The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: fullautovalmet76 on August 20, 2011, 12:54:18 PM
-
Here's the link to a fascinating study by RPI http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2902 (http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2902)
It ties in nicely with some of things Michael Bane has said about the change in the culture toward guns. In a nutshell, if 10% of any given population accepts your idea, it will spread like wildfire. This is not really new news but it provides evidence to what the great political masters have always known.
-
Here's the link to a fascinating study by RPI http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2902 (http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2902)
It ties in nicely with some of things Michael Bane has said about the change in the culture toward guns. In a nutshell, if 10% of any given population accepts your idea, it will spread like wildfire. This is not really new news but it provides evidence to what the great political masters have always known.
Sorry FA, but this is one of the reasons I think quantitative political science is pure BS. The "science" says it takes ten percent of a given population to tip the scales. Really? Well that explains why most Americans must be both pro-life and pro-choice, Christian and agnostic, gay and straight, pro-gun and anti-gun, PC and racist, like chuncky and creamy, and chocolate and vanilla and the list goes on. At least ten percent of the populace are hard core believers in two diametrically opposed positions. A and not A, logic, and looking outside the window, tells us this can't be true if the theory is correct. Ergo, the theory is wrong under normal conditions. But that does not deter the quantoids. ::) This BS nonsense that you can do an experiment in a lab and have it mean anything is killing my discipline. Because hey, they used math and the answer is 47 so it must be true. Ignore the guys who don't think you need math to say something useful about politics or history. What do they know? AAAARGH! >:(
FQ13 who obviously has some issues here. ;)
-
Might be more Social Science than Political Science in this case?
My problem with the theory is that we might have that totally committed 10% to the right to Keep and Bear Arms, but I also bet that the anti's have their totally committed 10%....so I guess that means that both sides will gain a majority of believers?
Looks like the experiments had 10% committed believers and 90% fence sitters.
-
Maybe they are referring more towards a "tipping point", not an up/down vote on an issue. Though look through history, Prohibition, being one onstent, where a small group of advocates were able to enact legislation that went against what the majority actually wanted.
............ Because hey, they used math and the answer is 47 s
Well, see that's the problem we know the answer....42 (or beer), it's the question that's in question.
-
Our revolution only took 3% and I would be willing to bet that most violent revolutions were carried out by %5 or less of the population. Russia's October revolution involved less than 1% of Russia's population.
-
But FQ, it's from RPI and it has three dimensional scatter plots too! ;D
I do think you have a valid criticism but is it enough to derail what they have here? I'm not sure.
Since you have access to these peer reviewed journals, can you take a look at the study and comment further?
Maybe they are referring more towards a "tipping point", not an up/down vote on an issue. Though look through history, Prohibition, being one onstent, where a small group of advocates were able to enact legislation that went against what the majority actually wanted.
I'm with Alf here. I think it is more like the tipping point than some hard and fast rule.
Tom, thanks for the examples I forgot about our revolution and the Russian revolution.
-
FA, in Russia, the March revolution that overthrew the Czar had huge popular support from all over the political spectrum.
But in October when Kerensky provisional Govt was deposed it was just about entirely Bolsheviks and Menshaviks, who the Bolshies later purged.
-
It seems to me that the article is not talking about a political take over...which can be done by a small number of fighters, it is talking about "converting" the majority of the society to your view.
You could have the revolution and still not have any more folks believing in you....and you could h ave the majority believing in you and not pull off a revolution.
-
That's why I used our Revolution as an example, only 3% participated on the Rebel side, but they not only changed the American Govt. they changed the entire concept of Government.
-
Our revolution only took 3% and I would be willing to bet that most violent revolutions were carried out by %5 or less of the population. Russia's October revolution involved less than 1% of Russia's population.
And didn't some guy named Jesus start with only 12 dudes?
-
And didn't some guy named Jesus start with only 12 dudes?
Uhh, I think there might have been a bit of nepotism there. ;D
FQ13
-
And didn't some guy named Jesus start with only 12 dudes?
Actually CR, The way I understood it the disciples were more like his Lieutenant's, his actual support was much more widespread.
Think of it as Jesus as the Godfather, with 12 underbosses each running his own crew.
I used that analogy for the pun, but considering the anti establishment leanings of his teachings makes it even more relevant.
