From the Rennsselaer Polytechnic Institute
Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas
Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.
“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”
As an example, the ongoing events in Tunisia and Egypt appear to exhibit a similar process, according to Szymanski. “In those countries, dictators who were in power for decades were suddenly overthrown in just a few weeks.”
The findings were published in the July 22, 2011, early online edition of the journal Physical Review E in an article titled “Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities.”
An important aspect of the finding is that the percent of committed opinion holders required to shift majority opinion does not change significantly regardless of the type of network in which the opinion holders are working. In other words, the percentage of committed opinion holders required to influence a society remains at approximately 10 percent, regardless of how or where that opinion starts and spreads in the society.
To reach their conclusion, the scientists developed computer models of various types of social networks. One of the networks had each person connect to every other person in the network. The second model included certain individuals who were connected to a large number of people, making them opinion hubs or leaders. The final model gave every person in the model roughly the same number of connections. The initial state of each of the models was a sea of traditional-view holders. Each of these individuals held a view, but were also, importantly, open minded to other views.
Once the networks were built, the scientists then “sprinkled” in some true believers throughout each of the networks. These people were completely set in their views and unflappable in modifying those beliefs. As those true believers began to converse with those who held the traditional belief system, the tides gradually and then very abruptly began to shift.
“In general, people do not like to have an unpopular opinion and are always seeking to try locally to come to consensus. We set up this dynamic in each of our models,” said SCNARC Research Associate and corresponding paper author Sameet Sreenivasan. To accomplish this, each of the individuals in the models “talked” to each other about their opinion. If the listener held the same opinions as the speaker, it reinforced the listener’s belief. If the opinion was different, the listener considered it and moved on to talk to another person. If that person also held this new belief, the listener then adopted that belief.
“As agents of change start to convince more and more people, the situation begins to change,” Sreenivasan said. “People begin to question their own views at first and then completely adopt the new view to spread it even further. If the true believers just influenced their neighbors, that wouldn’t change anything within the larger system, as we saw with percentages less than 10.”
The research has broad implications for understanding how opinion spreads. “There are clearly situations in which it helps to know how to efficiently spread some opinion or how to suppress a developing opinion,” said Associate Professor of Physics and co-author of the paper Gyorgy Korniss. “Some examples might be the need to quickly convince a town to move before a hurricane or spread new information on the prevention of disease in a rural village.”
The researchers are now looking for partners within the social sciences and other fields to compare their computational models to historical examples. They are also looking to study how the percentage might change when input into a model where the society is polarized. Instead of simply holding one traditional view, the society would instead hold two opposing viewpoints. An example of this polarization would be Democrat versus Republican.
The research was funded by the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) through SCNARC, part of the Network Science Collaborative Technology Alliance (NS-CTA), the Army Research Office (ARO), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR).
The research is part of a much larger body of work taking place under SCNARC at Rensselaer. The center joins researchers from a broad spectrum of fields – including sociology, physics, computer science, and engineering – in exploring social cognitive networks. The center studies the fundamentals of network structures and how those structures are altered by technology. The goal of the center is to develop a deeper understanding of networks and a firm scientific basis for the newly arising field of network science. More information on the launch of SCNARC can be found at http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2721&setappvar=page(1)
Szymanski, Sreenivasan, and Korniss were joined in the research by Professor of Mathematics Chjan Lim, and graduate students Jierui Xie (first author) and Weituo Zhang.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Australian Greens primary vote: a steady 11% We have passed the tipping point Down Under, if you couldn’t tell already. Anyone who isn’t in Australia should get your permits ready, we’re looking to buy $50 billion worth of hot air from overseas. I’m sure it will be as secure a trading environment as Brussels or Chicago.
Hmm, from 10% to a consensus. So that’s how our BBC is operating… Clever, huh?
It’s a bit of a worry that the Army Research Laboratory is interested in funding research on how to manipulate public opinion. Roll over Orwell. These are the same idiots who did LSD experiments and god knows what else to soldiers in the 1970’s.
“There are clearly situations in which it helps to know how to efficiently spread some opinion or how to suppress a developing opinion,” said Associate Professor of Physics and co-author of the paper Gyorgy Korniss. “Some examples might be the need to quickly convince a town to move before a hurricane or spread new information on the prevention of disease in a rural village.”
