 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
2007.11.13 1315 â' ìçãù äúùéòé (ááìé ëñìå) äúùñ"ç – This article, below, was published today in the "Breaking News" link of Eurekalert.org. It's critical for each of us in general, not aimed at any particular ta•lᵊmidꞋ (not connected in any way, for example, to Ken's message, which happens to precede it).
An important new study appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Consumer Research finds that it is rarely the case that highly influential individuals are responsible for bringing about shifts in public opinion.
Instead, using a number of computer simulations of public opinion change, Duncan J. Watts (Columbia University) and Peter Sheridan Dodds (University of Vermont), find that it is the presence of large numbers of "easily influenced" people who bring about major shifts by influencing other easy-to-influence people.
"Our study demonstrates not so much that the conventional wisdom is wrong … but that it is insufficiently specified to be meaningful," the researchers write. "Under most conditions that we consider, we find that large cascades of influence are driven not by influentials, but by a critical mass of easily influenced individuals."
Instead of a model in which opinion flows only from the media to influentials, and then only from influentials to the larger populace, Watts and Dodds created an influence network with opinion flows in many directions at once, adjusted for the probability that a given individual will adopt a change when the information comes from a certain source.
They then introduced an event into the simulation, evaluating what factors resulted in an overall shift in opinion in their model system. They also introduced "hyper influentials" and monitored their effects, tried grouping individuals together into sub-networks, and adjusted the degree at which attitudes shift.
"Anytime some notable social change is recognized, whether it be a grassroots cultural fad, a successful marketing campaign, or a dramatic drop in crime rates, it is tempting to trace the phenomenon to the individuals who "started it," and conclude that their actions or behavior "caused" the events that subsequently took place," the authors write.
However, they explain: "…under most of these conditions influentials are less important than is generally supposed, either as initiators of large cascades, or as early adopters."
Think of Hollywood. They desensitize vast numbers, actually convincing very few of the audience in any single movie, etc. But they keep pounding away with their pet theme, on vast numbers of people, and, over time, they gradually change (desensitize, accustom – program) society through the interactions – buzz – of great numbers of the more easily-influenced population. ("Yeah, I saw that too. What are they saying about J---? Is that really historical fact? They're the original Nazarene Jews? Orthodox Jews? In Israel? What do you think?") Websites, blogs, newspaper talkbacks and the like are the best way I know of to put the message before great numbers, repeatedly. That will never happen as long as we're absorbed with, and allow our time to be used up by, one, or even a handful, of individuals.
Marketers and advertisers have known this for years. Why do you think you hear the same commercials on TV over and over and over and…? Change the scene of the promo and a couple of lines and do it again; over and over and… A marketing blitz has to last forever. First, we have to get a marketing blitz going. That's where we are. Good fishermen tow a wide net behind a boat. Only sport fishermen use a rod and reel. This is no sport. Nᵊphâsh•otꞋ are at stake, úÌåÉøÈä is serious and we are His workers. He works through us. For good or mediocre, He depends on you to get this critical aspect of His work done.
Scientists corroborate what I periodically admonish: The key to influencing change is in reaching numbers with the message, not necessarily convincing them; and definitely not concentrating most of our time in convincing individuals, to the exclusion of numbers, to demonstrate one-on-one personal persuasive prowess unless you have numbers seeing the message.
The individual with the courage to buck the herd is rare, very rare. Homo sapiens seem to have an inborn herd instinct that is irresistible for all but the rarest of individuals. So personal, one-on-one persuasion, while helpful, can, at best, reward you with success only on the rarest of occasions when if you happen to encounter that rarest of individuals. Your limited time is far better invested in reaching numbers even when you don't convince them. Probably, we shouldn't even have any expectations of convincing them in the short term. Just acquainting them with the info in far greater numbers; get the message out in front of eyeballs. Maybe a continuous ad in some magazine like BAR or its sister publication, or in a newspaper ad that runs in the religious section in your area on a permanent basis for years. Ken used to run an ad in BAR periodically. Perhaps we should renew these efforts; even when there are little or no tangible results. Get the message in front of eyeballs. What little results we might achieve could help us refine such efforts.
 |
|
 |