A layman summary of recent results, part 1
Correct in that ideologies do not change minds, but give them words to express their interests and organize to satisfy those interests. But, the post overstates the case.
(a) environment generates demand for means of status, means of organizing (demand) - yes it's mutational load. But it's also, in this case, the introducton of women (mostly) into biz and politics and the resulting law and legislation that privileges them against the evolutionary interests of the polity.
(b) some group contains a method of verbal suggestion, influence, baiting, persuasion, coercion (technology)
(c) members of this group adapt existing technology of suggestion+ to satisfy the market need
(d) some set of first movers DO manufacture and distribute this new conceptual product to the market
(e) The market develops memetic and metaphysical reductions of these insights as consumers put them into their own words or prioritize different concepts.
(f) the memes spread.
So you're overstating the case.
What is religion if not a mind virus?
I think there is a flaw in the following quote
"We went for the deductive route. We asked, what must be true about human behavior under the idealist theory, and how does that differ from the Paretian theory? An answer popped out: if books can exert power, then they can get people to do things that they didn’t already want to do. In other words, if ideas are powerful, people should be able to be convinced to engage in costly behaviors because of those ideas, despite knowing intrinsically that the behaviors are obviously costly."
Ideologies do not need to make people engage in costly behavior in order to have significant effect on the world. People with power can engage in behavior that is not costly for themselves but is for others for ideological reasons. An example would be that many wealthy whites in the US advocating desegregation lived in neighborhoods with high enough property prices that there would be no chance of any significant numbers of blacks moving in. Advocating desegregation was thus of no cost to themselves but could still have an ideological motivation. What people are engaging in here is behavior that is neutral in terms of costs for themselves but costly for others.