Posted on July 28, 2011

Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas

ScienceDaily, July 26, 2011

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 findings were published in the July 22, 2011, early online edition of the journal Physical Review E in an article titled “Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities.”

{snip} 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.


27 responses to “Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas”

  1. Frank O. says:

    A problem with this is that no matter how large the percentage, it doesn’t matter if they don’t hold the reins of power. For most of the views that probably most readers of this blog take: reduce immigration, reduce taxes, remove illegal immigrants, cut spending, abolish affirmative action, etc, there are usually ~2/3-3/4 of the US population in agreement. Yet many of these things are never enacted, and if they are, a liberal judge will throw them out. Most of the US population does not stand with the liberal side of things, yet it is forced upon us anyway. We do not live in a representative democracy.

  2. Arizona is the Future says:

    A most pathetic and misled generation of Nickelodeon/Disney/MTV-watching Whites have been lied to incessantly about their ancestors’ incomparable greatnes, and it believes that Will Smith’s son is the Karate Kid (even though Whites made the original) and Will Smith introduced the world to Isaac Asimov’s “I Robot” (overlooking the great genius Asimov) and Richard Mathesson’s “I am Legend” (remember Charlton Heston in “The Omega Man”?) and Denzel Washington, of course, gave the world “The Manchurian Candidate”, while forgetting about the original Frank Sinatra production, and Eddie Murphy has usurped the incomparable Rex Harrison as Doctor Dolittle, and so on and so on. Will we soon see black Willy Wonkas and an all-black Wizard of Oz?

    Or will blacks, for once, be unique, creative, and do something truly original?

    And don’t forget the Obama administration’s reminding the world about the great accomplishments of islam in Aerospace! I tell ya, soon they’ll use CGI to blacken the face of Neil Armstrong and prove to our children that blacks were the first to walk on the moon. Liars and parasites and thieves, all of ’em!

  3. Blaak Obongo says:

    I first saw a link to this article on the “Watts Up With That” website, and found it more than a little questionable. One poster pointed out that it was only demonstrably true when the minority percentage controlled the media, and I can certainly agree with that much.

  4. singularity says:

    The progressives have known this for a long time. They call it “critical mass”. Once the machine gets going, it takes on a living momentum of its own. They call it “change through the spread of progressive ideas” when they do it, and “mainstreaming hate” when healthy, concerned White Humanity does it.

    They also call it “virulent” when we do it, which means that prejudice spreads like a deadly virus once it gets started, because all White have prejudice within them, and hearing prejudice from others, “those how spread hate,” let’s them feel justified in their prejudice and makes them feel that they aren’t alone, thus encouraging them to speak some of their own prejudice and thus “contaminating” social discourse.

    Thanks to the forbearance of the Obama-Holder, we still have Internet freedoms, so let’s keep building our 10% White Humanity.

  5. sbuffalonative says:

    A double edge sword. They have their ideas. We have ours.

    The problem is they have a large percentage of the media.

  6. Question Diversity says:

    This is the critical mass theory of public opinion, except all it takes is 10% in order to reach critical mass, instead of the one-third we thought all along. Do they think 10% is the critical mass in reverse? What I mean by that is that if an idea falls under 10% support, it will never recover.

  7. ice says:

    These people have been so corrupted by political correctness I have a hard time taking anything they say seriously.

    I wonder how many of them believe in global warming, and, of those numbers, I wonder how many have actively worked to distort data in support of it.

    Used car salesmen are no longer the top flim flam artists of this generation.

  8. Jupiter7 says:

    This is very interesting. It comes out of the mathematical research on six degrees of separation models, random graphs, expander graphs, network epidemic models, and the Ising Model and Percolation Models in Statistical Mechanics. And for the past year, I always wondered if any of this has any relevance to the battle we are in. This study seems to indicate that it does. So the question that arises is there a very intuitive way summarize all this technical stuff in a way that is of relevance to revolt we are waging.

