I've definitely noticed that my amateurish attempts to learn what biohackers do has given me unexpected insights into memetic warfare. As in biology, memes ofte

I've definitely noticed that my amateurish attempts to learn what biohackers do has given me unexpected insights into memetic warfare. As in biology, memes often have both a vector and a payload - the vector convinces a cell to allow in a foreign body, and the payload tells the cell what to use its resources for once it's being treated as friendly. These two are fairly independent, in biology for example one can remove all genetic information from a viral body (the vector) and replace it with one's own instructions (the payload). I think Dawkins' analogy of memes to genes has turned out to be much richer and predictive than it would have seemed at first, replicating information seems to follow similar dynamics no matter the medium. To your question, I'm not sure I know the full story but I have a theory. If you're at all familiar with the public intellectual Jordan Peterson, you probably know of his polemics against 'Postmodern Neomarxism'[1]. Given that Peterson is a self-described american pragmatist, which defines truth more similarly to postmodernism than most schools of though, I wondered why he would hold such animosity to a philosophy so similar to his own. Someone did in fact ask him about this a while back. His answer was unfortunately rushed, but if I understood it correctly he believes pragmatism describes truth as 'what is most beneficial to believe' while postmodernism describes truth as 'the winner of a Darwinian conflict against other versions of truth'. If that is an accurate description, then I think it's quite obvious: messages informed by a postmodern tradition are more 'sticky' because they have been selected for maximum sticky-ness, which is related to the wellbeing of the host but not identical. Competing messages have been selected for maximum benefit to the host, which is related to the ease with which they stick but is not identical. [1]As an aside: a lot of readers would have had the mental equivalent of an immune response the moment the saw 'Jordan Peterson'. The use of the unflattering descriptor 'polemics' to describe him immediately thereafter is a deliberate attempt to modify the vector so as to convince those readers in particular to allow the message through regardless. Fans of Peterson would of course read on despite this, as they tend to engage in discussions involving him with friendly or unfriendly parties. Note that this use of language only affects the vector with which I delivered my idea, the payload relates to variance in memetic selection and is independent of how it is packaged. This is a very simple example of how I understand memetic warfare working - I hope our memetic immune systems are strengthened by this demonstration.