--- #TODO [[René Noël Théophile Girard - The Sisyphus of Desire]] ## Mimetic Theory - **Mimetic Desire**: Humans imitate each other’s desires. - **Rivalry**: Mimicking leads to competition and rivalry. - **Crisis**: Rivalry escalates into a social or communal crisis (breakdown of differences). - **Scapegoat**: The group blames and expels or kills a victim (the scapegoat) to end the chaos. - **Sacrifice**: The scapegoat’s death or expulsion restores temporary peace. - **Myth**: Stories are created to hide the group’s own violence, framing the scapegoat as either evil or sacred. - **Ritual**: Rituals re-enact the original scapegoating sacrifice to maintain order. - **Order/Hierarchy**: Social structures and sacred hierarchies arise from the differentiation caused by ritual and myth — these stabilize society… until mimetic tensions build again. --- ## The Mechanism of Scapegoating ## Mimetic Poison and Emotional Patterns I’m a bit obsessed with this idea of “mimetic poison” I think it’s much of what we see in today’s information streams (with marketing, gambling / lust / sin, disinformation, and automated propaganda). Essentially it works by using mimetic desires / beliefs to move someone’s frame of reference in order to manipulate perspective / belief on a particular subject. And done over time and at a large scale, it compounds to the point where someone’s whole world view becomes skewed, their identity becomes a mirror of what they see, and they cannot / will not critically perceive their own beliefs/ reality. Furthermore, it works by taking a negative emotion such as lust, jealousy, anger, etc and building an association to trigger subconsciously. With enough frequency, and the belief having the utility of allowing the person to feel comfort, morally just, etc this becomes a subconscious habit It strikes at a question of how many people are truly conscious or self aware. If this mimetic poison has permeated, then conversation with the person is no longer viable, critiques of facts become critiques of identity and "the group". Furthermore, using the 5 factor personality model (NEOAC), can we predict common emotional patterns to hijack with mimetic poison? A preliminary study has already been conducted by the University of Zurich, see the [extended abstract](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eo4SHrKGPErTzL1t_QmQhfZGU27jKBjx/view?pli=1) of the unreleased paper here, and paper on [MAGI: Multi-Agent Guided Interview for Psychiatric Assessment](https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18260) 1. Neuroticism (Emotional Stability) • Common Patterns: Higher neuroticism correlates with anxiety, insecurity, and susceptibility to negative emotions. • Hijacking Strategy: Amplify fear, guilt, or shame to create dependency on narratives or products that promise relief or stability. • Example: Fear-based political propaganda, beauty standards in advertising, or health misinformation. 2. Extraversion • Common Patterns: Extraverts seek social connections, stimulation, and validation. • Hijacking Strategy: Exploit the need for social approval and peer comparison. Use social media, influencer marketing, or “tribal” ideologies to entrench conformity. • Example: Social media algorithms that reward conformity to trends, triggering fear of missing out (FOMO). 3. Openness to Experience • Common Patterns: People high in openness are curious, imaginative, and more likely to explore novel ideas. • Hijacking Strategy: Leverage curiosity to lead individuals into fringe beliefs or exploit their openness to radical ideologies or conspiracies. • Example: Algorithms that nudge people toward increasingly extreme content under the guise of novelty. 4. Agreeableness • Common Patterns: Highly agreeable people value harmony, trust, and cooperation. • Hijacking Strategy: Exploit their desire to “do good” by presenting manipulated beliefs or actions as morally or socially virtuous. • Example: Greenwashing in marketing, virtue signaling in political propaganda, or guilt-driven donation campaigns. 5. Conscientiousness • Common Patterns: Conscientious individuals are disciplined, organized, and goal-oriented. • Hijacking Strategy: Exploit their sense of responsibility or perfectionism to create guilt loops when they fail to meet manipulated expectations. • Example: Productivity culture, diet industries, or apps that gamify task completion. Mimetic Poison and Emotional Patterns Understanding the interaction between personality traits and emotional triggers provides insight into the strategies of mimetic poison: 1. Emotional Loops: • Negative emotions like fear, shame, or envy are paired with relief mechanisms (products, ideologies, actions) to create dependency. • Over time, this builds a habit loop where individuals are conditioned to seek external validation or solutions. 2. Compounding Mimesis: • Personality traits determine which emotional triggers resonate most. For example, high neuroticism individuals are more likely to spiral into anxiety-inducing content, while agreeable individuals may fall into guilt-based traps. 3. Social Amplification: • Once emotional patterns are identified, algorithms and social dynamics can amplify mimetic effects by clustering similar personalities or mirroring desired behaviors through peer influence. ### The Six Values of Humans [The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind) Book by Jonathan Haidt | | Care/Harm | Fairness/Cheating | Loyalty/Betrayal | Authority/Subversion | Sanctity/Degradation | | --------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | | **Adaptive Challenge** | Protect and care for children | Reap benefits of two-way partnerships | Form cohesive coalitions | Forge beneficial relationships within hierarchies | Avoid contamination | | **Original Triggers** | Suffering, distress, or neediness expressed by one’s child | Cheating, cooperation, deception | Threat or challenge to group | Signs of dominance and submission | Waste products, diseased people | | **Current Triggers** | Baby seals, cute cartoon characters | Marital fidelity, broken vending machines | Sports teams, nations | Bosses, respected professionals | Taboo ideas (communism, racism) | | **Characteristic Emotions** | Compassion | Anger, gratitude, guilt | Group pride, rage at traitors | Respect, fear | Disgust | | **Relevant Virtues** | Caring, kindness | Fairness, justice, trustworthiness | Loyalty, patriotism, self-sacrifice | Obedience, deference | Temperance, chastity, piety, cleanliness | ### original biological definition: defensive mimicry, two categories: batesian & mullerian mimetic learning - survival mechanism during childhood loss of identity / lack of self-awareness imitate - God - image - mirror - projection - perception -light - shadow we are ### references mimesis establishes