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.
Actually I’m amused by this…
What the study shows is far overshadowed by what they’ve missed, but apparently they’ve missed the fact that they’ve missed anything.
For example, if we’re talking about a relatively harmless idea in a population of relative peers, this model is most likely very accurate. If we’re talking about “teens” and a particular recording artist, then if 10% like them, they’re likely to push a large part of the remaining group toward that artist. We’ve all seen this, surely, how else to even remotely explain the (admittedly temporary) popularity of utter crap?
What the model seems to be completely oblivious to is multiple groups of 10+%, such as religions or political opinions.
The real problem here is not that the research or model is bunk, but that the assumptions and overall conclusions are. This model is probably great for marketing campaigns aimed at a clearly defined target market, but is essentially completely useless at anything actually important to society.
And the obvious comparison to “climate models”, well, obvious to “skeptics” is not so obvious to a lot of people. It all comes down to assumptions, starting conditions, and exactly what you’re attempting to get from a given model. Models don’t take into account unknown influences, because, well, they’re unknown and thus not included in the model.
“As an example, the ongoing events in Tunisia and Egypt appear to exhibit a similar process, according to Szymanski”
Sooo, let me guess, and I’m just spit-balling here people: world events piqued sombody’s interest. They looked out and asked themselves, “how could this happen?” Built a model and away they went? Brilliant!! JJ (above comment at 8:14am) has it right.
On the other hand though (and OT), IMO this administration had better pay attention to this model due to the fact that if our politicians don’t get their act together Egypt’s revolution will look like a Sunday picnic compared to what could happen in the US.
The analysis is incomplete and has arrived at only an initial observation, not a conclusion of any value. Much as “Computer Generated Models for Climate Forecasting” give tempting “bits” and “pieces” during data analysis, so too has Rensselaer Polytechnic arrived at a “gee-wiz” moment for Uncle Sam; no doubt it comes at a moment when funding for further research is being requested. The “physics” of the Pendellum Analogy is so much better at describing the change in human systems. Get the impression –appologies if wrong– that Rensselaer is reinventing another very expensive Brand New Wheel. Hummmmm…
@- Bruce Cobb says:
July 27, 2011 at 7:12 am
“Nice try. You’ve jumped from the population, meaning all people, to a specific category, “climate scientists”, many of whose views on CAGW are influenced by concerns about funding, about career, an I’ll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine policy, as well as the herd instinct and not wanting to rock the boat. See the difference? ”
Yes, the jump was intentional and the difference is what I was trying to highlight.
The ‘population’ in this context was the virtual, modeled population of 90% with easy-to-change minds and 10% dogmatics.
I was making the comparison with the real ‘population’ of climate scientists who do not have easy to change minds. No doubt the reasons you cite are pertinent. I would like to think that as scientists they would also give greater weight to objective data which is why I consider it unlikely they would be persuaded by anything less than the reversal of recent warming. A couple of decades returning to the temperatures we ‘enjoyed’ in the 1980s is probably required before climate scientists would abandon the AGW theory.
Perhaps a stubborn 10% would refuse to abandon the theory even in the face contradicting physical events – thats the nature of dogmatism!
An earlier study reported on Climate Depot (?) identified 6 key Senators who, when voting together, either determine or create enough other voters to assure passage of the bill – said to be 100%. How much of what we do is determined by a select minority (with authority status, I’m sure)? I guess we only have to look at clothing fashion as an example.
The amount of necessary minority opinion, and who holds it, clearly is important, otherwise all hyped music, movies and political movements must inevitably work. The principal that there is a social “tipping” point, i.e. that the undecided or unsure look to their associates for advice, is hardly new, but its numerical analysis here is interesting.
Here’s a test: report that 11% of the blogosphere is contributing to the WUWT tip jar and see what happens ….
steveta_uk – nice one!
Watch carefully: once the percentage of supporting comments for this paper reaches the tipping point the rest of us sceptics will simply fold . . . or not, and if we don’t that’ll show once again that we are mentally ill . . . COD doubters/deniers!
Amazing rubbish . . obviously thrown out there to test its own thesis . . . . and there’s a professor involved somewhere . . . . I used to think they were brilliant and wise . . .now I think at least 10 percent of them are idiots . . .
When 10% of the people have an unshakeable belief in something, what happens when that belief is adopted by 90% of the population? Do the that last remaining hardline 10% start the pendulum swinging back?
izen says:
July 27, 2011 at 8:56 am
I would like to think that as scientists they would also give greater weight to objective data which is why I consider it unlikely they would be persuaded by anything less than the reversal of recent warming.
They haven’t shown much, if any interest in objective data so far, unless it reinforces CAGW, so why would they suddenly start doing so?
The only thing that will convince them to abandon the CAGW hyper-myth gravy train would be if the funding for said train dries up. Until then, they will simply deny the existence of any reversal by cherry picking their data, much of which is bogus anyway.
“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.”
Well at least there is no danger whatsoever of these researchers figuring out how to spread and suppress opinion. That’s good!
They can’t model the listener who
1. Considers the source (aggressive opinionated socialist)
2. Seeks alternative viewpoints
3. Examines several news stories to get more information
4. Has a committed worldview
5. Carries an opinion out to its logical conclusion to determine its usefulness and desirability (EX:
Electic power generation at low rates is destroying the planet. So we need less electricity at a much higher cost and higher taxes…Oh wait!)
I’d say a pluralistic, free society is pretty safe from these academics and their red sprinkle computer program, for now.
What a crock!
I’m of the opinion that this study is bullocks.
.
.
Is this a model which I see before me?
.
.
I think all those who point out that there could be several 10% groups are missing the main word in the title “idea”. NOT belief. Beliefs don’t change because they are comforting and a lot of people don’t want to understand things and change their point of view.