    Quite possibly there is…and I would state it with these two principles:1) local interactions determine long range order and 2) contingency. The late Steven Jay Gould was a well known proponent of these two ideas in his writings. Gould uses the metaphor of Spandrels of Saint Marco to illustrate the first point. Contingency means that things are not written in stone and can most definitely be otherwise. Race-replacement is not an act of Providence. It is a consequence of the vicious post-1965 Immigration Policy…it doesn’t have to be this way…we can trigger contingency in another direction in a way that starts the process of reversing race-replacement. The local interactions that we initiate locally..the local networks that we start and perpetuate will create a larger long range order across America. So what I am really writing about and what this study is very likely claiming (based upon the mathematical and physics framework I mentioned above) is that it all comes down to a critical number-scale be pompously technical about this…to initiate a second order phase transition within Native Born White American Society. If you don’t know what a second order phase transition is..look it up on Wikipedia. It is the underlying physical principle in all of these six-degrees of separation modes and random graph models.

    The incredibly simple moral of the story: get out there and find ways to change the brain state of our fellow Native Born White Americans that you interact with a daily basis. Make it go viral through the fabric-network of Native Born White American Society. However, keep this in mind, in order for these local interactions to initiate a new long range order in society..we must frame the issue the right way..embolden your fellow Native Born White Americans to fight back against race-replacement.

    Wat Tyler had the right idea in 1391….

  9. Anonymous says:

    Very interesting idea.

    I’ll do my part to bring our cause to an iron-willed 10% by being polite, evidence-based, calm and reasonable.

    Cranks who use intemperate language or stereotypes over evidence do our cause harm.

  10. John Bell in England says:

    If only it were true! Ever since significant non-white immigration into England began in 1948 it has been the fixed opinion not of 10%, but of at least 70%,of the population that there should be no more. In that time the non-white British element has gone from more or less zero to one person in six, and double that among newborns.

    So it’s not any old opinion which achieves lift off at 10%, but special, elite, opinions, “received” opinions, “informed” opinions. We all know what they are. Democracy is a wonderful thing.

  11. Anonymous says:

    This is very interesting.

    Years ago I read an article by a Russian Christian explaining how the communists took power in the early 20th century. This guy basically said:

    “Although the communists were only 10% of the population, there was chaos, and they were focused, so they took over.”

    So it appears 10% is correct.

  12. Bill says:

    This probably has ‘more’ relevance in European countries, from a nationalist perspective, because of the smaller nature of the countries, and the homogeneity of the european cultures, ethnic groups.

    America is so divided by race, as whites become a minority, 10% will only apply to 50% of the given population, for example. What 10% of the black population etc, thinks is probably irrelevant to whites.

  13. white advocate - Canada says:

    I wonder if the 10% level is reached by whites who support the Tea Party against new taxes. Just to be on the safe side we should get more than 10% of the total pop. With no minority on our side we need 20% of whites. That would be a campaign goal. There will be performance targets set for us, just like salesmen. See what you can do.

  14. Whoa says:

    Viewed purely mathematically, there is a serious problem with the mathematical statement. What about before the 10% of solid believers exist. According to the article, they will never spread their view. Which in particular implies they will never become 10% or more, because then they would spread their view to everyone, but the article says since they are less than 10%, they never will. So, mathematically, the 10% or more would have come into existence instantly from 0% – has to come all at once into existence out of nowhere.

    The flaw is probably like faulty computer models with climate warming. At any rate, either the mathematical statement is simply flawed, or the article is not telling us some detail about definitions.

  15. Nicholai Hel says:

    It’s an interesting idea. But the fact that few today have faith in the daily news reporting of any agency due to the intelligence blow-back from false flag operations conducted by various governments over decades. This factor, combined with Ronald Reagan’s abrogation of the Fairness Doctrine, means the flow of information is indistinguishable from editorial opinion. The faucet is flowing at max blast, mostly in the form of sound-bites and infotainment rendering it most difficult for any coherence to be made. Conspiracy theories fly. Who’s to tell what’s what?

