How many people do you need to change the culture?

Though the gist of the article is about changing group dynamics for political and environmental causes the implications go in to every area of life - our entertainment, education, culture and language. Minority groups especially have formed political action committees that give them power beyond their actual numbers. When we talk about our collective future this is rather important as those content with the status quo tend to be silent and not active politically, success breeds apathy.

Sesame credit is changing how people in China converse online, unlimited immigration is changing the cultures of Western countries, mass media affects how all of us perceive the world and how we react to it. The future may well be a numbers game and those who don't vote or speak won't count. Our collective silence could be our doom.

If at least 25 percent of a community’s population is committed to changing what is considered the social norm, the group will see a shift. The majority will adopt the new behavioral norm introduced by the minority. The study’s lead author, Damon Centola, an associate professor in the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

Centola sees the Chinese social media giant Weibo as an example of this principle in action. The Chinese government sends many of its employees on Weibo to track civilians’ conversations and message threads.“If you get enough of these actors who coordinate and steer the conversation,” said Centola, “then the people who were airing their grievances feel less comfortable talking about them, and no one talks about grievances anymore.”

www.sierraclub.org...

a reply to: Asktheanimals

i've seen a prior article that reports 10% as the magic number.

Thats "true believers" who proselytize their viewpoint. The constant drone of the minority makes the majority see it as a more normal belief/behavior, and the shift begins happening.

phys.org...

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."

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Repetition is a powerful mind-control tactic.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Though the gist of the article is about changing group dynamics for political and environmental causes the implications go in to every area of life - our entertainment, education, culture and language. Minority groups especially have formed political action committees that give them power beyond their actual numbers. When we talk about our collective future this is rather important as those content with the status quo tend to be silent and not active politically, success breeds apathy.

Sesame credit is changing how people in China converse online, unlimited immigration is changing the cultures of Western countries, mass media affects how all of us perceive the world and how we react to it. The future may well be a numbers game and those who don't vote or speak won't count. Our collective silence could be our doom.

If at least 25 percent of a community’s population is committed to changing what is considered the social norm, the group will see a shift. The majority will adopt the new behavioral norm introduced by the minority. The study’s lead author, Damon Centola, an associate professor in the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

Centola sees the Chinese social media giant Weibo as an example of this principle in action. The Chinese government sends many of its employees on Weibo to track civilians’ conversations and message threads.“If you get enough of these actors who coordinate and steer the conversation,” said Centola, “then the people who were airing their grievances feel less comfortable talking about them, and no one talks about grievances anymore.”

www.sierraclub.org...

It's not just a numbers game.

In most organizations a small cabal of people have the 'loudest' voice the majority acquiesce to that 'voice' and are never heard. (Think money equals speech).

For effective substantial majorities it is imperative that those 'quiet' voices be heard and 'weighted' equally to the 'loudest'.

At least enough to counter the 24/7 garbage media onslaught. Millions? It feels like enough people turned off the BS media to elect Trump, we're heading in a positive direction. We'll see if we can keep it going.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There is some validity to the 10% rule. Take the UK for instance, mass immigration from Islamic countries have brought their numbers up to or over that mark already. Look at how criticism of either Islam or immigration is handled there - as a hate crime. People see entire towns taken over by Muslims an every church is now a mosque, immigrants don't assimilate they form their own communities. We have any resistance already beaten down by government, media and social stigma.

Given that polygamy is part of their culture along with far higher birthrates that 10% can be 25% in just a single generation. We already know it doesn't take 51% to control a country - all it takes is a cohesive political stance on their part to become the real power.

Not many, and I base this on Film and television.

How drastically it's changed over the last 30 years.

All it takes is a script.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

People see entire towns taken over by Muslims an every church is now a mosque

That isn't nearly true. Churches have been closing down in the UK because people stopped going. They've been dwindling since at least the 1970s which predates any influx of Muslims. Every town still has its popular churches and Catholics have the biggest attendance numbers of all of them.

NW England has Bury, Bolton, Rochdale and Blackburn as the towns with the highest Muslim populations. I'm in Bury, Bolton and Blackburn almost every week and there are parts that are mostly Muslim.

Look at how criticism of either Islam or immigration is handled there - as a hate crime.

It's OK to criticise Islam and immigration. EDL and various neo-Nazi groups hold public rallies from time to time in Liverpool, Manchester and the towns I mentioned. They run candidates in local elections and the national press has anti-immigration front page stories almost weekly.

We have any resistance already beaten down by government, media and social stigma.

As I said, criticism is popular and political. Social media constantly criticises immigration and there are many parts of England where anti-immigration sentiments are standard with no 'stigma' at all.

The Nazis counted on this. That is how a minority can destroy or influence a culture negatively. Hopefully we can resist the stupidity of the minority opinions in America.

