In the previous entry, a symbol for cautioning against the presence of memetic hazards was proposed. In this entry, the types of hazards that this warning would apply to are defined.

A memetic hazard is defined as information with three main attributes. The first attribute is that it spreads from person to person, whether through personal contact or some form of recording. The second attribute is that this information causes some form of distress, whether as benign as mental stress to the individual or as dangerous as societal dysfunction. The third attribute is that it must cause preoccupation–that is to say, it maintains sufficient presence in the host’s mind that either a significant portion of his attention remains focused on it, or it plays a significant part in his decision-making process.

A relatively benign example of a memetic hazard would be the well-known melody entitled “It’s a Small World.” This melody is well-known for becoming “stuck” in listener’s heads, oftentimes causing mental distress to the listener as the tune is replayed over and over in his mind. The harm caused by this particular construct is relatively small–some slight stress to the person affected is really the limit of it, though if the person resorts to drastic measures to purge this construct from their mind, substantial harm may result to their health–e.g. consuming intoxicants to excess.

A more severe memetic hazard would be the doctrine of Holocaust Denial. This particular construct (defined loosely as “a belief that the events of the Holocaust were either exaggerated or were invented from whole cloth”) has the potential to catalyze other related beliefs and potentially contribute to a societal dysfunction; those who do not believe that this well-known genocide occurred may be vulnerable to memetic complexes denying other potential or actual genocides; additionally, related memetic constructs relating to conspiracies by Jewish peoples may find footholds.

Assessing a memetic construct as “hazardous” requires fulfilling both parts of the definition. Adjudicating transmissibility is relatively trivial; the fact that the adjudicator has learned of this construct is, in and of itself, reasonable evidence to that condition being fulfilled. The second condition is more difficult; adjudging “harm” is, at least partially, a matter of opinion, and memetic constructs within the judge’s own mind may color this perception–for instance, a neo-nazi would hardly consider the doctrine of Holocaust Denial, mentioned earlier, to be a memetic hazard, as he would consider it to be truthful, having been infected with that memetic construct.

The third condition is the most important to determine. The host’s mental state as regards the memetic construct must be assessed–if the construct holds no sway in his thoughts and plays no part in the decision-making process (e.g. the urban legend about the elephant that mistook a Volkswagen for a performance stool; most persons infected by that construct will not use it as a criterion for choosing an automobile) then it does not qualify as a hazard, as such. Only those constructs that retain preeminence for a significant duration or that significantly factor into the host’s decisions will qualify as memetic hazards.

There are steps that may be taken to avoid becoming infected with a memetic hazard; future posts will discuss these methods, as well as methods for removing memetic infections.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.