I think Scott needs to re-engineer his idea virus, it's not quite on the mark. Ultimately, it will only ever (at best) end up as a famous quote like "Give peace a chance" for similar mentioned reasons, but also because the virus doesn't offer immediacy. It's not something that an individual whose been infected with the virus can act on, rather it's something that will ultimately require collective action on. To be more power, Scott should revise the idea virus such that the transfered idea is something simple, and can be taken on by an individual that will ultimately lead to the end of war.
I'll leave the revision to Scott himself, but I will offer an example.
For instance, if my goal is to ultimately solve cancer:
A simple catchy saying "Donate $1 today, Write it off Tomorrow -IRS.".
The idea is catchy because it implies personal benefit as a direct compensation. "Writing it off", hell every one wants a way to reduce how much money gets sucked up by taxes every year. To imply that being generous, we can alleviate some of our tax woes, the idea gains traction with people. Of course, the truth is you need a certain net amount of donations to really write it off, and even if you do, you don't gain any money you simply choose where it is spent--the over all net result is still a loss. But that simple matter isn't caught by those rational filters.
Obviously, the idea doesn't constrain what is donated to and as such could be donated to some opensource project not even related to cancer research. Nor would a single dollar donation likely benefit any cause, much less cancer research.
However the net effect of the idea, is an overall increase in charitable giving. More money is given, by more people, as the idea spread. The best part about the idea is the immediate positive feedback. Unlike Scott's initial "Education is the antidote of war", an idea like "Donate $1 today, write it off tomorrow" is more likely to spread and achieve it's ultimate goal.
I think Scott should revise his approach by simply adding a fourth trait: An idea virus must be actionable on the individual level.
I'll leave the revision to Scott himself, but I will offer an example.
For instance, if my goal is to ultimately solve cancer: A simple catchy saying "Donate $1 today, Write it off Tomorrow -IRS.".
The idea is catchy because it implies personal benefit as a direct compensation. "Writing it off", hell every one wants a way to reduce how much money gets sucked up by taxes every year. To imply that being generous, we can alleviate some of our tax woes, the idea gains traction with people. Of course, the truth is you need a certain net amount of donations to really write it off, and even if you do, you don't gain any money you simply choose where it is spent--the over all net result is still a loss. But that simple matter isn't caught by those rational filters.
Obviously, the idea doesn't constrain what is donated to and as such could be donated to some opensource project not even related to cancer research. Nor would a single dollar donation likely benefit any cause, much less cancer research. However the net effect of the idea, is an overall increase in charitable giving. More money is given, by more people, as the idea spread. The best part about the idea is the immediate positive feedback. Unlike Scott's initial "Education is the antidote of war", an idea like "Donate $1 today, write it off tomorrow" is more likely to spread and achieve it's ultimate goal.
I think Scott should revise his approach by simply adding a fourth trait: An idea virus must be actionable on the individual level.