  16. Luke says:

    “If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it… In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

    “The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world today. It is a great distributor for ideas and opinions.”

    “Ours must be a leadership democracy administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses. Is this government by propaganda? Call it, if you prefer, government by education. ”

    “Propaganda becomes vicious and reprehensive only when its authors consciously and deliberately disseminate what they know to be lies, or when they aim at effects which they know to be prejudicial to the common good.”

    To whom should these quotes be attributed, fellow AR readers?

    Answer: Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 – March 9, 1995)

    A few closing comments. Does everyone now understand why the mortal enemies of White European people of all Western nations seized absolute dominant control over our news and entertainment media? Does everyone now understand that one of our top priorities must be to wrestle that control of our media away from our enemies by any and all means necessary? Does everyone now understand why it is critical for our survival as a race to kill our televisions and refuse to help subsidize the anti-white, anti-Western, anti-Christian garbage that is oozing out of Hollywood like so much pus out of a maggot infested corpse?

    Charley Reese, now retired, was one of my all-time favorite Southern columnists – and I’ll always remember something Charley once said during a speech he gave to a Southern heritage conference. It went something like this: Any parent who sits their child down in front of the TV is allowing our mortal enemies to point a loaded .357 magnum pistol at the soul of our child.

    Kill your TV, friends. Boycott Hollywood. Help bankrupt those nation and white race destroying subversives.

    Break the ability our enemies have on shaping our opinions, thoughts, and ideas and start engaging our brains to think tribally, to think nationalistically, and – most importantly –

    train ourselves to be able to recognize when our enemies are offering our race a cup of hemlock that will certainly result in our destruction.

  17. olewhitelady says:

    I would bet that 3/4 of the American people don’t believe what the MSM tells them. They certainly don’t hold the same values, though I believe a great many people think that they, personally, are in the minority in their own beliefs. They may vocalize these private beliefs only to certain family members and friends, since stating them at work or at other public places can cost a person his job and social position.

    Young people are naturally the most vulnerable when it comes to the left-wing message of the MSM. But, I believe, the majority of them undergo movement to the center and right as experience and wisdom show them the facts. Only 44% of white people voted for Obama, and a significant number were young and ignorant of the truth. If most people voted, a leftist like Obama could never be elected in the U.S.

  18. Jupiter7 says:

    Once you accept that fact that networks provide a very deep organizing principle for understanding human societies, the next step is to make this fact about human beings work to our advantage. This idea is actually very fundamental to human physical and psychological health. One of the crucial ideas in this field of research is idea of things going viral…explosive epidemics. There is a Harvard Medical School researcher named Nicholos Christakis who has done alot of reserch on this. He provides compelling evidence that human networking is hardwired at the gene level.

    One of the facts that emerges out of network epidemic modelling is that persistance increase the probability of an epidemic spreading througout a network. I am absolutely convinced that this is what haopened in Wat Tylers peasant revolt of 1391..Bily Bragg wrote a great tune about Wat Tylers revolt called “in 1391”..go have a listen…and no doubt occured in every other peasant and slave revolt in human history…I suppose our collective motto should be “I am Spartacus”.

    No one ever sees these revolts comming..but the peasant revolts do occur.

    Moral of the scientific research:be very persistent..and be creative..there are probably opportunities right under our noses a this moment..I am absolutely certain of this..that can be exploited and cause a network epidemic in the Native Born White American Society that could intiate a revolt against race-replacement.

    One last point. If you accept the network model as an organizing principle for revolting against race-replacement, it should then be manifestly obvious that across-the-board-free market Libertarian fanaticism=death of human society…and thereby by extension, the death of Native Born White American society within the borders of America.

