DNA

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I guess we're all familiar by now with journalists and other people on
television using "DNA" to refer to anything except DNA. The other night
we saw a film in which in the context where it was used it would have
made sense if it really meant DNA. The film, La Vérité, was an oddity
-- a Japanese film directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda, made in France with
mainly French actors. One of them was Catherine Deneuve, who was
playing a supposedly fictional actress, but much of the time she
appeared to be playing Catherine Deneuve. This was particularly the
case in the opening sequence, in which it wasn't evident that she was
playing a fictional character: she was being interviewed on television
and was asked which actors had contributed most to her DNA. The obvious
answer would have been Françoise Dorléac, with whom she shared a very
large fraction of her DNA, even if neither gave it to the other, but
it's not the answer she gave. Next she was asked which younger actor or
actress had inherited most of her DNA. Again, the obvious answer would
be Christian Vadim and Chiara Mastroianni, but again, it wasn't the
answer she gave.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 18:26:03 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I guess we're all familiar by now with journalists and other people on
television using "DNA" to refer to anything except DNA. The other night
we saw a film in which in the context where it was used it would have
made sense if it really meant DNA. The film, La Vérité, was an oddity
-- a Japanese film directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda, made in France with
mainly French actors. One of them was Catherine Deneuve, who was
playing a supposedly fictional actress, but much of the time she
appeared to be playing Catherine Deneuve. This was particularly the
case in the opening sequence, in which it wasn't evident that she was
playing a fictional character: she was being interviewed on television
and was asked which actors had contributed most to her DNA. The obvious
answer would have been Françoise Dorléac, with whom she shared a very
large fraction of her DNA, even if neither gave it to the other, but
it's not the answer she gave. Next she was asked which younger actor or
actress had inherited most of her DNA. Again, the obvious answer would
be Christian Vadim and Chiara Mastroianni, but again, it wasn't the
answer she gave.

In my youth I studied (BrE-"read") sociology, where we were taught to
distinguish between heredity and genertic inheritance on the one hand,
can cultural transmission on the other.

The way people now use DNA thoroughly confuses the two. In the past
people might have talked about a company's culture, but now they talk
of its DNA.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 18:26:03 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I guess we're all familiar by now with journalists and other people on
television using "DNA" to refer to anything except DNA. The other night
we saw a film in which in the context where it was used it would have
made sense if it really meant DNA. The film, La Vérité, was an oddity
-- a Japanese film directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda, made in France with
mainly French actors. One of them was Catherine Deneuve, who was
playing a supposedly fictional actress, but much of the time she
appeared to be playing Catherine Deneuve. This was particularly the
case in the opening sequence, in which it wasn't evident that she was
playing a fictional character: she was being interviewed on television
and was asked which actors had contributed most to her DNA. The obvious
answer would have been Françoise Dorléac, with whom she shared a very
large fraction of her DNA, even if neither gave it to the other, but
it's not the answer she gave. Next she was asked which younger actor or
actress had inherited most of her DNA. Again, the obvious answer would
be Christian Vadim and Chiara Mastroianni, but again, it wasn't the
answer she gave.

In my youth I studied (BrE-"read") sociology, where we were taught to
distinguish between heredity and genertic inheritance on the one hand,
can cultural transmission on the other.
The way people now use DNA thoroughly confuses the two. In the past
people might have talked about a company's culture, but now they talk
of its DNA.

Together with the implied background idea of biological determinism
it provides excuses to misbehave collectively without being personally
responsible.
I just had to you know, because it is in the DNA of our organisation,

Jan

[Hibou]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes
In my youth I studied (BrE-"read") sociology, where we were taught to
distinguish between heredity and genertic inheritance on the one hand,
can cultural transmission on the other.
The way people now use DNA thoroughly confuses the two. In the past
people might have talked about a company's culture, but now they talk
of its DNA.

Together with the implied background idea of biological determinism
it provides excuses to misbehave collectively without being personally
responsible.
I just had to you know, because it is in the DNA of our organisation,

Are people who ascribe their bad behaviour to heredity... ill-bred?

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 14:45:28 +0100, Hibou

Post by Hibou
Are people who ascribe their bad behaviour to heredity... ill-bred?

Gotta be ... all day long.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes
The way people now use DNA thoroughly confuses the two. In the past
people might have talked about a company's culture, but now they talk
of its DNA.

