Banner
    Studying Memes With Phylomemetics
    By ... ... | June 1st 2011 08:57 AM | 8 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About ...

    ... Now at a new blog, called The Beast, the Bard and the Bot....

    View ...'s Profile

    In The Selfish Gene (1976), Richard Dawkins introduced the word ‘meme’ (derived from the Greek word mimema, roughly translates as ‘something imitated’) to denote “a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation.”

    It turned out to be a good meme itself. Since its introduction, it has spread quickly, and, by now, most people have been exposed to the term somewhere, from newspapers to conversations with friends and relatives to academic publications. In the past few decades, memes have become a field of study.

    Increasingly, phylogenetic methods and techniques, originally exclusively reserved to genetics, are being used in the study of memes, spurring Howe and Windram (2011) to “propose the adoption of the word ‘phylomemetics’ for phylogenetic analysis of reproducing non-genetic elements."

    In their article, they discuss three fields of study where such methods have been used and can prove increasingly useful: the analysis of manuscripts, languages and cultural artefacts. Not only vertical meme transfer (replication with the possibility of an error) can be studies with these methods, but horizontal meme transfer (the introduction of a new meme from another ‘meme pool’) is also included.

    In manuscripts, the texts are aligned and encoded in strings of characters which can be used by phylogenetic tree building programs. The resulting trees have been compared to the results obtained by ‘regular’ manuscript analysis and they compare well. In languages, the same approach is used with sets of words from two or more languages. Artefacts pose more of a challenge as their features are more difficult to code. Nevertheless, some studies have used phylogenetic methods in the investigation of artefacts and the overall fit of the tree was found to be good.

    These three fields of study are only examples as, in principle, these methods could be used on any system in which there are elements that can be reproduced with potential errors, and where such errors are transmitted in following generations.

    As phylomemetics is still a ‘young’ approach, in my opinion additional research is required to establish its accuracy in different fields, but it can already provide a great tool for a quick first analysis, which might help in refining hypotheses or establishing research question. However, for now, I think the best approach is to combine it with conventional methods. This, of course, doesn’t mean that it might not become a widely accepted and successful approach, which, in time, could be able to stand on its own two feet.

    References

    Howe, C.J.&Windram, H.F. (2011). Phylomemetics – Evolutionary Analysis beyond the Gene. PLoS Biology. 9(5), e1001069. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001069. (click here for the original article)

    Comments

    Steve Davis
    It turned out to be a good meme itself.
    It turned out to be a very powerful meme, Gunnar.
    Is that what you mean by "good"?
    G.D.W.
    You're right, perhaps 'good' is not the best word (although Dawkins used the same word in the endnotes of the 30th anniversary edition). 'Powerful', is a good suggestion. Maybe 'infectious', or 'fast-spreading' would do the job as well. Nevertheless, I think the general idea is clear. 
    Thanks for the suggestion, Steve.

    Steve Davis
    From memory, Dawkins described the most effective memes as those that actively suppress rival memes.
    By that criterion, the selfish gene hypothesis is close to the top of the ladder.
    Hank
    I knew you would find a way to slap the selfish gene eventually.   Isn't the seflish gene sort of self-slapping at this point?   It isn't 1975 any more, no one buys it, why stay on it?
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    In fairness, there's still a significant amount of reference to the gene-centric view as being definitive, although I do believe that is changing to allow for more possibilities.
    Gerhard Adam
    I find the concept of memes to be somewhat contrived.  In the typical case, it is simply trivial and replaces the use of "ideas".  It isn't very useful, since there are rarely any real consequences associated with such memes, so it doesn't follow any kind of selection path.  

    Similarly, the mere fact of reproduction with errors is so well established that children play it as a game, so I don't know what insight that provides.

    In particular, it seems that the term 'memes' was concocted solely to play the role of a partner to the gene-centric concept which is equally flawed.
    Steve Davis
    I think you're right Gerhard, that Dawkins pushed the meme in part to bolster the selfish gene, but I think the meme concept has some merit.
    Some ideas are so powerful that they take on a life of their own, and so deserve a label of their own. It's ideas that subdue the minds of some who are exposed to them, that should be termed memes, although they are so mesmerising that I think they should be called "mesmers." They mesmerise some people so thoroughly that the victims lose all powers of analysis and logical thought, some religions and gene-centrism  being typical examples.
    Steve Davis
    "It isn't 1975 any more, no one buys it, why stay on it?"
    I was in the best quality general book store locally today, and Dawkins outrepresented all other authors in the science section 6 to 1.
    His influence has been enormous and lasting. 
    As recently as 2008 the European Science Foundation held a workshop to reaffirm the continuing significance of the extended phenotype concept, which is about as ridiculous as it gets.
    And you might have noticed that it was Gunnar who raised the subject.