Minority Rules: The Tipping Point - The Internet Revolution - And You

reply to post by silent thunder


Silent, thanks for your comments.

Originally posted by silent thunder
reply to post by burntheships

 

I think it really brings together and gives form to a lot of ideas that have been percolating around these parts lately.

When I saw the caption title, and then upon reading about the results of the study,
a big light bulb switched on...I had found the missing puzzle piece!

Yes, we sure have been percolating on this subject.

One question is how this will be manifested medium/long-term in social media; for example, if the "velocity" at which an idea circulates in society is enhanced by electronic or social networks, does it change the underlying "10% rule" in any way, such as by involving more marginal forms of "friendship" and connectivity?

Referred to as agents of change, the opiniated ones were sprinkled throughtout.

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. news.rpi.edu...(1)

Its quite the interesting glimpse into social interaction. I hope to find time to read the
enitre study many times over.

Thanks for dropping in.

reply to post by burntheships

A new study just released confirms what many of us have suspected all along.

People are a lot like sheep! Haha

Originally posted by theshepherd92
reply to post by burntheships

 

A new study just released confirms what many of us have suspected all along.

People are a lot like sheep! Haha

You know, now that you mention it, there is the sheep thing buried within this!

Deny Ignorance!

reply to post by burntheships


Hi burntheships,

This comment of yours really caught my eye...

Then again, its another thing entirely when people are paid to be dogmatic, go online and influence public opinion.

If it only takes 10% then paying people to do this could be quite a worthy investment for groups with various ideologies/agendas. I've sometimes dismissed the "disinfo agent" concept as paranoia, but it makes sense in this context. Lobbyists most certainly fall into this group, and aren't even hiding their agendas or paychecks.

This leaves me wondering how tipping point A counteracts tipping point B if they are ideologically opposed and each has 10% (or more)... It seems like directly opposed grounds would need to up the ante to gain a higher percentage. OR...do they count on the 10 % rule and just sit tight, waiting for the opposition to fold? Could this be what we see going on in Washington right now?

Originally posted by RRokkyy
reply to post by burntheships

 

This is one of the principles that Cultural Marxism is able to use to spread its
reality to the rest of the population.
The NEW WORLD ORDER will be a Capitalist Economy run by the Elite Rich
with a communist thinking peasant workforce created by Multicultural ,or Cultural Marxist
ideas.
This is what we have now in America. A peasant cultural Marxist workforce making
minimum wage while the Capitalist Ceos make tens or hundreds of millions a year.

The American peasant is now a communist who thinks he is still a capitalist.

^ Doesn't understand Communism or Marxism.

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. news.rpi.edu...(1)

Perhaps a sharply defined, pithy, unflappable opinion exerts a gravitational pull on minds in an indeterminate state. And yet, an inflexibility in one's views, and being impervious to information which may contradict a strongly held opinion is the hallmark of a stagnant mind. It may be said that taken to it's furthest extreme, an unwavering devotion to an idea amounts to a pathological disorder.

And then there's that thing where we get a little endorphin kick from being exposed to an opinion we agree with. On the other end of the bio-cognitive rewards we reap from being close-minded douchewaffles is the mind's tendency to selectively ignore information which doesn't coincide with our views.

In other words, our brains take the path of least resistance when forming (or adopting) opinions.

Which is how that Convinced and Convincing 10% ends up dictating how the remaining 90% choose to think. Maybe.

If the explanation above holds true, you will probably disagree with me, since I have voiced my opinion in a tentative, long-winded manner.

I have personally observed that an opinion founded in facts, but expressed in neutral language with a low level of "commitment", fails to exert the same attraction as an eloquent, impassioned opinion founded on horsepocky and dander.

Originally posted by mistermonculous

I have personally observed that an opinion founded in facts, but expressed in neutral language with a low level of "commitment", fails to exert the same attraction as an eloquent, impassioned opinion founded on horsepocky and dander.

I would agree with you on that one. I think that would count as an impassioned 'true believer".

reply to post by burntheships


s&f

It occurred to me that you don't even need 10% with social media influence; you only need a few dedicated people with multiple accounts and lots of free time. Or like on ATS "sockpuppets" actively engaged in thread manipulation.

reply to post by whaaa


Ah yes, this is true, it would be interesting to take a count on a thread that finally "tips",
would it not?

This could work both ways, for instance a thread that has a lot of flags and stars for the OP,
but virtually nothing of substance. Or a very asute OP with little or no attention.

Remember, if the percentage does not reach a 10% saturation point (i assume thats with
minute percentage give and take) it goes nowhere.

Originally posted by gwynnhwyfar
reply to post by burntheships

 

Hi burntheships,

This comment of yours really caught my eye...

Then again, its another thing entirely when people are paid to be dogmatic, go online and influence public opinion.

If it only takes 10% then paying people to do this could be quite a worthy investment for groups with various ideologies/agendas. I've sometimes dismissed the "disinfo agent" concept as paranoia, but it makes sense in this context. Lobbyists most certainly fall into this group, and aren't even hiding their agendas or paychecks.

Exactly. Corporations have already been exposed for doing this, Monsanto comes to mind.
They acutally contracted with Xe....and they have infiltrated the internet with an army of fake media
freinds.

This leaves me wondering how tipping point A counteracts tipping point B if they are ideologically opposed and each has 10% (or more)

Think of the comments section,at the end of news write ups where some people are just
zealous, and have a huge amount of posts...I always wonder how they have time and energy.