Together with the implied background idea of biological determinism
it provides excuses to misbehave collectively without being personally
responsible.
I just had to you know, because it is in the DNA of our organisation,

You could make a stronger case for capital punishment if there's a risk
of it being passed on to successor companies.

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes
The way people now use DNA thoroughly confuses the two. In the past
people might have talked about a company's culture, but now they talk
of its DNA.

Together with the implied background idea of biological determinism
it provides excuses to misbehave collectively without being personally
responsible.
I just had to you know, because it is in the DNA of our organisation,

You could make a stronger case for capital punishment if there's a risk
of it being passed on to successor companies.

Since 2007 England-and-Wales has the crime of corporate manslaughter, aimed at
those situations where the collective management management decisions of a
corporation, but not any individual, has led to death. It’s a fine idea, and
there seems to be some adoption of it in Australia. (It is unlikely to happen
in this jurisdiction, for fairly grim reasons I won’t go into now.)

That should be the first priority for legislating for the fact of serious
crimes committed by corporations as a whole. Thinking about it, however, I
don’t know that I am in favour of the corporate death penalty for a profitable
company. Change the management and let it fail thereafter, but employment is
the priority.

[occam]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 18:26:03 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I guess we're all familiar by now with journalists and other people on
television using "DNA" to refer to anything except DNA. The other night
we saw a film in which in the context where it was used it would have
made sense if it really meant DNA. The film, La Vérité, was an oddity
-- a Japanese film directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda, made in France with
mainly French actors. One of them was Catherine Deneuve, who was
playing a supposedly fictional actress, but much of the time she
appeared to be playing Catherine Deneuve. This was particularly the
case in the opening sequence, in which it wasn't evident that she was
playing a fictional character: she was being interviewed on television
and was asked which actors had contributed most to her DNA. The obvious
answer would have been Françoise Dorléac, with whom she shared a very
large fraction of her DNA, even if neither gave it to the other, but
it's not the answer she gave. Next she was asked which younger actor or
actress had inherited most of her DNA. Again, the obvious answer would
be Christian Vadim and Chiara Mastroianni, but again, it wasn't the
answer she gave.

In my youth I studied (BrE-"read") sociology, where we were taught to
distinguish between heredity and genetic inheritance on the one hand,
can cultural transmission on the other.

Is this not the same difference as between gene v. meme? A Gene is real
scientifically defined idea which describes some process of heredity,
whereas a 'meme' is a feeble imitation of it (gene), trying to describe
the evolution (and transmission) of a social/cultural ideas.

Post by Steve Hayes
The way people now use DNA thoroughly confuses the two. In the past
people might have talked about a company's culture, but now they talk
of its DNA.

I don't see why it would be confusing at all. Whenever 'DNA' is used
outside of the context of biological sciences, it is being used as a
metaphor e.g. acting influences, parent company style, and other
influences - imagined or real.

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by occam
Is this not the same difference as between gene v. meme? A Gene is real
scientifically defined idea which describes some process of heredity,
whereas a 'meme' is a feeble imitation of it (gene), trying to describe
the evolution (and transmission) of a social/cultural ideas.

In Dawkins' original formulation of it, sure -- but I don't think many
people use "meme" in that sense.

-GAWollman

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 19:19:09 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by occam
Is this not the same difference as between gene v. meme? A Gene is real
scientifically defined idea which describes some process of heredity,
whereas a 'meme' is a feeble imitation of it (gene), trying to describe
the evolution (and transmission) of a social/cultural ideas.

In Dawkins' original formulation of it, sure -- but I don't think many
people use "meme" in that sense.

In the metaphorical sense, a meme is something that "goes viral" on
the Internet, and "viral", like DNA, is a biological metaphor.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by occam
Is this not the same difference as between gene v. meme? A Gene is real
scientifically defined idea which describes some process of heredity,
whereas a 'meme' is a feeble imitation of it (gene), trying to describe
the evolution (and transmission) of a social/cultural ideas.

In Dawkins' original formulation of it, sure -- but I don't think many
people use "meme" in that sense.

Right from the beginning I have regarded "meme" as the feeblest of
Dawkins's ideas.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by occam
Is this not the same difference as between gene v. meme? A Gene is real
scientifically defined idea which describes some process of heredity,
whereas a 'meme' is a feeble imitation of it (gene), trying to describe
the evolution (and transmission) of a social/cultural ideas.

