Previous 
            in thread
            At 03:12 PM 11/16/01 
              , Eric Weeks wrote:
              >I recall some
              >clever person quite a while ago invented the idea of "memes",
              >in analogy with genes. Memes are ideas which, as side effects,
              >tend to propagate themselves. For example, I play bridge,
              >and part of the bridge meme is that I go out and teach other
              >people to play bridge. The religion memes are fairly powerful.
              >(Who invented memes? Was it Gould? Marvin Minsky?)
            If I recall correctly, 
              I think the credit for coining the term "meme" is generally 
              given to the writer Richard Brodie, based on his 1995 book "Virus 
              of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme".
            > > 3. sense of 
              purpose. for example, the work week is 40+ hours, but we
              > > could feed and clothe everyone with much less work than 
              that. where
              > > does our work ethic come from?
            Here is a book that I 
              recommend, which will answer that question much more comprehensively. 
              "Selling The Work Ethic: From Puritan Pulpit to Corporate PR", 
              by Sharon Beder. (Publisher: Scribe Publications, Australia)
            >I read the book "How 
              the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker a while ago,
              >I recall he is a big fan of evolution and discussed how many 
              simple
              >traits of humans can be sensibly tied to evolution. I really
              >enjoyed the book. I think it focused more on simpler things 
              than
              >morals & personality.
            I've read Pinker's book 
              as well, and I'm afraid I wasn't very impressed. Pinker's work in 
              cognitive science is based on the strange field of "evolutionary 
              psychology", a successor to E.O. Wilson's sociobiology of the 
              1970's, which is extremely controversial. I think the theories in 
              evo-psych are given far more attention than they deserve, perhaps 
              because they endorse long-standing prejudices about human nature 
              that many people feel are "intuitive" (e.g., innate, pronounced 
              biological differences between the sexes). This is problematic, 
              to say the very least. 
            For more on this, see: 
              Angier, Natalie. (1999). "Of Hoggamus and Hogwash: Putting 
              Evolutionary Psychology on the Couch". In Angier, Natalie, 
              "Woman: An Intimate Geography". New York: Anchor Books, 
              Ch. 8, pp. 352 - 388. Dusek, Val. "Sociobiology Sanitized: 
              The Evolutionary Psychology and Genic Selectionism Debates." 
              Available at: http://www.human-nature.com/science-as-culture/dusek.html
            Guess that's enough reading 
              recommendations for the holidays, eh? :)
              -------------------------------------
              -Danyeke J. Swanson http://www.bogon.net/dswanson
            "The world breaks 
              everyone, and afterward, some are strong at the broken places." 
              
              --Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell To Arms"