What's up with the lack of any kind of "semantic" memetic research? All I can find is number-crunching algos, but that's useless for human memes.
There's no research on things like the built-in "instinct-assisted" memes at all. I haven't even see this distinction mentioned anywhere. Things like "playing", which are half instinct and half meme-part, have the meme part trigger the instinct. Any meme that could trigger the instinct part, or at least nothing seems to prevents. So you can have many game memes and all will trigger the game instinct and you feel that distinct psychological "playing" effect. I mean physically playing, like playing catch or so. I think catch is actually "playing" + "hunt" vs "playing" + "flee". If you remember that adrenaline rush after-running away and just barely got caught? Yeah, that's' probably "flee", just with this playing mind-state. But I don't know for sure, there just seems no research on this. I think I've roughly figured out how to design these memes and achieve some desired behavior tho. It should even work for two or for groups, in theory. But I can't brainwash the masses with my memes, so not much point in looking at that level.
There's no research on like, degenerate memes? I think I spotted one that's looks degenerate. Well I don't know if that's the term, but it's quite dystopian, very fascinating. So for the low level semantic memes there seem to be some very badly designed triggers. Or at least one of them is. I don't even know how many are built-in, but here seem to be quite a few for various purposes. Some code "meaningful" philosophical values/beliefs. You don't want degenerates here. Bad.
Btw in an abstract way there really are cellular "meme organisms" living in large groups of people. Or should be, but it just follows natural from the model. They seem to form in those number cruncher models, too. That somewhat confirms my suspicion. They should also exist in larger groups of people.
So why no research on this?