Collective beliefs versus individual inflexibility: The unavoidable biases of a public debate

The combined effects of collective beliefs and individual inflexibility in the dynamics of a public debate are investigated using the Galam sequential probabilistic model of opinion dynamics. The study is focused on pair interactions for which the bias produced by collective beliefs is the decisive factor to win the debate. The current value of that bias is a fixed external parameter. It is a constant of the problem not given to change. In contrast, inflexibility is an individual property. It results from external ingredients, which are susceptible to be modified during the debate. More precisely, giving some beliefs we determine the required inflexibility to oppose its associated bias in the debate outcome. The results shed a new and counter intuitive light on paradoxical outcomes of sensitive issues, which are discussed in the public. The cases of global warming issue and debate over evolution are discussed.

[1]  S. Galam.  Heterogeneous beliefs, segregation, and extremism in the making of public opinions. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  S. Galam,et al.  Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes in groups , 1991 .

[3]  R. Knutti.  Hotter or not? Should we believe model predictions of future climate change? , 2008 .

[4]  S. Ghirlanda,et al.  Modeling society with statistical mechanics: an application to cultural contact and immigration , 2006, physics/0606062.

[5]  Laxmidhar Behera,et al.  On Spatial Consensus Formation: Is The Sznajd Model Different From A Voter Model? , 2003 .

[6]  S. Galam.  Contrarian deterministic effects on opinion dynamics: “the hung elections scenario” , 2003, cond-mat/0307404.

[7]  THE GALAM MODEL OF MINORITY OPINION SPREADING AND THE MARRIAGE GAP , 2007, physics/0703268.

[8]  D. Stauffer.  Biology, Sociology, Geology by Computational Physicists , 2012 .

[9]  M. Ausloos,et al.  Coexistence of opposite opinions in a network with communities , 2007, physics/0703266.

[10]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Opinion evolution in closed community , 2000, cond-mat/0101130.

[11]  H. J. Herrmann,et al.  OPINION FORMATION ON A DETERMINISTIC PSEUDO-FRACTAL NETWORK , 2004 .

[12]  Serge Galam,et al.  SOCIOPHYSICS: A REVIEW OF GALAM MODELS , 2008, 0803.1800.

[13]  S Redner,et al.  Majority versus minority dynamics: phase transition in an interacting two-state spin system. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[14]  Serge Gallam.  Majority rule, hierarchical structures, and democratic totalitarianism: a statistical approach , 1986 .

[15]  S. Fortunato,et al.  Statistical physics of social dynamics , 2007, 0710.3256.

[16]  Serge Galam,et al.  Public debates driven by incomplete scientific data: the cases of evolution theory, global warming and H1N1 pandemic influenza , 2010, ArXiv.

[17]  G. Gerlich,et al.  Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects Within The Frame Of Physics , 2007, 0707.1161.

[18]  K. Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Some new results on one-dimensional outflow dynamics , 2007, 0712.2035.

[19]  S. Galam,et al.  The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics , 2007, physics/0703021.

[20]  Johannes J. Schneider.  The Influence Of Contrarians And Opportunists On The Stability Of A Democracy In The Sznajd Model , 2004 .

[21]  S. Galam.  Rational group decision making: A random field Ising model at T = 0 , 1997, cond-mat/9702163.

[22]  André C R Martins,et al.  Mobility and social network effects on extremist opinions. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[23]  A. O. Sousa,et al.  Outward-inward information flux in an opinion formation model on different topologies , 2006 .

[24]  M. San Miguel,et al.  Neighborhood models of minority opinion spreading , 2004, cond-mat/0403339.

[25]  Johannes J. Schneider,et al.  THE IMPACT OF ELECTION RESULTS ON THE MEMBER NUMBERS OF THE LARGE PARTIES IN BAVARIA AND GERMANY , 2005 .

[26]  Serge Galam,et al.  Local dynamics vs. social mechanisms: A unifying frame , 2005 .

[27]  André C. R. Martins,et al.  An opinion dynamics model for the diffusion of innovations , 2008, 0809.5114.