Science news: The "tipping point" for ideas—if as few as 10% of a social network’s members are "intransigent," those ideas will go mainstream

And in totally unrelated science news, a group at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has found that in social networks, if as few as 10% of the participants are intransigent in their opinions, the other 90%, all consensus-seekers, will mainstream the intransigents' opinions.

This is a serious study, using computer modeling of three kinds of social networks—true peer-to-peer (everyone connected to everyone); networks with "opinion leaders" (a small number of highly connected members serving as hubs); and modified peer-to-peer (no hubs, everyone connected to some lesser number of someones).

From the summary at ScienceBlog:

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 study is here (subscription required). From the abstract:

We show how the prevailing majority opinion in a population can be rapidly reversed by a small fraction p of randomly distributed committed agents who consistently proselytize the opposing opinion and are immune to influence. Specifically, we show that when the committed fraction grows beyond a critical value p_c≈10%, there is a dramatic decrease in the time T_c taken for the entire population to adopt the committed opinion.

The article at ScienceBlog makes fascinating reading; do click through if this interests you.

You can see where this is going. This perfectly describes the South in the run-up to the Civil War, for example. Here's Digby, quoting historian Steven Starr (my emphasis):

The South had an almost unbroken control of the Federal Government from 1789 until secession. The presidents were either Southerners., or Northerners like Pierce and Buchanan, who were mere puppets in the hands of Southern senators and cabinet members. For seventy years, the Supreme Court had a majority of Southern justices. With the aid of its Northern allies and the three-fifths rule, the South controlled one or both houses of Congress. The fifteen Slave States, with a white population of not quite eight million, had 30 senators, 90 representatives, and 120 electoral votes, whereas the State of New York, with a population of four million had two senators, 33 representatives, and 35 electoral votes. Even the election of 1860 left the South in control of both houses of Congress, and until at least 1863, Lincoln and the Republicans would have been powerless to pass legislation hostile to the South, and through its control of the Senate, the South could have blocked the confirmation of every Lincoln appointee whom it considered unfriendly. In spite of this, and notwithstanding Lincoln's repeated assurances that he would not, directly or indirectly, interfere with slavery where it already existed, the South chose to secede.

That Digby post is worth a full read on its own.

Not only does the Rensselaer study describe the Old South, it describes New South as well — the "descendants of the South" as they operate in our politics today. This is the very definition of "intransigence" — when enough is never enough and your surrender must be total.

This is exactly what the Rensselaer study modeled and found: A committed 10% is all it takes to mainstream its ideas.

Sounds like we need our own intransigent 10% (and our own billionaires to fund them). I'm serious. Consensus-seeking is the road to failure; even science says so.

Two notes about this study. (1) This is computer modeling. The social networks are made up of simulated people with computer-managed rules of behavior.

And (2), the "Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center" is financed by ... ready? ... the U.S. Army:

Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center

A multimillion-dollar research center intended to improve the U.S. Army’s understanding of how technology impacts social interaction. Funded by a $16.75 million five-year grant from the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center will study the interactions, interdependencies, and common underlying science of social, information and communication networks.

So first, don't throw away the study as worthless; the big boyz are funding it.

And second, watch what happens to social networks in the next few years, as the spooks put into practice all this research. Talk about poisoning the well.

Food for (much) thought.

GP