This is the fundamental principle of open memetics: we want ideas to spread via “pull”, not via “push”.
If you expose someone to an idea, and they refuse to adopt it, this is valuable feedback. You may believe the idea is good for them, and maybe you are correct, but why don’t they see it too? This is a useful puzzle to solve. You either learn that actually, it’s BAD for them, OR they misunderstood it, and now that you now that, you can spread it even faster.
Spreading via “push” is easier if you have power/resources, but it is less stable. It degrades the hosts’ epistemology, and you don’t learn as much.
response to tachikoma:
When I say “pull” I’m describing how someone absorbs a new idea. Like, let’s say I want you to think that tariffs are actually good. I can either:
- Explain why they are good for you
- Find someone you trust, pay them to say, “these are actually good for you”
(2) is an epistemic trick. It “overrides” the resistance you had to the idea, it does NOT resolve it. It is “push”. It’s like a trojan horse of ideas.
(1) is “pull” because it relies on you choosing to adopt it. It tries to go the opposite way, surfacing any resistance instead of trying to override it. It WANTS to discover why you think the tariffs are bad and either decide (a) you’re actually right, they’re bad or (b) your understanding of the situation is incorrect, here’s why.
TODO: explain this principle of top-down pushing an idea (overriding internal resistance), vs “pull”, presenting the idea, and if any resistance pops up, you resolve that. Creates “cleaner” integration and spread. Built in feedback