Wikipedia: Meme/Talk

Memes are indeed an interesting theory.

What I have read indicates: The theory is quite new and poorly tested. It is very loosely defined, and people who talk about memes don't entirely agree one to the next just what the entity is that they are talking about.

Your article addresses this subject as though it were well-established fact, as opposed to what it has seemed to me - a rather new fad in psychological/philosophical circles still trying to define itself and isolate its subject matter.

I think talk about memes is bad psychology and even worse philosophy. :-/

Most such talk is pretty bad. But that's because most of those who use the term don't understand what Dawkins was really talking about, and extrapolate the idea far beyond good science. Of course psychology doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation of solid science anyway... --LDC

I do not really understand why talking about memes is wrong or bad or why talking about any kind of philosophical fact is wrong or bad. I am sorry for that but I had really been lured by the idea of meme, when I first read it, because it seemed to shed light on many questions in my mind. I do not personally think that it is the best way to understand the meme theory in the initial form described by Dawkins and write that to Wikipedia. As the meme theory suggests the ideas evolve and the meme theory is not an exception for that. So, writing the different versions of this theory as understood by different scholars seems to me more beneficial. I can not understand the harsh criticism brought to the meme theory. As the theory itself suggests that there are no good or bad ideas. There are ideas that are more prone to spread among people and thus survive for a longer time and the meme theory seems to be a good candidate for this. So, can anyone please "enlighten" me about what is so wrong with this theory? Secondly, I believe that, when someone changes the initial form of an article completely, he/she would better briefly explain in the talk section the bad parts (wrong ideas, bad English etc.) of this initial form. This may be much more didactic for the readers. ErdemTuzun

I don't really disagree with this, and in fact that's why my article explicitly mentions that some later conceptions of the term (such as memetic "organisms") are often the ones most talked about. I wouldn't have any objection to more coverage of that aspect, and more mentions of popular beliefs and misconceptions. But I do think it is important to emphasize the original idea and the solid science behind it more than popular conceptions, extrapolations, and speculations. And Larry's right--this is dangerous ground, and many people use the concept to justify sociological nonsense, the same way that some people use quantum mechanics to justify subjectivity, and the way many earlier writers used Darwin to justify racism, so it must be handled with care. Also, your original text wasn't as clear or explanatory as some of your other stuff (particularly your medical information which is great). That's understandable; it may be a combination of the vagueness of the subject itself and your English (which is actually better than that of many native speakers I know, but still...). I just couldn't understand what you were trying to say, how it was organized, and how it related to Dawkins' original ideas. I think my text is clearer, more useful, and more faithful to the original concept. Feel free to add anything you think important that I may have missed. -- LDC