An idea will catch on but ideas need to be viewed separately from beliefs which are carved in stone. One of my favorite lines a co-worker came up with to describe wars over religion was that it was like “2 kids fighting over who’s imaginary friend was more real”.
I think in the religious & pseudo religious realms like AGW the concept fails because ideas, no matter how correct, are shot down if they go against the belief. Now in the science realm (where the scientific method is really used) I can see it happening.
The computer model appears to be a simple variation on the rules in Conway’s game of life –
I had it on my Amstrad PCW wordprocessor in the late 1980s. You must have seen these “simulations” of cell multiplication. People accept or reject ideas for many reasons, including but not limited to self interest. It has also been argued that people feel a desire to be part of a “cause” or believe in something, and the details of the something may not be critical or proof based. There are also things called moral panics and urban legends, and cargo cults. People are way more complex than the model, and more interesting. See Socology texts, have actually looked at this.
This study seems reasonable for a very limited set of conditions. Their model is based on the assumption that the modeled population contains only a fixed defined percentage of ‘true believers’, all of one semi-acceptable and/or semi-appealing opinion, and the remaining members do not hold strong opposing opinions. The authors apparently understand this limitation of their model as the above article states that: ”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.” This implies, at least me, that they have not determined what happens when a ‘true believer’ of one opinion meets a ‘true believer’ of a different opposing opinion.
The study is also simplistic in that it only considers the case where the opinions of the ‘true believers’ may be strong but those of the general population are not sufficiently strong to overcome some basic desire to get along. This whole thing appears to be an attempt to develop a rather simplistic/alternative model of Eric Hoffer’s thesis as stated in his book ‘The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements’. In that book (quoting from the wikipedia) “Hoffer argues that all mass movements such as fascism, communism, and religion spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to glorify the past and devalue the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer).
I would guess they published this to justify the initial funding and now seek additional funding in order to both keep their jobs and to continue their navel-gazing for a couple of more years.
I think Charles MacKay’s “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” got to that conclusion first – in 1841. And he did it without computer models.
What they seem to have shown is that, for a model of human interaction where talking to two people with an opposing viewpoint immediately converts you, the critical initial size for injecting an opinion is 10%.
This model bears no relationship to how humans actually make up their minds, and the model parameters appear to have been adjusted to produce a vaguely believable output.
Where have we seen this technique for getting published and acquiring funding before?
Zeke the Sneak says:
July 27, 2011 at 9:38 am
And a currently used fallacy: The “number” fallacy: “The people united will never be defeated”, where nobody realizes that those “people on the streets” usually are not more than the 1% of the population. This, in turn it is used as a pretext from minorities to rule over the more conservative, and more reasonable, majorities.
At the end of the day “the people, united, will always be cheated”
Knowledge, as information, it is as material as anything and can not be distributed or, worse, redistributed; knowledge comes from the “topos uranus” and reaches only who, through self-sacrifice and effort, can reach it, reaching a resonant frequency.
Sorry buddies!: “Lo que natura non da Salamanca non presta” (“What nature does not give Salamanca- the school- does not lend”)
izen says:
July 27, 2011 at 4:18 am
“Modeling human and social behavior is somewhat less reliable than modeling physical processes like the climate.”
Thanks, you made my day. 😀
Elvis says the model is wrong.
@- DirkH
Your welcome.
nice to know my lingual/buccal pomposity is appreciated!
It would appear that these folks have inadvertently designed a computer model to illuminate and verify the concept of “preference falsification”
http://www.powells.com/biblio/9780674707580?&PID=27627
”
Preference falsification, according to the economist Timur Kuran, is the act of misrepresenting one’s wants under perceived social pressures. It happens frequently in everyday life, such as when we tell the host of a dinner party that we are enjoying the food when we actually find it bland. In Private Truths, Public Lies Kuran argues convincingly that the phenomenon not only is ubiquitous but has huge social and political consequences. Drawing on diverse intellectual traditions, including those rooted in economics, psychology, sociology, and political science, Kuran provides a unified theory of how preference falsification shapes collective decisions, orients structural change, sustains social stability, distorts human knowledge, and conceals political possibilities.
A common effect of preference falsification is the preservation of widely disliked structures. Another is the conferment of an aura of stability on structures vulnerable to sudden collapse. When the support of a policy, tradition, or regime is largely contrived, a minor event may activate a bandwagon that generates massive yet unanticipated change.
In distorting public opinion, preference falsification also corrupts public discourse and, hence, human knowledge. So structures held in place by preference falsification may, if the condition lasts long enough, achieve increasingly genuine acceptance. The book demonstrates how human knowledge and social structures co-evolve in complex and imperfectly predictable ways, without any guarantee of social efficiency.”
The book was written long before the rise of the IPCC, but the concept of aligning one’s public stances with the one’s perceived, often misperceived, version of the preferences of others offers the clearest explanation of whatever “consensus” actually exists in regard to AGW, and I would add, without any requirement of conspiracy.
Mods;
It appears my previous comment has been swallowed by the filter again.
[Sorry, Dave, there’s nothing in the spam folder. ~dbs, mod.]
This should, of course, encourage every pol who gets 10% in a poll or primary to claim, “Victory is at hand!”
This is so wrong on so many levels. The 10% BIG BANG Theory.
Wow.
Dave Wendt says:
July 27, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Mods;
It appears my previous comment has been swallowed by the filter again.
[Sorry, Dave, there’s nothing in the spam folder. ~dbs, mod.]
Sorry I jumped the gun. It hadn’t appeared as awaiting moderation, but popped up about a minute after I posted the above. Thanks for your prompt attention and the valuable contributions you guys all provide to making this site the very great thing that it is.