    Wat Tyler had the right idea in 1391…

  19. White Devil says:

    Uhh, We’ve already seen the all black Wizard of Oz…1978

  20. Bon, From the Land of Babble says:

    Does everyone now understand why the mortal enemies of White European people of all Western nations seized absolute dominant control over our news and entertainment media?

    Luke: Schools too.


  21. Anonymous says:

    This is not scientific at all. What ideas are they talking about? How well are the ideas publicized? What are the repercusions of not conforming to the idea?

    Those are the questions that matter.

    Publicize an idea in the media, ridicule dissent, and fire anyone that does not conform, and you will get conformity.

    Political correctness proved it.

  22. john says:

    An interesting notion that lack factual support, at least in terms political implications.

    Far more than ten percent of Americans believe they pay far too much in taxes for far too little benefit.

    Far more than ten percent of Americans are fed up with minority misbehavior and criminal activity, yet little is done about it by the “authorities.”

    Far more than ten percent of Americans are unhappy about the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we’re still there.

    It would appear that this strange theory could use more support.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Geert Wilders Freedom Party and Marine LePen are doing better than 10 percent. Austria, Hungary, and Italy also have strong and determined nationalists.

    There’s hope for Europe.

  24. Anonymous says:

    18 — Jupiter7 wrote at 8:58 AM on July 29:

    “One of the facts that emerges out of network epidemic modelling is that persistance increase the probability of an epidemic spreading througout a network. I am absolutely convinced that this is what haopened in Wat Tylers peasant revolt of 1391..Bily Bragg wrote a great tune about Wat Tylers revolt called “in 1391”..go have a listen…and no doubt occured in every other peasant and slave revolt in human history…I suppose our collective motto should be “I am Spartacus”.”

    First, you are referring to The Peasant Revolt of 1380-1, not 1391, I hope the mistake is only your own, not Billy Bragg.

    Second, that revolt was due to wage suppression, so it was a popular revolt of workers. Many Marxists including Marc Bloch (famous French historian) has referred to it. The history is that the population loss of the Black Plague epidemic left peasants in a better position as far as the value of their labor was concerned. Here is a paste from an online encyclopedia;

    “The rising of the English peasantry in June 1381, the result of economic, social, and political discontent. It was sparked off by the attempt to levy a new poll tax in the village of Fobbing, Essex, three times the rates of those imposed in 1377 and 1379. The poll tax was a common tax, paid by all, which badly affected those least able to pay. Led by Wat Tyler and John Ball, rebels from southeast England marched on London and demanded reforms. The authorities put down the revolt by pretending to make concessions and then using force.

    Following the Black Death, an epidemic of plague in the mid–14th century, a shortage of agricultural workers had led to higher wages. However, the government attempted to return wages to pre-plague levels by passing the Statute of Labourers (1351). Other causes of discontent were the youthfulness of King Richard II, who was only 14 years old; the poor conduct of the Hundred Years’ War, which England was losing to France; and complaints about the church led by John Wycliffe and the Lollards. When a third poll tax was enforced in 1381, three times higher than previous levies, riots broke out all over England, especially in Essex and Kent. Wat Tyler and John Ball emerged as leaders and the rebels marched on London to demand reforms. They plundered the city, including John of Gaunt’s palace at the Savoy, and freed the prisoners from the prisons at Newgate and Fleet. The young king, Richard II, attempted to appease the mob, who demanded an end to villeinage (serfdom) and feudalism. The rebels then took the Tower of London and murdered Archbishop Sudbury. The king attempted to make peace at Smithfield, but Tyler was stabbed to death by William Walworth, the lord mayor of London. The young king rode bravely forward and offered to be the rebels’ leader. He made concessions to the rebels, and they dispersed, but the concessions were revoked immediately and a fierce repression followed. Nevertheless, many lords realized that the revolt was a warning sign, and began to commute (convert) their feudal dues to money rents.”