In Dawkins' original formulation of it, sure -- but I don't think many
people use "meme" in that sense.

Right from the beginning I have regarded "meme" as the feeblest of
Dawkins's ideas.

Agreed -- but the idea was less feeble than it has since become.

[occam]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by occam
Is this not the same difference as between gene v. meme? A Gene is real
scientifically defined idea which describes some process of heredity,
whereas a 'meme' is a feeble imitation of it (gene), trying to describe
the evolution (and transmission) of a social/cultural ideas.

In Dawkins' original formulation of it, sure -- but I don't think many
people use "meme" in that sense.

I agree. The meaning of 'meme' has degenerated since being coined. These
days it means _what_ exactly? Anything 'memorable' that you care to
re-tweet on X-Twitter?

[If the evolution of 'genes' was as uncontrolled as that of 'memes',
humanity would be a pool of primordial soup.]

[lar3ryca]

Post by occam

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by occam
Is this not the same difference as between gene v. meme? A Gene is real
scientifically defined idea which describes some process of heredity,
whereas a 'meme' is a feeble imitation of it (gene), trying to describe
the evolution (and transmission) of a social/cultural ideas.

In Dawkins' original formulation of it, sure -- but I don't think many
people use "meme" in that sense.

I agree. The meaning of 'meme' has degenerated since being coined. These
days it means _what_ exactly? Anything 'memorable' that you care to
re-tweet on X-Twitter?
[If the evolution of 'genes' was as uncontrolled as that of 'memes',
humanity would be a pool of primordial soup.]

As opposed to what we have now; a pool of semi-intelligent soup.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by occam

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 18:26:03 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I guess we're all familiar by now with journalists and other people on
television using "DNA" to refer to anything except DNA. The other night
we saw a film in which in the context where it was used it would have
made sense if it really meant DNA. The film, La Vérité, was an oddity
-- a Japanese film directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda, made in France with
mainly French actors. One of them was Catherine Deneuve, who was
playing a supposedly fictional actress, but much of the time she
appeared to be playing Catherine Deneuve. This was particularly the
case in the opening sequence, in which it wasn't evident that she was
playing a fictional character: she was being interviewed on television
and was asked which actors had contributed most to her DNA. The obvious
answer would have been Françoise Dorléac, with whom she shared a very
large fraction of her DNA, even if neither gave it to the other, but
it's not the answer she gave. Next she was asked which younger actor or
actress had inherited most of her DNA. Again, the obvious answer would
be Christian Vadim and Chiara Mastroianni, but again, it wasn't the
answer she gave.

In my youth I studied (BrE-"read") sociology, where we were taught to
distinguish between heredity and genetic inheritance on the one hand,
can cultural transmission on the other.

Is this not the same difference as between gene v. meme? A Gene is real
scientifically defined idea which describes some process of heredity,
whereas a 'meme' is a feeble imitation of it (gene), trying to describe
the evolution (and transmission) of a social/cultural ideas.

In my understanding, yes.

But in popular understanding and usage, I get the impression that a
lot of people would see nothing incongruous in saying that memes were
transmitted by DNA.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I guess we're all familiar by now with journalists and other people on
television using "DNA" to refer to anything except DNA.

Yep.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
The other night
we saw a film in which in the context where it was used it would have
made sense if it really meant DNA. The film, La Vérité, was an oddity
-- a Japanese film directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda, made in France with
mainly French actors. One of them was Catherine Deneuve, who was
playing a supposedly fictional actress, but much of the time she
appeared to be playing Catherine Deneuve. This was particularly the
case in the opening sequence, in which it wasn't evident that she was

Given the title of the film and [*wikips*] the use of Deneuve's
middle name for her character's name, I'd guess that
confusion was deliberate.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
she was being interviewed on television
and was asked which actors had contributed most to her DNA. The obvious
answer would have been Françoise Dorléac, with whom she shared a very
large fraction of her DNA, even if neither gave it to the other, but
it's not the answer she gave. Next she was asked which younger actor or
actress had inherited most of her DNA. Again, the obvious answer would
be Christian Vadim and Chiara Mastroianni, but again, it wasn't the
answer she gave.

Whether that confusion was deliberate I couldn't guess.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I guess we're all familiar by now with journalists and other people on
television using "DNA" to refer to anything except DNA.

I’m not, interestingly, but I watch very few interviews on television. Thanks
for the pointer.