25 votes

Minority rules: Scientists discover tipping point for the spread of ideas

Minority rules: Scientists discover tipping point for the spread of ideas
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.

Read more here: http://phys.org/news/2011-07-minority-scientists-ideas.html

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Gotta get this book...


Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Great Post!

Thank you.

Now it's about the Constitution and the fight to defend it.

If it worked for the neo-cons

it can work for us to take back the Republican Party.

Nobody can stop you

Nobody can stop a small minority intent on setting brush fires in the minds of men. It's the people who care and know what they're talking about that change the world. Everybody else gets changed by it.

No number of smears and insults matter when you can dismantle the lie with clearly stated truth.

This topic is an oldie-but-goodie

This "new" study from RPI showed up around the web last summer. It was a forum topic here on the DP last August.

The groundwork for this scientific "breakthrough" began in the late 19th century.

Here is that DP link:


The phenomenon of how innovation is adopted by a society has been the subject of scientific study for well over 100 years. Diffusion of Innovations, a theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures was first studied by the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde and by German and Austrian anthropologists such as Friedrich Ratzel and Leo Frobenius at the turn of the 20th century.

In 1962 professor Everett Rogers published 'Diffusion of Innovations.' In the book, he synthesized research from over 508 diffusion studies and produced a theory for the adoption of innovations among individuals and organizations.

in an aimless crowd

critical mass is reached when 5-8% of people start moving in same direction. the whole crowd goes in that direction.

that is measurable, for those of you looking for something concrete.

Crossing the chasm by Geoffry Moore


The Chasm on the bell curve includes about 15 to 18%. Once past that barrier the majority start to join in.

That's Moore's marketing perspective.

In marketing it is not about beliefs held but serious and respected early adopters when test and idea or product with favorable results.

If the late adopters start using it for its utility and not's its novelty, the early majority is less inclined to join. That is the chasm.

As a trend develops and the advantages are clear finally the early majority joins in.

The late majority joins in when you can buy it at Sears, preferably on sale.

The late adopters pick up a used one at a flea market of garage sale, for the novelty or to scorn those who over-paid, long after the trend has passed.

Free includes debt-free!

Less than 10% support legalization?

Some serious problems with this study...

"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -Jebediah Springfield

a lot of people believe in

a lot of people believe in God.

If we are created in the

If we are created in the image and likeness of God, then we must also believe in the (God-like) power we have within ourselves and use it to the best of our abilities.

"The Price Of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance."
Thomas Jefferson

Shows you what this study is worth.

Back in college, students who studied physics, chemistry and biology would sneer at the people who studied "social sciences." Rightly so: it seems to be the domain of fluffy-headed wannabe social engineers who wouldn't recognize "science" if it bit them.
This "study" tells you what? If 10% of the people hold one opinion strongly, and 90% hold the contrary opinion strongly, the ten-percenters are going to win? Right.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

The majority are just

The majority are just followers, or better known by us as sheepeople. There are a lot of people in that 90% who simply do not care. They're too busy doing their own thing to be bothered with politics and wont go out and vote. They are pretty much brain dead and there is not much we can do about that. So out of that 90% what is left? Certainly none of the other candidates drew the crowds like Ron Paul did.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
-Margaret Mead

"The Price Of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance."
Thomas Jefferson

That's not the point.

The point is that these "scientists" have played with some data and contrived some conclusions, most likely by cherry-picking their case studies to match their preconceived conclusion. Has their conclusion been confirmed as having predictive value? It has not. This is not science -- this is somebody hunting for research grants and/or publicity to sell a forthcoming book.

The comment made by youjustgotpauled is very much on point: when people hold contrary opinions strongly, does this "study" predict which, if either, will prevail? People hold strong opinions on a vast number of subjects -- moral, political, religious, economic, and simply factual (what really happened on 9/11?) Furthermore, many of those opinions, although strongly held, are simply counter-to-fact. If these "scientists" claim that the magical 10% belief threshhold automatically ensures the majority adoption of ANY belief -- they are full of crap.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

But how many know we are actually ALL God???


"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Only I do.

The rest of you are wrong. :)

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Of Course!!!

Why do you think "they" work so hard to keep us ALL so dumbed-down? Because they know it doesn't take much to end it all for them. That's why they've needed secret meetings and groups for centuries.

We already outnumber them thousands to one. We have more than the 10% required on the Daily Paul alone!

And "they" know this. Which is why they're going to any lengths they still can to try and stop the awakening, but it is already too late. No Bill, Law or Executive Order has any power over the free will of the human spirit.

WE are NOW living in a OUR FREE WORLD and THEY ARE THE INTRUDERS. We will purge them all from this Earth for they no longer serve the needs of humanity. We have evolved into a global community thanks to the internet unlike any point in recorded history. We will never go back and never stop pushing onward!

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

You're right.

