a science book, it lacks the slow and gradual step by step demonstration of new facts from more basic building blocks in logical succession. As a socio-political manifesto it lacks persuasive power and uses some poor rhetorical devices. And as a motivational essay it doesn't really leave you with any concrete guidelines or next steps.
Made me think, though, that counts.
As such this book tries to be a popular science text, a socio-political manifesto of sorts, and a motivational essay on adding meaning to one's life. Because of that split it's not very good in any of the three categories.
As a science book, it lacks the slow and gradual step by step demonstration of new facts from more basic building blocks in logical succession. As a socio-political manifesto it lacks persuasive power and uses some poor rhetorical devices. And as a motivational essay it doesn't really leave you with any concrete guidelines or next steps.
Made me think, though, that counts.
August 29, 2013
When I bought this book I was specifically looking for material on Memetics, and I found it puzzling that Chapter’s had classified it as New Age & Occult. I know that others supposedly like it, at least other books dealing with Memetics, are typically found in the Science section. Having just finished the book, I now know why I found it where I did.
Even though I’m new to the subject, I found the first several chapters to be a somewhat rudimentary introduction to the topic, and then the self-help sales pitch hit me.
I wanted to learn about the emerging science of Memetics, not be issued value judgments on the validity of one meme over another. The author is quite witty and I did enjoy reading it, even though I grew tired of his shameless and pretty much constant self-promotion. Given the choice again, I think I’d choose another title .
Even though I’m new to the subject, I found the first several chapters to be a somewhat rudimentary introduction to the topic, and then the self-help sales pitch hit me.
I wanted to learn about the emerging science of Memetics, not be issued value judgments on the validity of one meme over another. The author is quite witty and I did enjoy reading it, even though I grew tired of his shameless and pretty much constant self-promotion. Given the choice again, I think I’d choose another title .
September 9, 2014
This would have a higher rating if M Brodie did not include enormous (relatively irrelevant) sections on sex and evolution. While the original chapters on memetics were insightful and promising, he dives head first into a childish and unsophisticated lecture on human dynamics rather than stick to what he knows best...or doesn't. An interesting discussion but not very intelligent and the illustrations are awful. I can see this selling well but it's barely popular science fluff. I've only read a little Dawkins but looking at the bibliography and writing suggests this is the 50 shades to Dawkin's Twilight.
June 2, 2018
"Memetics" is not a new term, but it was for me! I think Richard Dawkins is the one that first came up with the word "meme," which, in essence, addresses the issue of how much we believe about what we think we know has come from our readings, listenings, experiences, parents, traditions, society, etc. He estimates that a good percentage of what we think we remember never really happened...it gets transformed by this sort of virus that we pass on to each other, usually unknowingly. The more one learns about memetics, the less one can be fooled, manipulated, and scammed. I'm not explaining this very well, so just read this fascinating book!
March 4, 2016
Solala - although the basic tenet is fine. But you can summarize it in one sentence: The meme is to the mind what the (selfish) gene is to the organism - beware of the meme's goals and ensure that these goals don't influence your thinking when it is not rational for them to do so from your wellbeing's perspective.
April 25, 2010
Everything manulative trick he warns readers to look out for and resist is exactly the tricks he uses to convince the reader to accept and promote his odd-ball theory. And, simply because I resist the truth of his claims, that in of itself proves that his theory must be true according to him.
August 12, 2009
So far, this book is horrible. It seems like pure fluff - sort of like Malcolm Gladwell's books. Update: I officially gave up on this one.
October 19, 2010
Possibly the dumbest, least useful book I've ever read. It would make great kindling.
April 23, 2011
Very disappointed by the book. I wish I had gotten more from the book but it was not for lack of trying.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 156 reviews