I didn't know what "straussian" means so I looked it up.

The “Straussian” approach to the history of political philosophy is articulated primarily in the writings of Leo Strauss. Strauss wrote extremely careful, detailed studies of canonical philosophical works along with essays explaining his approach. The most controversial claim Strauss made was that philosophers in the past did not always present their thoughts openly and explicitly. They used an “art of writing” to entice potential philosophers to begin a life of inquiry by following the hints the authors gave about their true thoughts and questions. The overriding purpose of Strauss's own studies was to prove that philosophy in its original Socratic form is still possible by showing the persistence of certain fundamental problems throughout the history of philosophy. The most pertinent of those problems, not merely to political philosophy but to human life as a whole, was the problem of justice. Strauss also insisted that “historicism” is based on a philosophical account of the character and limitations of human knowledge and that it can be refuted, therefore, only on the basis of a philosophical argument. ― The Straussian Approach by Catherine Zuckert in The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy

But I can't tell exactly what 'people who engage in philosophy' means and why it's in quotes. It sounds like the title of an essay but a web search doesn't find anything.

Do you feel comfortable giving an example of such a memeplex?

Suffering is indeed an antimeme—and a broad-ranging one too. This is a new addition to my collection. Thanks.

I didn't know what the substitution effect is either so here's a definition.

The substitution effect is the decrease in sales for a product that can be attributed to consumers switching to cheaper alternatives when its price rises. ― Source

Then you might appreciate (at least the first part) of this article: https://americanmind.org/essays/the-clear-pill-part-2-of-5-a-theory-of-pervasive-error/

Pervasive error is any systematic and significant distortion of thought that impacts the whole discourse of a civilization.

...

We can only build a useful theory of pervasive error by working carefully forward from axiomatic principles, not backward from observed reality—thinking logically, not scientifically.

I know this is weird. Let’s start by justifying this unconventional methodology.

So let’s avoid the factual question of whether modern pervasive error exists. Instead we’ll ask a theoretical question: if pervasive error did exist, what would it look like? How would it work? What would we expect its effects to be?

A well-formed answer is a constructive proof. We reason forward—from ultimate cause, to proximate cause, to phenomenon. The way to explain error is to design error.

Once such a design for error is clearly presented, anyone can compare it to the reality they think they see around them. If they see a match, they have an explanation.

If not—maybe there is some other explanation. Or maybe there is no error at all. In the end, everyone makes this call alone. Your horse is a horse. Eventually he will get thirsty.