A few weeks ago, it was widely reported that blogs have failed to replaced radio, TV, and print as the public’s primary source of information. Though the news was hardly a shock, suddenly herds of self-assured pundits used the revelation as proof that blogs were an overblown“fad". With certainty, the pundits proclaimed the it to be the new pet rock. Nevermind that their reports had seriously misinterpreted the data. The media had spoken, and a truth was born.

The arguments (if that's what you call them) of these self-proclaimed soothsayers of technology deserve little to no attention. Anyone who bothers to think beyond the conventional wisdom of the week will see that the forces fueling the rise of the weblog are anything but fashion trends. The nourishing roots of the blogosphere are -- in fact -- older than the very cave paintings which signified the birth of media.

Today's daily quote comes from Evolutionary Psychology, A primer.

[Using Hypnotist voice] Read this. [/Using Hypnotist voice]

"It takes...a mind debauched by learning to carry the process of making the natural seem strange, so far as to ask for the why of any instinctive human act. To the metaphysician alone can such questions occur as: Why do we smile, when pleased, and not scowl? Why are we unable to talk to a crowd as we talk to a single friend? Why does a particular maiden turn our wits so upside-down? The common man can only say, Of course we smile, of course our heart palpitates at the sight of the crowd, of course we love the maiden, that beautiful soul clad in that perfect form, so palpably and flagrantly made for all eternity to be loved!

And so, probably, does each animal feel about the particular things it tends to do in the presence of particular objects. ... To the lion it is the lioness which is made to be loved; to the bear, the she-bear. To the broody hen the notion would probably seem monstrous that there should be a creature in the world to whom a nestful of eggs was not the utterly fascinating and precious and never-to-be-too-much-sat-upon object which it is to her.

From: Chapter 11 | The Selfish GeneBy Richard Dawkins

Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches.  Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.  If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passed it on to his colleagues and students.  He mentions it in his articles and his lectures.  If the idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain.  As my colleague N.K. Humphrey neatly summed up an earlier draft of this chapter: `... memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically.(3) 

When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme's propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell.  And this isn't just a way of talking -- the meme for, say, "belief in life after death" is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of individual men the world over.' [read more]

"This new perception on cell control mechanisms frees us from the limitations of genetic determinism. Rather than behaving as programmed genetic automatons, biological behavior is dynamically linked to the environment. Though this reductionist approach has highlighted the mechanism of the individual perception proteins, an understanding of the processing mechanism emphasizes the holistic nature of biological organisms. The expression of the cell reflects the recognition of all perceived environmental stimuli, both physical and energetic. Consequently, the "Heart of Energy Medicine" may truly be found in the magic of the membrane." - Dr. Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D. , Insight into Cellular "Consciousness"

Kathy at Citizen’s Rent read over my earlier post on Women, Geeks, and the Blogosphere, and challenged my argument on why the female bloggers I know wouldn’t make it to the a-list (I would expect nothing less from a fellow ENTP). In response to her points, I’m concede that I incorrectly limited the argument to only applying to females. (see notes 1&2 at bottom)

This post expands upon my earlier claim that rising to the blogosphere’s a-list requires the blogger to publish content that is purposefully intended to appeal to the audience’s reptilian brain (what is the reptilian brain? think sex, survival, and digestion).Kathy, rightfully challenges my claim, “While appealing to the reptilian brain might be an easier path to a large readership, I don't think the a-listers are guilty of this. A few might be, sure, but not most.”

Admittedly, I had absolutely no evidence behind my argument. So I decided I would take a random sampling of bloggers I considered a-list. All of the headlines and leads that I sampled were the top posts at the time of the sample. This data, is of course, not scientifically valid. However, I think it will at least give us a better idea of which side the evidence points.

Stumbled across this fantastic weblog: Philosophy of Biology. The fact that I am not very familiar with biology (as a body of knowledge) makes this find all the better. Anyhow, the reader is undoubtably curious as to why this post is titled "monkey pornography"... well, read on:

Male monkeys will trade their juice for photos of female monkeys' hindquarters, according to a new study forthcoming in Current Biology. I'm not sure how relevant this finding is to the philosophy of biology, but at least our site traffic should get a boost from having the word 'pornography' in a post title. [link]

Touche, Michael Sprague, touche...

Highlights from TRIBES, INSTITUTIONS, MARKETS, NETWORKS:

By David F. Ronfeldt, Senior Social Scientist of Rand Corporation

Power and influence appear to be migrating to actors who are skilled at developing multiorganizational networks, and at operating in environments where networks are an appropriate, spreading form of organization. In many realms of society, they are gaining strength relative to other, especially hierarchical forms. Indeed, another key proposition about the information revolution is that it erodes and makes life difficult for traditional hierarchies.

This trend — the rise of network forms of organization — is so strong that, projected into the future, it augurs major transformations in how societies are organized. What forms account for the organization of societies? How have people organized their societies across the ages? The answer may be reduced to four basic forms of organization: 1. the kinship-based tribe, as denoted by the structure of extended families, clans, and other lineage systems. 2. the hierarchical institution, as exemplified by the army, the (Catholic) church, and ultimately the bureaucratic state. 3. competitive-exchange market, as symbolized by merchants and traders responding to forces of supply and demand. 4. and the collaborative network, as found today in the web-like ties among some NGOs devoted to social advocacy.

Incipient versions of all four forms were present in ancient times. But as deliberate, formal organizational designs with philosophical portent, each has gained strength at a different rate and matured in a different historical epoch over the past 5000 years. Tribes developed first,hierarchical institutions next, and competitive markets later. Now collaborative networks appear to be on the rise as the next great form of organization to achieve maturity.

The rise of each form is briefly discussed below, as prelude to assembling the four in a framework—currently called the “TIMN framework”—about the long-range evolution of societies. The persistent argument is that these four forms—and evidently only these —underlie the organization of all societies, and that the historical evolution and increasing complexity of societies has been a function of the ability to use and combine these four forms of governance in what appears to be a natural progression.

While the tribal form initially ruled the overall organization of societies, over time it has come to define the cultural realm in particular, while the state has become the key realm of institutionist principles, and the economy of market principles. Civil society appears to be the realm most affected and strengthened by the rise of the network form, auguring a vast rebalancing of relations among state, market, and civil-society actors around the world.