There are a couple discussions going on in ~talk related that I think related to this article that I came across today. Essentially, some researchers conducted a study to test the idea of a...
There are a couple discussions going on in ~talk related that I think related to this article that I came across today. Essentially, some researchers conducted a study to test the idea of a threshold at which a minority view actually begins to change the group's overall mindset. The researchers found that the threshold for the scenario they tested was around 25% dissenters.
The article relates it to Russia targeting US voters and similar online campaigns. I also found it relevant to some things being discussed in the LGBT+ cake discrimination topic-- mainly @meristele's point that social change may be easier or faster now that we're more connected to different views, making it easier to reach that threshold.
Anyway, what are folks thoughts on this research? Are you surprised the threshold was that low? Do you agree with the researchers that it is likely higher for more contentious issues than what the rather benign "name change" they tested? How does this sort of thing affect how we treat these issues of online manipulation and social change?
Meta: Normally I'd have posted this as a link in ~science since it talks about recent research. Since it relates to several discussions going on ~talk, maybe this is okay? Still, it's a shame to miss out on the input of folks who are subscribed to ~science and not ~talk.
Perhaps not. But the idea itself is interesting and I wouldn't mind discussing the possibilities. Do you have strong feelings about the data? Do you perhaps hold the view that social media doesn't...
Perhaps not. But the idea itself is interesting and I wouldn't mind discussing the possibilities.
Do you have strong feelings about the data? Do you perhaps hold the view that social media doesn't influence peoples' views that strongly? Or opinions on the question of a possible Russian voting influence? I'm not sure what struck you to leave a one sentence post simply to grace us with the knowledge of your lack of assumptions. :)
I think attempts to quantify such nebulous issues are unhelpful. There are simply too many variables here, it's not pool-table physics. What is the existing belief make-up of the group? How strong...
I think attempts to quantify such nebulous issues are unhelpful. There are simply too many variables here, it's not pool-table physics.
What is the existing belief make-up of the group? How strong are those beliefs? Is it different for the most powerful members? How tolerant is the group for different idea? Are silencing tactics accepted? Are there already people who agree with the introduced idea but are staying silent? How extreme is the introduced idea and what is the existing Overton window?
Maybe you could make a model of such a system. I'm not sure. I am sure that you couldn't find a precise percentage of adherents at which point a belief becomes accepted.
Well, considering I posted an article about the replication crisis the other day in ~science, I don't assume that either. :D But that doesn't mean we can't talk about it-- for example, you've...
Well, considering I posted an article about the replication crisis the other day in ~science, I don't assume that either. :D
But that doesn't mean we can't talk about it-- for example, you've already elaborated below that you think this sort of experiment is fruitless because there are so many factors, but if you hadn't I could have asked you what kinds of changes or additions you'd make to the experimental design.
There are a couple discussions going on in ~talk related that I think related to this article that I came across today. Essentially, some researchers conducted a study to test the idea of a threshold at which a minority view actually begins to change the group's overall mindset. The researchers found that the threshold for the scenario they tested was around 25% dissenters.
The article relates it to Russia targeting US voters and similar online campaigns. I also found it relevant to some things being discussed in the LGBT+ cake discrimination topic-- mainly @meristele's point that social change may be easier or faster now that we're more connected to different views, making it easier to reach that threshold.
Anyway, what are folks thoughts on this research? Are you surprised the threshold was that low? Do you agree with the researchers that it is likely higher for more contentious issues than what the rather benign "name change" they tested? How does this sort of thing affect how we treat these issues of online manipulation and social change?
Meta: Normally I'd have posted this as a link in ~science since it talks about recent research. Since it relates to several discussions going on ~talk, maybe this is okay? Still, it's a shame to miss out on the input of folks who are subscribed to ~science and not ~talk.
After the replication crisis, I'm not going to assume that the data from a single sociology experiment has any applicability at all.
Perhaps not. But the idea itself is interesting and I wouldn't mind discussing the possibilities.
Do you have strong feelings about the data? Do you perhaps hold the view that social media doesn't influence peoples' views that strongly? Or opinions on the question of a possible Russian voting influence? I'm not sure what struck you to leave a one sentence post simply to grace us with the knowledge of your lack of assumptions. :)
I think attempts to quantify such nebulous issues are unhelpful. There are simply too many variables here, it's not pool-table physics.
What is the existing belief make-up of the group? How strong are those beliefs? Is it different for the most powerful members? How tolerant is the group for different idea? Are silencing tactics accepted? Are there already people who agree with the introduced idea but are staying silent? How extreme is the introduced idea and what is the existing Overton window?
Maybe you could make a model of such a system. I'm not sure. I am sure that you couldn't find a precise percentage of adherents at which point a belief becomes accepted.
Well, considering I posted an article about the replication crisis the other day in ~science, I don't assume that either. :D
But that doesn't mean we can't talk about it-- for example, you've already elaborated below that you think this sort of experiment is fruitless because there are so many factors, but if you hadn't I could have asked you what kinds of changes or additions you'd make to the experimental design.