Yeah, right. The road to hell is paved with, well, intentions, good or otherwise. It might also be useful to help convince rural villagers to board trains bound for concentration camps. Or that we need to surrender our civl liberties to a global autocracy in order to “tackle carbon pollution.”
I hope useful idiot Gyorgy sleeps well at night.
Being a True Believer is the same as being a brown shirt. IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
But the scientists used *computer models*! And we know computers are always right! They can predict the climate for decades with total accuracy!
/sarc
Published the first of April? Perhaps the publication date is a typo. Anyway, absolutes nail it as poppycock. Anthropomorphising models seem over the top also. They seem to be saying they built a model to give them a predetermined solution, and then they found it interesting that the calculations ended up showing a tipping point of only 10%. Of course, it would seem arbitrary that they were ever able to reach the tipping point, given the astronomically low probability of reaching it. Of course, Army Intelligence funded it. 😉 I recall an Air Force study considering “true” teleportation.
JimboW 4:44 is on the right track. These researchers should run their models such that each person needs to hear the new idea at least four times before they even remember it is a new idea. then they need to discuss it with a “knowledgeable” source before adopting it.
Then the model needs idiots who will believe anything (5%) and stone heads that will believe nothing (5%).
Opinions are like a bathtub, when they are full of holes, they don’t hold water. 😉
“To reach their conclusion, the scientists developed computer models … ”
Nuff said.
People generally operate under two seemingly opposing dynamics: to get ahead, and to get along.
The subject that one person is inflexible about, if its in disagreement with his broader group, is generally the subject that doesn’t come up in lunchtime conversation, in the interest of “getting along.”. When it does come up, that person generally tries to be persuasive rather that dictatorial, because local group membership is usually more important than conversion of the locals to that person’s broader worldview.
It is when doubts arise in someone’s mind from outside, from elsewhere, that the sole contrarian is sought out (usually in private), and at that point the lone holdout often becomes two holdouts. And so it grows.
Once an opinion is changed from one side to the other, it doesn’t feel like a flip-flop between two equal and opposing views. Instead it feels like one has transcended from a somewhat naive and childish view to a broader and more maturer one. That person can acknowledge still-valid points from his past, but he sees them now from a larger perspective.
Which explains the commitment to that view. From the “higher” perspective, one can see where one’s opponents are coming from, one can understand their point of view, but they don’t yet understand yours. So you’re patient with them, tolerant even, but committed to your own knowing that sooner or later they’ll transcend those younger worldviews also.
How does this differ from the (old school) observation: “Yhe aggressor sets the rules”?
.
Antony Jay and Jonanthan Lynn are doing their bit in influencing opinion about CAGW. Their new play, Yes Prime Minister, at the Apollo Theatre in London, UK is simply hilarious and takes a massive swipe at the global warming fiasco, with a wonderful poke at the machinations of Government to keep it going and be seen to “be doing something”.
If you are within striking distance of London – get yourself a ticket.
Friends:
The research (sic) is merely a computerised formulation of demonstrably untrue assertions.
The report says;
“To reach their conclusion, the scientists developed computer models of various types of social networks.”
But an ability to describe an idea using a computer model is not an indication that the idea is correct.
And, as several have pointed out, this so-called research is demonstrated to be wrong by its own conclusions.
For example this;
““When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer.”
If that were true then, for example, Christianity, Bhudism and Islam would not exist because they each started with a single individual.
And this,
“Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”
If that were always true then, for example, any political party that has more than 10% support should grow, but several do not and some decline.
Models which provide indications that are denied by empirical data are faulty models that provide no useful predictions. Of course, some of their predictions may agree with reality because chance works that way.
Science consists of attempts to find information which indicates faults in existing models of reality then refining or replacing a model so it better represents reality.
Pseudoscience consists of attempts to find information which concurs with predictions of existing models then assuming the found information supports the model. But some predictions of almost any model may agree with reality because chance works that way.
The report says;
“The researchers are now looking for partners within the social sciences and other fields to compare their computational models to historical examples.”
Such comparisons can only be pseudoscience because the predictions of their model do not concur with observed reality (e.g. movements founded by individuals have changed and do change the world, and political parties with more than 10% support do not always spread “like wildfire”).
In other words, if the “researchers” were scientists then they would be rejecting or amending their models and not “looking for partners within the social sciences and other fields to compare their computational models to historical examples.”
Richard
So this explains what is happening in Washington! I prefer the old way – you know, the one where people talked and reached consensus.
