andygates: (Default)
People go on about the "evolution" of language all the time, but in woolly terms.  No more!  Some Edinburgh boffins have done an experiment where they start with gibberish and end up with a structured language with grammar and everyfink. 

Kirby and his team showed people a collection of pictures paired with gibberish words, and later tested which pairs they could recall. Whether or not the recollections were accurate, they were recorded and used as the basis of the next group's language training. As the process was repeated, patterns emerged: a certain word might be used, for example, to describe anything that moved horizontally, and another to indicate objects that bounced...

"Over many generations, the grammar goes from ad-hoc and inexpressive into a language that's cleanly structured and expressive," he said. "But what's evolving here isn't the agents" -- the speakers -- "but the language itself. It has its own evolutionary imperative. It wants to be passed on, and finds ways of doing that. We're its hosts."

(Wired article here, refutation of more obvious objections here, paper not yet online)
andygates: (Default)
Oxford Union are hosting a debate on free speech tonight, and they invited a couple of people with pretty unfashionable opinions: Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right BNP, and David Irving, the holocaust-denying pseudohistorian.  There is predictable uproar and protest.

Once upon a time, I was a strong advocate of Voltaire's position: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Not so much any more.  Thing is, I've been around long enough now to see some utter nonsense get trolled out and lapped up by the general public.  I don't think that the general public are especially stupid, but I do think that expecting them to judge an opinion coolly, based on the facts, is naive.  And for a while this has been vexing me.  Why, when cool heads can see clearly, does this tripe still have a hold on people?

I think the memetic theory holds water here.  Meme theory says that the "strongest" ideas will flourish in the ecosystem of our minds.  "Strong" does not mean "good" or "valuable" or "true" - "strong" means that the idea has high fecundity and fidelity.  It has to get into lots of minds, and be the same when it gets there.  Now for the political controversy: I think that reactionary, tribal memes are stronger than cool, rational memes.  The stuff you see in your right-wing rant newspaper is vigorous memetic seed; the thought-out arguments full of nuance are weaker, because they are so subtle - they take more effort to impart, and are more vulnerable to mutation.  Their one strength is truth, but the verity of a meme is a pretty weak test.  That comes later, and by then the reactionary memes can be dug well in, reinforced in their own little complexes.

And this is why my path has differed from Voltaire's.  Some ideas may be very, very strong memes, and yet be utter crap: mental kudzu, if you like.  Holocaust denial is a perfect example: there are living witnesses of the Holocaust and yet this can persist?  It's utter, gibbering bunk, yet it has hooks.  So no, while I respect the necessity to have proper discussion, I will not defend to the death Irving's right to contaminate anyone's mind-pool with his virulent, dangerous, silly memes. 
andygates: (Default)
Interesting article in Wired today about the way that the Japanese manga market handles self-published fanfic, dojinshi.  Despite having the same sort of copyright law as the West, the manga publishing houses turn a bit of a blind eye to a huge dojinshi industry existing, as one publisher says, in the space between canon and public and connecting the two.  It keeps the paying public interested, and seeds new talent because self-published artists are, by definition, passionate about what they write. 

It doesn't seem to pollute the canon, either, which maybe shows "lie" to some of the twitchier Western franchises who seem to hate fan-work and menace efforts like the Phantom Edit with lawyers and take-down guff.  Gods know how they'd respond to a slashed-up Marvel fanwork or Jessica Rabbit getting futa on Betty Boop, let alone Jabba/Leia squelch.

Once a thing enters the public domain, you lose control over it.  If it's good, people will play with it - be it Lego bricks or the X-Men.  Hell, even in gaming, a good NPC can grow legs and walk out of your inventory into someone else's love triangle (or massive gambling debt, Oleg, that'll do).  So even though you can protect the piece, you cannot lock down the ideas and that's good.  Some of the most interesting, fun and thought-provoking comics are the one-shots (I'm so looking forward to Ash vs X-Men).  The can suck too (Transformers: Hearts of Steel, say) but hell, so can canon.

It's as if the media industry wants to create strong memes, but memes which only replicate once, in the sale from publisher to consumer.  Replication restriction makes weak memes.  What they're creating and trying to control is too damn slippery for that.  If it's good, it's got legs. 

Creative types: How do you feel when someone does something unexpected with your work?  Are you in the "heh, cool" camp or the "no, that's just wrong" camp?  Do you think your views would change if it were published in the traditional way?

Profile

andygates: (Default)
andygates

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9 101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 7th, 2025 03:11 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios