John Allen Paulos has written a column that builds on a paper by Brookings scholar Jonathan Epstein about how social norms spread. Basically, when you're looking to decide how to behave in a given situation, you take a sample of those around you. If most people around you are doing things in a particular way, you stop sampling and go with the majority. If opinion is split, you enlarge your sample size until you reach a point where there is a majority, and then go with them. Most social norms are so firmly established that this process is unnecessary (driving on the right, not wearing socks with flip-flops, etc). But in certain situations that require conscious decisions--ie, voting--it can become quite relevant.
For me, the most revealing part of Epstein's paper was the idea of people consulting a sample and then expanding that sample until they hit a majority. This has implications for a couple of organizing principles--the social networking model (DFA NH) and the "influentials" model (Kerry IA).
When viewed through the lens of Epstein's model, the social networking principle is an effort to create solid patches of support by jump-starting the sampling process. You convince one person, then you ask them to push their belief on their friends. "Here, look at me, I support this candidate, therefore it is the norm. I'm your sample! Really I am!"
The influentials model, however, builds on a factor that Epstein doesn't mention--that certain people (a) are more likely to be included in a sample, simply by virtue of knowing more people, and (b) have opinions that carry more weight. If you can get a majority of those people on your side, then by the time folks get around to gathering their sample, chances are your influentials will be in it.
Epstein's model is especially useful in understanding this year's primaries, where the stakes were a little different than usual. In most elections, we hope that people pick their candidates based what they stand for. But in January 2004, the buzzword was electability. All anyone cared about was electing the candidate who they believed everyone else wanted (Michael Kinsley had a great article about this phenomenon), and the process became even more explicitly similar to the establishment of a social norm.
What implications does this have for organizing? Some questions to consider...Most caucus-goers chose their candidate just a few days before the caucus. Is there a way to artificially start this process earlier--or delay it? How does media fit into the picture? What if instead of trying to convince your own side, you concentrated your resources on disrupting the patterns of the other side? I strongly recommend reading the original paper--it includes some excellent insights there that aren't in Paulos' article.
Legacy Comments
Interesting. And the construction of solidly red and blue areas, as described in the article, is consistent with Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann's book, Spiral of Silence, which demonstrates how people holding a minority preference (or believing they hold a minority preference) are increasingly unwilling to express it, thus solidifying the majority, making the minority even more "silenced," and so on.
This is quite interesting. Garrett Graff has lent me his copy of The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell. My friends who have read the book have different viewpoints; some are interested in the ideas but believe they do not reflect the reality, and others whole-heartedly endorse the work. That being said, and quite broadly extrapolating from what I've read so far in The Tipping Point, there appear to be what I will call the Exceptionals (from an sociology class from many years ago), a broad category for people who help shape our society and culture, disproportionately to their numbers. Perhaps these Exceptionals are the ones that should be targeted, but the question then becomes, "how do we find Exceptionals?" Or, "what are the quantifiable characteristics of the Exceptional?"
Interestingly, I wore socks with flip-flops today, I hope you noticed. Does this make me a freak?
This discussion reminds me of a marketing phenomenon I read about several years ago. PR agencies recruited influentials (or exceptionals) and trained them to be stealth marketers.
These confident, attractive, charismatic people would go into a bar or other natural setting, order the new product, and gush about how terrific it was. No one knew they were paid plants.
(I'm not so gullible though. I know that HRR has been moonlighting with a hosiery company.)
There are many lessons to be learned from marketing... Segmenting (and tailoring) is very, very important, for example.