What I didn’t see in the research is where there is more than one group in a population that is > 10% but that holds an unchangeable belief. In any case, this groupthink effect can be good or bad, depending if the majority is being moved from truth or away from it. After all, phrenology used to be a serious subject.
This is nonsense for the reasons amply stated above–if less than 10% can’t get traction and over 10% must get traction, then there will never be crossover above and below 10% and we will forever be locked into one dominant unchanging system.
And what about where more than one group has over 10% (a situation that pretty much always prevails)? They both inevitably win? Does one win quicker and then cede the field? Or do they both achieve total unchallenged dominance at the same time? Whether the first situation or the second, how does it play out in real time?
I’ll echo the obvious question…the normal mode in American politics (and all over the world I presume) is for one issue with two mutually exclusive resolutions to have 30+% of the population believing each alternative with hopeless commitment.
On economics, when the US National debt becomes a problem, 1/3 of the country believes, and is unswayable in that belief, that the only solution is to tax the rich into oblivion to pay for social justice programs. Another third believe and are unshakable in that belief that the only solution is to cut spending for all those bleeding heart social programs and tighten our belts, plus lower taxes to help business. Neither idea has a super-minority base and neither idea can be reconciled with the other. What does the model say about that?
Seems like it all boils down to their model for persuasion. If a listener talks to two consecutive “true believers”, then their persuaded? How accurate is that scenario? Any evidence given to indicate that it mimics real life?
It is important to note that these are not experimental results but only MODEL results. It is about a computer model designed in a certain way. For instance, people are all alike (no ethnic or social differences among them), the proportions of the various opinions and degrees of belief are set in advance, and (perhaps the most important) a person changes from one opinion to the opposite after encountering one true believer and just another one person both with the opposite opinion.
It is quite probable that slightly modified details in the model would change the results, perhaps dramatically. And also, in all this the “opinion” is completely subjective and freely adopted, such as liking or not liking a pop singer, using or not using a new fashion, and so on. Objective facts apparently do not count: if the opinion is about something objective, would new facts alter the situation? Would the situation be altered if “true believers” or others are or are not able to produce verifiable and replicable evidence in favor of their views?
Experiments can be conducted on these issues, but the report is all about computer models. No reality is implied.
psyops research perhaps. now that only around 10% of people are unshakeable believers in CAGW, perhaps we are to believe they will win the day!
27 July: El Pais Spain: (HEADLINE TRANSLATION: THIS JULY WILL A LESS WARM CENTURY)
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/julio/sera/calidos/siglo/elpepisoc/20110727elpepisoc_5/Tes
The ‘science’ behind social networking theory has been seriously called into question. Other studies have claimed that obesity and divorce are contagious (like smallpox), based on the same types of erroneous logic displayed in this piece.
Anyone who played around with automaton ‘bugs’ in computer programming back in the 1970’s will recognize the technique they are reporting….often used in graphic studies of population dynamics. The results are entirely dependent on the ‘rules’ set by the programmer, even though the results can be quite surprising sometimes.
Allenj has an excellent point: what if multiple (and opposing) subgroups which have reached unshakable 10%? I suppose the issue rests on the definition of “unshakable.” May I suggest the term ‘cult?’
Too many appearances of “always” and “never” for me to put too much faith (>%10 faith) in their modelling.
Oh dear, guys, learn to read!
There is nothing contradictory in the fact that any opinion held by under 10% of the population would take approx. the age of the universe to reach the tipping point, and the fact that opinions held by more than 10% of the population spread throughout the population.
It simply means that all opinions currently held by a majority of the population were formed in the big bang.
This is obviously the first evidence for a “conservation of opinion” law.
So, with just a $16.75m grant from the US Army, which probably posed the question: “How can we get these Iraqis to stop blowing themselves up in our presence?; this group with two laptops, one female, one WASP-like man, two young men and no documentation in sight have achieved this great feat since Oct 2009. Not bad. Imagine what they’d have done if they had also received some stimulus money. My opinion is formed from clicking the link above and observing a photograph. Pass it on.
The whole thing smells of:
a). Appeal to authority
b). Determinism
c). Group Think
d). Collectivism
e). All of the above
And not to mention the headline: “Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas”. Scientists “discover” a tipping point. Really? Where? Oh…in a computer model.
So let’s announce our “discovery” and then confer with folks who might know something about human interaction to “confirm” the “facts” we discovered with our model.
Sorry, but puhleeeeease.