We can be fairly certain that if opposition is sent in, I am sure they have tallied the count on
how many 'soliders" need to be dispatched. And they can always call in more.

In the movie Collapse, the interviewee told this story about a group of 1,000 monkeys that were relocated to an island which had recently undergone nuclear testing; the animals were brought in to see long term health effects and whether old nuclear activity could affect new populations. They ended up teaching one monkey how to wash coconuts in the water before eating them (to clean off some of the radioactivity). Before long, a group of monkeys were following suite. When the 100th monkey joined the group to wash his coconut, all 1,000 began doing it instantaneously.

This is a very true fact. But let us not dwell on the bad implications! Think about it; if we ATSers would actually try to start a revolution, be it a physical manifestation or in cyberspace uprising, ten percent would do it.

reply to post by kyledb13


Ah, yes the 100th monkey...

While I am not sure of the source, I have come to think of that story as a legend of sorts.
It does indeed bear some similarity to the study in the op, even if its only a story.
Afterall, who knows where it originated from, maybe some obsure study of behavior.

I agree entirely about using the study in a postive way, not to dwell on the negative.

Be a true believer...

Any minority is up against a power called the teh-leh-viz-zhun. In my opinion, there is no contest to which is more influential. People just don't give a shh today, about any of those 'radical' ideas floating around. They want to live in a world where what they've always assumed is true. They are frickin' lazy minds.

This country is going down the tank, and so few people I know can even mention it or admit it, let alone talk about it.

Disgrace!

This is probably why they are forcing the multiculturalization of countrys.

So you are the minority and so is your opinion.

We are becoming very mindless,

We dont make our own minds up anymore,

This is what they want anyways,well im fighting it!

The new Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program was submitted under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an arm of the Department of Defense. The goal is to "develop a new science of social networks built on an emerging technology base" to help the agency keep abreast with communication technologies, namely Twitter.

The program's plan is fourfold:

1. Detect, classify, measure and track the (a) formation, development and spread of ideas and concepts (memes), and
(b) purposeful or deceptive messaging and misinformation.
2. Recognize persuasion campaign structures and influence operations across social mediasites and communities.
3. Identify participants and intent, and measure effects of persuasion campaigns.
4. Counter messaging of detected adversary influence operations.

It makes sense: Twitter's gotten a lot of shine as a tool for mass mobilization, none more famous than during the Arab Spring.
techland.time.com...

In that fourfold plan, # 1 and 2 are scary, but # 3 and 4 are downright unnerving.

Its worth paying attention to, can they and will they use this on U.S citizens.

this is probably the most interesting thread i've come across so far(though i haven't been an atser very long)
it's a very encouraging discussion, and there's alot of good points in here
i can't help but be reminded that it's the same percentage of people who are resistant to hypnotism(10%)
it seems to me that this whole country is subtly hypnotized in one way or another, after all, isn't civilization itself a form of it?
revolution...it has a nice sound. but have you ever read Animal Farm?
what is do be done about this tangled mess of bullpucky?
you shouldn't follow a leader if all he has is charisma, yet we do it anyway. the psychology of a group is always different than one person alone.
revolution? who, what, where, when why and how...i would favor something more along the lines of mass enlightenment, where no government at all is necessary, or what lao tsu calls "the great integrity".
people need to trust each other, and the ALL need to be open minded.
so let's say we start a revolution, what are the goals? the ideas of the 10%ers are priceless, and they might indeed establish something that actually is a democracy. but no government can ever conform to the laws of nature.
just like how if one sees no point in organic when it's more expensive, one person isn't going to make a difference, and that's what people generally think. but if they all did it, we'd live in quite a different world. so how do you get people to do these kinds of things of their own will? you can point out all the facts, all of the reasoning, but in the end that masses usually flock to those who have charisma.
i tell you that THEY've got us by the balls. arguments go back and forth and they always miss the point...like how we wouldn't worry about gas prices if we used alternate energy sources.
letting go of material wealth and social prestige is the easiest and the hardest thing. all you need to do is let go.
like when your standing at the top of a high cliff, you might take a couple seconds(or minutes)to work up the courage, but all you do is fall when you jump.

This is essentially a bump of this thread because it was one of my favorite to emerge on ATS in the last few years at least, and I think its a powerful lesson that we all need to be reminded of again and again.

The possibility of change and reform (in whatever directions may be desireable to us personally) frequently seems so distant, and the obstacles seem so daunting. Yet when we concentrate on the fact that a change of only 10% is truly needed, change suddenly seems within reach.

I want to re-open debate on this topic along the lines of what could be done, practically, to influence the ten percent, either around you in real life or on the net. Have any of you taken any such steps? Can we brainstorm possibilites?

reply to post by silent thunder


Thanks SThunder,

I in fact did come across something that I think really fits in here.
Somethimes people just need to say what is on their mind,
even if they are in the minority.

I really am impressed by the fact that being genuine can make all
the difference. Anyone can say something, its those who believe that
will really have influence.




in the world.

reply to post by Kinaro


I guess because the 10% must be really convinced, must have absolute beliefs, unshakable, as the OP states. People have opinions about everything, but only a few have convictions, which is entirely different, and more rare. I don't think 10% of the American population is concerned by true beliefs.

reply to post by burntheships


Totally agree with this study.

100 Monkeys experiment anyone?