I'm having a hard time seeing opposition to the war as a meme. Book after book, article after article have been written recounting factual bases for opposition to it. Support for the war is much sooner a meme, i.e., simply a belief, in this case countervailed by opposition based in reality. > [Original Message] > From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> > To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: 10/24/2006 10:07:42 PM > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: interaction of polls and public opinion > > On 10/25/06, Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > If people watch televised poll results that indicate 30 > > percent of the public believes X, will that cause an upward > > shift in the percentage who believe X? Is there a critical > > polling mass (50 percent? 60 percent?) when a polled opinion > > about X multiplies itself? And how does the frequency of > > publicizing polls alter future polled opinion? > > > > I bet John McCreery knows something about this. > > > > There may be such research. If so, I'm unfamiliar with it. A couple of > things I have read recently do suggest, however, that the "critical > mass" metaphor may not be appropriate in discussing social phenomena. > > One critical flaw in the metaphor may be the assumption that there is > only one tipping point, as there is when a nuclear exposion occurs. > Anthropologist/marketing guru Grant McCracken suggests in his new book > _Flocks and Flows_ that cultural phenomena must typically survive five > to six tipping points en route from the chaos of innovation to > becoming conventional wisdom. At each of those tipping points the meme > in question must break through and appeal to a wider audience than the > narrower group to which it first appealed. > > A similar point is made in one of the books on network analysis that I > am currently reading as background for my current research project (if > anyone is interested I will try to locate the particular book in > question; at the moment it isn't to hand). The topic is the > application of network analysis to explanation of crowd behavior. The > specific question is why some bar fights fizzle out while others > result in full-scale riots. Here, again, a critical issue appears to > be the way in which the crowd is structured. > > Assume, for the sake of argument, that people can be ranked in order > of propensity to become involved in a bar fight, so that 1s tend to > start fights, 2s tend to join in immediately, 3s stay out until a > certain proportion of the crowd is already fighting, 4s stay out > longer, etc. A single 1 can start a riot if there are enough 2s who > will leap in to create a fight big enough for the 3s and then the 4s > to get involved as well. But in a crowd in which there aren't enough > 2s the fight fizzles out. > > The thrust of both of these analyses is that there isn't a single > "critical mass" threshold. There is, instead, a range of thresholds, > each a function of the structure of the population in question and > (the other side of that coin) the propensities of the individuals who > comprise it. > > Cheers, > > John > > -- > John McCreery > The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN > > US CITIZEN ABROAD? > YOU'RE THE DECIDER! > Register to Vote in '06 Elections > www.VoteFromAbroad.org > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html