Online likes can foster a herd mentality
Emily Sohn
Discovery News
from http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/08/09/3821921.htm
Emily Sohn
Discovery News
from http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/08/09/3821921.htm
Online likes can foster a herd mentality
- Thread starter Quiet
- Start date
When opening a new restaurant, it used to be common practice to either hire people to stand in line or help occupy the restaurant, or to give away free food to guests, friends, and family. I think this is idea is generally referred to as priming.
Similarly, politicians and salesmen (as if there's a difference) both make wide use of audience plants to seed support.
Online is more dangerous only because it can happen so much faster, more broadly, and more effectively. Viral marketing has been going strong since the first Blair Witch Project film marketing began. It seems to work well.
Similarly, politicians and salesmen (as if there's a difference) both make wide use of audience plants to seed support.
Online is more dangerous only because it can happen so much faster, more broadly, and more effectively. Viral marketing has been going strong since the first Blair Witch Project film marketing began. It seems to work well.
Every Advertiser Ever: Like us on Facebook!
Gee. You'd think they were onto something there. /sarcasm
Considering the billions of dollars that go into market research and social control theory, all these 'studies' after the fact aren't really pumping out any new information. They're telling us what we already know much too late in the game to do anything about it (not that we could do anything about it, mind you. As far as social influences go, liking something on Facebook is pretty benign). It's just "oh, oops. These small, innocuous things that you do every day that we introduced and made popular and helped integrate into society have a negative side-effect of subconsciously influencing you to do our whims/buy our products. This was NOT the intended effect. At all. Sort of. Either way, you gotta live with it, suckers!"
I invite people to listen to Seth Pribatsch's TED talk on the "Game Layer" and Social Media. It''s a little outdated, considering he held the talk in 2011, but I think it still applies. It's got some interesting insights into the technology of social influence and control on social media.
[video=youtube;Yn9fTc_WMbo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn9fTc_WMbo[/video]
Gee. You'd think they were onto something there. /sarcasm
Considering the billions of dollars that go into market research and social control theory, all these 'studies' after the fact aren't really pumping out any new information. They're telling us what we already know much too late in the game to do anything about it (not that we could do anything about it, mind you. As far as social influences go, liking something on Facebook is pretty benign). It's just "oh, oops. These small, innocuous things that you do every day that we introduced and made popular and helped integrate into society have a negative side-effect of subconsciously influencing you to do our whims/buy our products. This was NOT the intended effect. At all. Sort of. Either way, you gotta live with it, suckers!"
I invite people to listen to Seth Pribatsch's TED talk on the "Game Layer" and Social Media. It''s a little outdated, considering he held the talk in 2011, but I think it still applies. It's got some interesting insights into the technology of social influence and control on social media.
[video=youtube;Yn9fTc_WMbo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn9fTc_WMbo[/video]
Last edited:
That's why I like posts that I truly like. I feel uncomfortable liking something out of obligation.
Conformity and identification have been studied and applied for decades. Societal influences can have a very powerful effect on our decision making process, as well as the validity of our reasoning. The Asch Conformity Studies, Stanford Prison Experiment, the division of responsibility effect, and the bystander effect are all considered classic staples of psychology that date back to the 1950's. When there is any ambiguity contained in presented information or how to process it, humans tend to lean on the actions of other people and dictums of pre-existing systems for support. We're remarkably tribal animals.
What I wonder though is if rating something actually changes peoples opinion about it, or if it only just flags it so people are simply more likely to present their opinion.
i.e. a thumbs up basically rings the thumbs up dinnerbell, not so much making people like the topic, but perhaps making them more likely to express anything whatsoever.
Though I'm sure there's a bias effect of some kind, I just don't think it's the entire story, nor even most of it.
Edit:
Also I believe this is responsible for a seeded thumbs down increasing both the thumbs up and thumbs down amount. That relationship should not happen if it is only conformity and bias.
Instead what this tells me is that people have a propensity to share positive opinions before negative opinions. So a thumbs up will call other thumbs up. Once a thumbs down is broached though you start getting both.
i.e. a thumbs up basically rings the thumbs up dinnerbell, not so much making people like the topic, but perhaps making them more likely to express anything whatsoever.
Though I'm sure there's a bias effect of some kind, I just don't think it's the entire story, nor even most of it.
Edit:
Also I believe this is responsible for a seeded thumbs down increasing both the thumbs up and thumbs down amount. That relationship should not happen if it is only conformity and bias.
Instead what this tells me is that people have a propensity to share positive opinions before negative opinions. So a thumbs up will call other thumbs up. Once a thumbs down is broached though you start getting both.
Last edited:
I think it's Herd Mentality expressing itself through Online Likes, and not the other way around. Different times, different means, same behavior. It's become so obvious now, because we managed to quantify the behavior with a number.
Oh, of course it is. No one is going to argue that this technology caused herd mentality. It's always been there. And you're right, nowadays it's easier to quantify the behaviour in a number, but that also makes it easier to exploit and even take a frightening command over how its done. Social media maybe wasn't designed or intended as a mechanism of social control, as much of its evolution was largely organic, but now that the framework that has sprung up, it's not that difficult to lay piping that is convenient to people interested in doing just that (advertisers, product designers, political pundits, etc). After all, it's no big secret that Facebook is an invaluable tool and puppet-head for market influence and research. It's constant (and often forced) refacing isn't for the convenience of its users, but for the corporate backers that have a vested interest in learning and directing how people think. Every time they introduce a new feature, it's not just a cool tech caveat. It's a way to fine-tune market data. You can read this latest gem about yet another interesting Facebook 'update.'
