What is the best way to spread your views?

[eMTe]

If we take an internet forum as example (maybe not this one, but a much bigger and more active). Is it better to start a topic where you put all your loose ideas which people will heavily discuss or better results can be achieved by answering to all possible topics, trying to change the direction of peoples' thoughts?

In real-life: is it better to write a book and succesfully promote it, or is it better to live an ordinary life, read much, talk much, think much, but only engage in everyday discussions with as many people as possible?

What do you think? Which approach can be more fruitful? Or maybe this question was already answered by some information theorists?

[Scythe]

When you say "spread your views", what do you mean? Do you want to recruit people to your world view, start a religion, take over a country (if you're getting an Adolf Hitler vibe, it's not a coincidence)? Are you instead looking for personal development by absorbing other people's ideas into your own? Or something completely different? If you don't define a goal, how are we to judge your measure of success? Clearly your real life example of a book lends itself more to one pursuit than another.

In any case, what is the point in meaningless ants making meaningless noises for a while, before returning to the meaningless nothing they came from? Which is to say, none of this is fruitful (if you share that world view).

[eMTe]

Do you want to recruit people to your world view, start a religion, take over a country (if you're getting an Adolf Hitler vibe, it's not a coincidence)?

Ha ha, certainly not; especially the last one would be hard for a philosemite.

I'm interested in the technical side - how informations or memes spread and is one way superior to another, especially now, when billion(s) of people are or soon will be connected to themselves 24/7.

[Scythe]

The best way to spread a meme is to be a cool guy on 4chan /b/. Faceless gophers will eat it up and spread it out their ass. Nobody will know that you were the original creator of the meme, but it will soon gain a life of its own. If it's "good" enough, of course.

[Zyx]

So I herd you like mudkipz?

If you want to know how memes spread, I recommend you look into the work of Susan Blackmore who not only is the researcher behind memes but also proposes a new concept of "temes" which I think you will find interesting. On another note, this talk about dangerous memes is very interesting as well.

[eMTe]

Daniel Dennett, I like the guy. I even read one of his books few years ago, unfortunately I don't remember the title.

Thanks!

[eMTe]

Ok, I have watched the videos, but they don't answer my question. Sure, they're interesting in their own way, but this Blackmore woman is so agitated and has so irritating manner of speech that I promised myself never to watch or listen to her.

As for memetics itself I largely agree with its basics, however the discovery that informations are copied sounds for me as groundbreaking as the discovery that particles collide. Still, I'm not interested in catchy gimmicks and cool neologisms, but in practice. You want to sell a product. Should you build the shop or should you become travelling salesman?

[eMTe]

Memes (www links are also memes, right? ) spread and Dennett is most likely completely aware that both WHAT (he makes mass audience felt pleasured) he says and HOW (what he says "sounds" cool and he has funny beard, so he makes a visual impact also) he does it is important.

But check this link.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on ... sness.html

Starting from 09:40. Listen closely to what he says.

Now my question is: WHY he does it?

[Chroelle]

Fearing that I may pull the discussion down, but this is a perfect example of a horrible meme.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

[eMTe]

Pulling the discussion up.

Religious views are almost unambigously (in certain circles of course) considered "bad memes". I'd love to oppose this view.

Mild spirituality is never bad. So far, it didn't harm anyone. Spirituality (just like philosophy) cannot be completely erased. They can be challenged, questioned but they can't be erased, because they are somewhat natural to humans. Also, what we understand as religion and spirituality evolves and our understandings of these notions are for sure different to ancient or even XIX-century views. For example many people still consider christianity and islam religions yet they have became lifestyles and there is no spirituality behind them. Basically, you either kill people with bombs or you don't kill them and it's the only difference between "religions". (actually it's only nomenclature which is important and in use) On the other side (and I know it first-hand) scientists who deal with neuroscience, linguistics and various cognitive sciences, while being forerunners of The New also tend to become spiritual.

Now, maybe we should make a difference between spirituality and religion? What do you think?

I expect at least three answers, otherwise I will bomb the forum and kill your online profiles.

[Scythe]

Mild spirituality is never bad. So far, it didn't harm anyone.

It would be great if that could be proven, wouldn't it?

[eMTe]

I am the living proof.

[Scythe]

In my experience, you need a slightly larger data pool than that to even note a trend, let alone draw conclusions.

[eMTe]

you need a slightly larger data pool

Like 100 active forum members or something?

[Scythe]

you need a slightly larger data pool

Like 100 active forum members or something?

Can't be validated.

[eMTe]

Sure it can't be, because internet is one huge manipulation tool.

[Scythe]

Yes, I actually recall you saying something along the lines of how we're constantly lying online. Those forum members? Don't believe a word they say.

[Zyx]

This statement is false.

[eMTe]

If you wanted to say "I hate cinnamon cookies", but instead posted the above statement then it is false, indeed.