practical knowledge and is constitutive of social, artistic, and practical action. With the help of their mimetic abilities, children acquire the meaning of objects and forms of representation and action. Mimesis does not however denote mere imitation or copying; rather, it is a creative process by which the act of relating to other persons and worlds in a mimetic way leads to an enhancement of one’s own world view, action, and behaviour. Mimesis is related to the body, and refers, first to, the direct imitation of animals and persons in speech, song and dancing, then, to the imitation of human actions, and finally, to the material recreation of images of persons or things. Mimetic processes can be seen as processes of cultural learning, and as such they are crucial to child rearing and education. We all know that children learn through imitation. They observe and then mimic their parents when learning how to speak, perform new motor skills, and interact with others. What you may not know is that mimetic learning is a lifelong process. In adulthood as well, the way we behave is heavily influenced by how others conduct themselves. Mimetic learning is a form of social imitation that is essential for learning how to behave and interact with others. From an evolutionary perspective, mimetic learning makes a lot of sense. It’s essential for our survival and sense of belonging, with one generation showing the next the behaviours required of them In the 1960s, psychologist and father of cognitive theory Albert Bandura first [described](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267750204_Bandura%27s_Social_Learning_Theory_Social_Cognitive_Learning_Theory) mimetic learning as a type of social learning in which we observe the actions of others, and then develop similar behaviours ourselves. This is especially true if our experience of observing someone else feels positive or rewarding, which means that unlike cognitive or behaviourist theories of learning, mimetic learning has a strong social element. As he [explains](https://amzn.to/3SJSA3k): “Most human behaviour is learned observationally through modelling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed, and on later occasions, this coded information serves as a guide for action.” Bandura described three main steps to mimetic learning: observation, imitation and modelling. With observation, we simply observe the way others behave. Then, the observed action is copied through imitation. Finally, when we see someone as a role model, we assimilate the imitated behaviour through modelling, which leads to consistently replicating that person’s actions. Dr Christoph Wulf [noted](https://www.designsforlearning.nu/articles/abstract/8/) that mimetic learning does not mean blindly copying someone else, but instead, observing someone else’s actions to enable “enhancement of one’s own world view, action and behaviour.” The result may not be an exact copy of the original behaviour, but will be integrated with our pre-existing set of patterns. People often choose to conform to [society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society "Society") rather than to pursue personal desires – because it is often easier to follow the path others have made already, rather than forging a new one. three types of conformity: 1) [compliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance_\(psychology\) "Compliance (psychology)") (which is public conformity, and it is motivated by the need for approval or the fear of disapproval; 2) [identification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_\(psychology\) "Identification (psychology)") (which is a deeper type of conformism than compliance); 3) [internalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalization_\(psychology\) "Internalization (psychology)") (which is to conform both publicly and privately). . In Plato’s opinion, children and adolescents experience and acquire social behaviour in their contacts with other people and in the experience they gain of other people’s behaviour. Plato therefore emphasizes the importance music, and mimetically dealing with music, has for the development of the soul’s ability to experience. He distinguishes different types of music, to which he ascribes diverse effects on young people’s “souls”. According to the views developed in the “Republic”, young people’s educational development and learning is made possible by their mimetic desire, which “forces” them to become similar to role models. By choosing the right role models, human shortcomings are to be overcome, and improvement is achieved. What is controversial about this view, though, is its radical nature, its way of determining young people’s lives and experiences on the basis of a normative anthropology and a normative theory of education. Aristotle contradicted this Platonic view. Although he was as convinced as Plato of the power of mimetic processes, he drew different conclusions from this: The inadequate and the incorrigible should not be excluded from the domain of experience; rather, they had to be confronted and dealt with, so that one could “immunize” oneself against their contagion. Not to avoid negative examples, but rather to confront them is an effective protection against their power. Otherwise, young persons remain susceptible to and defenceless against negative influences. It is only in dealing with negative role models that resistance to them and personal strength can develop. Today, similar considerations still play a role in political education. According to this view, stead-fast political opinions do not develop by avoiding different opinions, but by critically dealing with them. The same is true of the opinions and values conveyed in other areas of education. Today, this position is supported by psychoanalytic knowledge, which has emphasized the negative consequences avoidance and rejection have in psychogenesis. Because of the lasting effects of processes of mimetic learning, Plato calls for strict control of the influence their objects and contents have on the imagination, and Aristotle demands that their effects must be dealt with intensively. Since Plato we have known that it is not just ideas, attitudes, and values, but also social forms of living and acting which are learned by way of mimetic processes. Due to the different preconditions young people start out with, however, what emerges is not simply a copy of an example; the mimetic process leads to a difference which ensures the autonomy and creative character of its results. The role model appropriated in the mimetic act is, therefore, not simply a reproduction of external similarities; it is a construction on the part of the person who behaves mimetically – a construction which leaves room for difference, particularity and creativity. ---