It only takes one Tylenol killer to force nearly all consumable packaged products to be double and triple wrapped from here on out. And society becomes haunted by hidden monsters.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

"Unlimited immigration?" *eyeroll*

Fun fact: German is the most common ancestry in America. In the 19th century, somewhere around 8 million Germans immigrated to the United States, basically doubling the population between 1820 and 1870.

Did German immigrants change American culture? Definitely. Just look at a typical Fourth of July cookout. People eating hotdogs (aka wieners or frankfurters) a cultural import from Germany, hamburgers (literally named for Hamburg, Germany) and bratwurst (another German sausage), quite possibly drinking any number of American beers (Budweiser, Busch, etc) that originated with German immigrants who brought with with them a tradition of lagering and you can bet somebody will be wearing jeans, riveted denim pants first manufactured by German immigrant Levi Strauss (with a textile that originated in Italy).

And on the topic of holidays: Santa Claus, Christmas trees and the Easter Bunny are all German imports.

We don't lament the influence of German immigration on American culture anymore than we do that of the Irish, Italians or any other group. We embrace the contributions as American even while taking for granted their origins.

Fear of change is natural — and it's intrinsic to conservatism — but change is normal and to be expected.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Looking at the Jews, I would say 2% is enough if they are organized.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Fear of change is natural — and it's intrinsic to conservatism — but change is normal and to be expected.

Nothing like some good old Sharia to help a country become more "international," eh? Might have to do away with the hot dogs after all though.

Assimilation is one thing--and welcome--but for those factions who would remain apart or demand conformity to a whole way of life is another. I appreciate my Muslim friends but they are moderates as far as I can tell who seem to be joining our culture rather than trying to shape it.

Having said that, for me the bigger issue here is the disingenuous P.C. culture that prefers "shouting down" and draconian enforcement of their minority views and have a rabid distaste for the constitution.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

There is some validity to the 10% rule. Take the UK for instance, mass immigration from Islamic countries have brought their numbers up to or over that mark already.

That's not correct. There's about 4 million Muslims in the UK (as of 2016 data) which makes them about 5% of the total population — which is about what the Muslim population of European countries overall is. Following current trends (which do include higher birth rates among Muslim women and rates of religions conversions), it's estimated that there will be as many as 13 million Muslims in the UK by 2050 which if other population trends hold, would make them around 15% of the population.

From what I've read, the current birthrate for Muslim women in the UK is about 2.9 births (compared to 1.8 for non-Muslim women in the UK). But there's no such thing as a "Muslim birth rate." Globally, birth rates in majority-Muslim countries has dropped (look it up, it went from like 4.3 to 2.3 from the 90's to now) and differs greatly among countries. In Saudi Arabia, it's 2.7 births per woman. In the UAE however, it's only 1.7 (which is less than that of non-Muslim women in the UK).

No matter where you look, the most glaring correlations when it comes to birthrates are economic and educational, not religious/racial/ethnic/etc.

And immigrants everywhere have a strong tendency to settle in enclaves but become increasingly integrated with each generation. I would expect that what we'll see in the UK is the birth rates for Muslim women trend to fall in line with the general population over time.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
No matter where you look, the most glaring correlations when it comes to birthrates are economic and educational, not religious/racial/ethnic/etc.

Japan is the best example of that, has been for quite some time now.

And immigrants everywhere have a strong tendency to settle in enclaves but become increasingly integrated with each generation.

Indeed. Otherwise, Boston wouldn't have such strong Irish ties, Louisiana pulled heavily from France/Acadia for obvious historical reasons, West Michigan is HEAVY in Dutch influence, Chicago has a pretty heavy concentration of Polish descendants, etc. It took time, but those communities of old eventually evened out with the rest of their respective regions. However, the influences are there, and are pretty set in stone now.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

the world is better than you think

a reply to: Asktheanimals

It doesn't take much. Look at how politically powerful LGBT + Letter Salad groups have become in Hollywood when it comes to representation in media.

When you look at actual stats on the matter, their actual numbers make up no more than 5% (and that's being very generous).

But because of the active and aggressive representation they've garnered in the media, most people who don't look at actual numbers think they're as much as 25% of the overall population.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's the point of the OP that small groups can have far more influence and once past a point become the majority view. Reason being the special interest groups work hard to get their views representation and often lobby for special accommodation and protection. Lots of small squeaky wheels getting the attention while the majority languishes. It was in opposition against this that Trump was elected but even his voter base is badly divided over most issues.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

"How many people do you need to change the culture?"

Half as many as you require to change the future.

Que Sera, Sera. We will either prosper overcome and survive the next century intact.........Or 7/8 of the population of our people will most lightly stagnant and die with a whimper, whilst hungry, thirsty, diseased and living in there own filth.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

The problem is that our general compassion works against us. No one wants to be mean, but that means no one wants to be seen as drawing a line, either, especially not when doing so gets you accused of being mean and a hater.

There was a small flurry of articles on pathological compassion a few years ago.