"They" do know how to keep "us" dumbed-down. "They've" been doing it for centuries. Right now, "they" are using "their" vast echo chamber, also known as the MSM: most of the major news outlets all over the world, to spread "their" own movement of political ideals; such as the popularization of corporate personhood through Citizens United and ALEC legislation. The most important thing for us to learn is who "they" are. I know who "they" are. Do you? Start spreading that information if you really want this movement to gain ground and to "purge them all from this Earth". Name names. Here's one for you: Koch.

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

What;'s the definition of Unshakable belief ?

That seems vague to me.

Definition of unshakable

The American Heritage® Dictionary: definition of unshakable

Unshakable - marked by firm determination or resolution; not shakable; "firm convictions"; "a firm mouth"; "steadfast resolve"; "a man of unbendable perseverence"; "unwavering loyalty"
firm, steadfast, unbendable, unfaltering, unwavering, steady, stiff
resolute - firm in purpose or belief; characterized by firmness and determination; "stood resolute against the enemy"; "faced with a resolute opposition"; "a resolute and unshakeable faith"

"The Price Of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance."
Thomas Jefferson

I know the dictionary definition

I was wondering how the study would judge whether someone's belief was unshakable or not.

For example, would you vote for Mitt Romney for $100000 - and please be honest. Its easy to say on a forum that you would not

Would you vote for Mitt Romney, if someone threatened to break your arm if you didn't ? or Threatened to kill you or a family member

See, it depends on how hard you shake.

Back in the time when Barry

Back in the time when Barry Bonds was chasing the homerun record I was having a conversation with a co-worker. I'm a Cubs fan and truly believe in the practice of throwing a homerun ball hit into the bleachers at Wrigley should be throw back into the field of play. I told my friend that I would, without exception, throw a Bonds ball back.

He couldn't believe I was serious ... I am unshakable when it comes to certain things. So just as I would throw that ball back, I wouldn't vote for Romney even for $1,000,000. You have to have something you are willing to stand for, right?

Which means we still have a long way yet to go.

We'd need about 38 million or so Americans on board with us. As best we can tell, that number is only 10% of that.

There are many more of us then you think

for real.
dont drink the koolaide!lol
WE ARE MANY, and GROWING MASSIVELY as the days of intervention roll on.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

If they didn't show up to vote for Dr. Paul, I don't count those

chickens. They haven't hatched yet.

Are we growing? Yes, well, we were growing faster before the capitulation and subsequent Rand endorsement.

But that doesn't mean we are anywhere near 10% of the ENTIRE U.S. population.

I think its more like 25-28%

I think we have numbers that DWARF the evangelical or liberal, combined.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

I think we have that POTENTIAL. We aren't there yet.

The only people we can count are actual votes, and we just lost a bunch of those next go round with the Rand endorsement.

what we lost

with the rand endorsement we GAINED with the rand endorsement.
many neocon sheep are now looking at ron paul because of rands endorsement, they know romney is no conservative and for many authoritarians and neocon sheep, this is not simply ALL about the war, ANYMORE. Now their bank accts are suffering and they are starting to wake up to the fact we cant afford our foreign policy anymore.

Rand may have lost a few, and I say good bye to them.
And hello to the hearts and minds we are changing.
The others who left us will be back around, soon enough when they realize what the Pauls just did and will be feeling stupid.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

That makes no sense.

People who are supporting Romney because he isn't Obama will not flock to Paul because his son endorsed Romney.

The endorsement just reinforces their support for Romney and deters them from supporting Paul. (his own son endorsed someone else for crying out loud, even while Paul was still in contention)

This gains us nothing. This doesn't make Ron Paul more palatable to war mongers or religious fanatics.

It doesn't sway those who ONLY want to "beat Obama" and who think Paul is "unelectable."

They'll think he is even more unelectable now, since his own son won't even stand by him.

Those who feel stupid are those who went out on a limb and listened to us instead of their neo-con "wasted vote syndrome" buddies.

Now they are more likely to "not waste their vote" next time and ignore and laugh at us.

Rand just lost them for life.

WE were the very early adopters. We needed to get more of us. This was the second wave. Rand just chased them off.

Now we are back to just the very early adopters.


but they have pulled the same exact thing here at home, and Rand always distanced himself from his fathers foreign policy, but not too far.
ask rove, duhbya, harris, gonzales, delay and grinch what the pauls are up to and capable of....
they can tell you.
Dr. Paul is cunning and strategic and all is done under cloak of a gentlemanly old man. pundits will speak of the Paul's strategies for decades after they're gone.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Congress has a 13,000 to one policy

I remember reading that congress has a 13,000 to one policy, meaning for each single message they receive from constituents on an issue, they consider there are 13,000 others that have the same opinion and are to lazy, or feel it is useless to contact them.

If you apply this same analogy on how many people actually went out and did something, or went to the Ron Paul rallies, just what would the numbers be? What number would we come up with if we would combine the average number of people that attended each rally, then times it by 13000.

Just one rally of 5,000 people X 13,000 would add up to 65,000,000!

Just an interesting thought.

"The Price Of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance."
Thomas Jefferson