The other sites like twitter, tumblr, foursquare, etc. are no different. They provide at a glance information of the behaviour of the public. Finding technology to get a clearer view of the picture is really just a matter of understanding basic human psychology.
Last edited:
I agreed that this is just the most recent manifestation-- and what a manifestation it is.
It is subtle; an illusion of -quality- from the outside view. And many, many things. That you guys have talked about it wonderfully.
One of the things I'd like to mention is that an element of herd mentality is not only social harmony-- but also the feeling of being right.
Or in marketing terms, of having the right taste.
In political terms, following the right person.
Societal terms, believing the right things. (an opposite is just a different thing)
And that is every marketer's G-spot. The random, almost mythological spot of 'right taste'.
These little thumbs up we give is just the latest Viagra.
And I'm not even talking about -WHY- yet. The tiny little cravings.
It is subtle; an illusion of -quality- from the outside view. And many, many things. That you guys have talked about it wonderfully.
One of the things I'd like to mention is that an element of herd mentality is not only social harmony-- but also the feeling of being right.
Or in marketing terms, of having the right taste.
In political terms, following the right person.
Societal terms, believing the right things. (an opposite is just a different thing)
And that is every marketer's G-spot. The random, almost mythological spot of 'right taste'.
These little thumbs up we give is just the latest Viagra.
And I'm not even talking about -WHY- yet. The tiny little cravings.
Last edited:
Why do thumbs down also get thumbs up then? There should be an inverse correlation but there isn't one, apparently.
The propensity to consider positive opinions before negative ones even shows itself as a bias for looking at thumbs up, in the experiment and the thread.
Everyone is talking about how positive support has an effect but that is not actually what the experiment shows.
Making the right choice has nothing to do with the bias of the choice since it is a bivalent declaration. People don't only believe they are making the right choice when they thumbs up, but also when they thumbs down. i.e. the "right choice" or "sense of taste" can just as easily be expressing a dislike for something. So that should correlate to thumbs down getting more thumbs down, not thumbs up and down.
Or to break out of this bias using less bias inducing terms, I'll express it as red or blue.
If people are only concerned with the herd choice then when red is chosen, it should increase red choices, and when blue is chosen it should increase blue choices.
What you should not observe here is red increasing red choices and blue increasing red and blue choices - that negates the hypothesis prediction.
If people are only concerned with the herd choice then when red is chosen, it should increase red choices, and when blue is chosen it should increase blue choices.
What you should not observe here is red increasing red choices and blue increasing red and blue choices - that negates the hypothesis prediction.
Perhaps this just implies that many people are not sure about what they like... but presumably they somehow want to be able to like the so-called "right/acceptable thing".
Maybe, but right is just wrong inverted.
Bivalence can be expressed by its inverse:
right = not wrong
wrong = not right
So a thumbs up does not only express right choices, it can equally express wrong ones and vice versa.
Edit:
Also this is why every logic gate can be made from NOR operators. You can get an affirmative output from a negating operation because linking them in series or parallel will precisely invert the operation.
Last edited:
Sometimes it almost seems as though objectivity has virtually nothing to do with darwinian/survival-of-the-fittest/selfish-gene/etc. scenarios.
Not quite dichotomy, but more of an irrelevance.
Yes, I attribute this to the 'three in the morning' problem
Once a zookeeper said to his monkeys: "You'll get 3 bananas in the Morning and 4 in the afternoon."
All monkeys are upset.
"OK. How about 4 bananas in Morning and 3 in the afternoon?"
Hearing this, the monkeys are content.
I don't see why that should correlate to that. It can be one or the other, or both.
I can explain that under the nature of 'people wanting to validate their own opinions', amongst others. People who are 'attacked' will retaliate, or defend. A thumbs down can be very much seen as an attack, especially with people who hold the same value or beliefs.
But it appears you're already looking at this with an either/or, deductive logic-kind of way; which is..fine, we're just seeing it differently, and I admit I am more than a bit confused from THAT angle, so. You're awesome and have a nice day *hugs*
They said objectivity and logic is just another ways in which we justify our impulses and/or emotions.
I tend to agree with that; or alternatively, the more 'logic' (whether empirical or rational, deductive or inductive, rhetorical or so) you have, the more arrows you have in the quiver for your emotion's bow to use.
It can and does go either way, but according to the hypothesis it shouldn't.
For example, if you all as a herd follow me, and I go to the left, then everyone should predominantly go left.
If I go right and you all follow me, you should predominantly go right.
If I go right and a lot of you go left, then that is not following me, that is not following the herd, that is being independent. That is saying that I don't agree with what sprinkles is doing, so I am going to correct it.
So correcting a thumbs down with a thumbs up is not going with the herd, but in fact going against it. It's saying "I think you guys over there are wrong, so I'm going to correct it."
But that is working underneath the assumption that there is just one herd.
For example, suppose I am a feminist going through a MRA Reddit thread. I moved the opposite of what is commonly there-- generally anti feminist.
Alternatively, with a less charged labels, suppose I am a pro-laces fashion reader going through a fashion blog discussing how laces is overplayed in recent fashions.
Am I going against the herd? Yes.
Am I still following the herd mentality? Also potentially yes! But not THIS particular herd.
Clashes of Fe, is my own vocabulary to describe this.
For example, suppose I am a feminist going through a MRA Reddit thread. I moved the opposite of what is commonly there-- generally anti feminist.
Alternatively, with a less charged labels, suppose I am a pro-laces fashion reader going through a fashion blog discussing how laces is overplayed in recent fashions.
Am I going against the herd? Yes.
Am I still following the herd mentality? Also potentially yes! But not THIS particular herd.
Clashes of Fe, is my own vocabulary to describe this.