    Most of the revolts in Europe up to the 20th century were about the exploitation of the poor, serfdom, and other abuses of ordinary people. (In fact, I can’t think of one that wasn’t). The church fought wars of religion, but the people fought revolts for liberation from tyranny. This is well known to any historian and of course, was not missed by Karl Marx when he sought to form a system of government where workers controlled the rule. It also wasn’t missed by George Washington and the FFs, who sought to form a system that would be more dynamic than stagnant systems extant in Europe.

    There is an interesting “inside” history on The Peasant Revolt of 1380 in Robinson’s book, “Born in Blood.” From it, it appears that there is a direct historical link from that revolt to The FFs.

  25. Anonymous says:

    18 — Jupiter7 wrote at 8:58 AM on July 29:

    “No one ever sees these revolts comming..but the peasant revolts do occur.”

    Left out of my previous post – I place it here now;

    The problem is that as with the Peasants Revolt of 1380, it was the oppressed that revolted, not the rulers. You cannot be both, and that is our problem. Whites want to rule and paint themselves as oppressed.

    IMO, we cannot compare ourselves to the peasants of this earlier age. It is comparing apples to oranges. We are living in a modern republic where the rightful ruling majority has been attacked and are being subverted by Marxist conspiracy. The reason it is all going so wrong is because the use of Marxism is dishonest. I mean that Karl Marx himself would not approve, just as he would not have approved of the Bolsheviks, who had to murder the real Marxists to get power.

    And – historically many have predicted revolts and revolutions, that is part of what made them occur to begin with, they don’t arise out of the ground. And remember, this was whites abusing whites. It required centuries of abuse to foment the French Revolution as well as the socialist revolts in Europe of the 19th century. Voltaire, among other rabble rousers were writing so much that France maintained a book banding ministry for a very long time. Even Victor Hugo illustrated the use of the press in fomenting revolt in the 14th century in his play, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame.” The Peasant Revolt of 1380 had some help as well; according to Robinson and his well founded sources, the suppressed Knights Templar, still seeking revenge from their earlier 14 century suppression and persecution in England – led the revolt. Wat Tyler is remembered in Masonic tradition and has a symbolic office therein.

  26. Turtle says:

    Revolutions are always started by unreasonable men and finished by ambitious pragmatists. Spread our ideas with witty and pointed memes. How about “affirmative action president”? “Leftist ideology over jobs”. “You can’t fix stupid by spending a trillion dollars”. Use your imagination. The Brits convince Hitler that D-Day would take place elsewhere by deception. Time to start the middle game.

  27. Jupiter7 says:

    Anon and Anon

    The year of Wat Tyler’s revolt was 1381. I don’t agree with your claim that I am comparing apples and oranges. Obviously no two historical events are ever exactly the same. Wat Tyler’s peasant revolt of 1381 was most definitely in the realm of class warfare that existed in Anglo-Saxon-Norman Medieval England at the time. Scholars on the English Medieval era write that the peasant revolt of 1381-although crushed by the Black Prince-set into motion the end of serfdom and manorial enclosure of the commons.

    If you want to get a good feel for the political scene surrounding Wat Tyler’s peasant revolt, I highly recommend “Who murdered Chaucer: A Medevil Mystery” by Monty Python’s Terry Jones who is a recognized scholar on English Medieval history. The book is very well written and documented. I attended a bookstore lecture by Terry Jones when he was doing his book tour. As you would expect, it was very very funny..combined with a very high level of erudition. Terry Jones hammered home to the audience the strong similarities between 1381-1402 (the date of Chaucer’s exit from recorded history) and our present era..which is not to say that they are completely identical. The common themes back then and today are :wars of aggression for profit, an exploited laboring class under the spell of insane theological beliefs, and heresy laws that criminalize speech that challenges the Greedy Cheating Class’s “right” to rule as demigods. This the common theme to 1381-1402 and 2011.

    Nobody saw Wat Tyler’s revolt coming.