-
Actually CR, The way I understood it the disciples were more like his Lieutenant's, his actual support was much more widespread.
Think of it as Jesus as the Godfather, with 12 underbosses each running his own crew.
I used that analogy for the pun, but considering the anti establishment leanings of his teachings makes it even more relevant.
"Judas.....you disappoint me". Sorry, I couldn't help it. ;D ;D ;D
FQ13 who will owe a bunch of Hail Marys for that one.
-
Kind of the "Joe Valachi" of Christianity. ;D
-
Kind of the "Joe Valachi" of Christianity. ;D
Yeah, well hanging yourself because you were a rat bastard? Lord I can't even believe I'm about to post this, but hey, in for a penny in for a pound. Judas and Valachi? How did they go out? Ice T has the answer. And if anyone asks, like say M'lette or my priest? I never ever posted this. But hey, Tom tempts me to the dark side and I really kind of like it there ;D
FQ13
-
Yeah, well hanging yourself because you were a rat bastard? Lord I can't even believe I'm about to post this, but hey, in for a penny in for a pound. Judas and Valachi? How did they go out? Ice T has the answer. And if anyone asks, like say M'lette or my priest? I never ever posted this. But hey, Tom tempts me to the dark side and I really kind of like it there ;D
FQ13
Being socialy and morally proper isn't half as much fun as being an SOB ;D
-
Now I imagine FA would like to see his thread drift at least sort of back on track.
-
Now I imagine FA would like to see his thread drift at least sort of back on track.
Thanks, Tom! ;D
Quaker, since you are skeptical of the study, what percentage of the population do think is necessary and sufficient for an idea to gain critical mass? For example, the state of MA is a state of contradiction to me. They still have, at least I believe it to be true, Sunday blue laws on the books, which hearkens back to their more conservative Christian past. But then they pass a law in the state allowing gays to marry. Somewhere along the line the idea of allowing gays to marry gained critical mass and then it became a law. A similar thing happened in NY. I read the story of how it came to be in the NYT and was fascinated how pols where against a few years ago had changed their mind and voted for it.
-
Off thread a bit but MA didn't necessarily embrace gay marriage. The Supreme Judicial Court of MA FORCED the State Legislature to write a law which, is NOT within the courts charter and the legality of their strong arming was never challenged. The Legislature didn't bother to fight the court or let the voters decide for themselves.
For the most part, people in MA don't give a damn one way or another outside of the beltway (Route 128).
-
Thanks, Tom! ;D
Quaker, since you are skeptical of the study, what percentage of the population do think is necessary and sufficient for an idea to gain critical mass? For example, the state of MA is a state of contradiction to me. They still have, at least I believe it to be true, Sunday blue laws on the books, which hearkens back to their more conservative Christian past. But then they pass a law in the state allowing gays to marry. Somewhere along the line the idea of allowing gays to marry gained critical mass and then it became a law. A similar thing happened in NY. I read the story of how it came to be in the NYT and was fascinated how pols where against a few years ago had changed their mind and voted for it.
FA, I just can't believe this study can apply to anything except a controlled lab experiment.
If two opposing views have 10% commuted believers each, both are going to grow. But, the study claims that if you do have 10% you will begin to grow and quickly (relatively) have a majority who share your belief. That simply is not possible for two opposing views to both have a majority of the populace supporting their point of view.
If you want to specify,
1. no strong opposing view
2. no other outside influences like social, environmental, political or economic events that marginalizes the importance of your issue to the populace.
Then the theory might work....and that is in a controlled lab situation.
-
After looking at the press release again, I changed the title of the thread. According to the article it only takes 10% who are committed to a certain belief to change or become the majority opinion in their society.
Solus,
You are right in that we can have two diametrically opposing viewpoints at the same time. I have not read the study, it costs $25 to download, but I would think there would be a "war" literal or figuratively speaking for supremacy. We saw this in pre-NAZI Germany in the 1920s with the NAZIs and the communists fighting for control in that society. And keep in mind what Tom pointed out yesterday- only 3% of the colonists actually fought in the revolution.
-
So it seems this paper is just like "Man made climate change".
An expensive opinion. ;D
-
So it seems this paper is just like "Man made climate change".
An expensive opinion. ;D
;D