Two opinions dynamics generated by inflexibles and non-contrarian and contrarian floaters
Authors:
Frans Jacobs,
Serge Galam
Abstract:
We assume a community whose members adopt one of two opinions $A$ or $B$. Each member appears as an inflexible, or as a non-contrarian or contrarian floater. An inflexible sticks to its opinion, whereas a floater may change into a floater of the alternative opinion. The occurrence of this change is governed by the local majority rule: members meet in groups of a fixed size, and a floater then chan…
▽ More
We assume a community whose members adopt one of two opinions $A$ or $B$. Each member appears as an inflexible, or as a non-contrarian or contrarian floater. An inflexible sticks to its opinion, whereas a floater may change into a floater of the alternative opinion. The occurrence of this change is governed by the local majority rule: members meet in groups of a fixed size, and a floater then changes its opinion provided it is a minority in the group. Subsequently, a non-contrarian floater keeps the opinion as adopted under the local majority rule, whereas a contrarian floater adopts the alternative opinion. Whereas the effects of on the one hand inflexibles and on the other hand non-contrarians and contrarians have previously been studied seperately, the current approach allows us to gain insight in the effect of their combined presence in a community. Given fixed proportions of inflexibles $(α_{A}, α_{B})$ for the two opinions, and fixed fractions of contrarians $(γ_{A}, γ_{B})$ among the $A$ and $B$ floaters, we derive the update equation $p_{t+1}$ for the overall support for opinion $A$ at time $t+1$, given $p_{t}$. The update equation is derived respectively for local group sizes 1, 2 and 3. The associated dynamics generated by repeated local updates is then determined to identify its asymptotic steady configuration. The full opinion flow diagram is thus obtained, showing conditions in terms of the parameters for each opinion to eventually win the competing dynamics. Various dynamical scenarios are thus exhibited, and it is derived that relatively small densities of inflexibles allow for more variation in the qualitative outcome of the dynamics than higher densities of inflexibles.
△ Less
Submitted 24 September, 2019; v1 submitted 21 March, 2008;
originally announced March 2008.
The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics
Authors:
Serge Galam,
Frans Jacobs
Abstract:
We study the effect of inflexible agents on two state opinion dynamics. The model operates via repeated local updates of random grouping of agents. While floater agents do eventually flip their opinion to follow the local majority, inflexible agents keep their opinion always unchanged. It is a quenched individual opinion. In the bare model (no inflexibles), a separator at 50% drives the dynamics…
▽ More
We study the effect of inflexible agents on two state opinion dynamics. The model operates via repeated local updates of random grouping of agents. While floater agents do eventually flip their opinion to follow the local majority, inflexible agents keep their opinion always unchanged. It is a quenched individual opinion. In the bare model (no inflexibles), a separator at 50% drives the dynamics towards either one of two pure attractors, each associated with a full polarization along one of the opinions. The initial majority wins. The existence of inflexibles for only one of the two opinions is found to shift the separator at a lower value than 50% in favor of that side. Moreover it creates an incompressible minority around the inflexibles, one of the pure attractors becoming a mixed phase attractor. In addition above a threshold of 17% inflexibles make their side sure of winning whatever the initial conditions are. The inflexible minority wins. An equal presence of inflexibles on both sides restores the balanced dynamics with again a separator at 50% and now two mixed phase attractors on each side. Nevertheless, beyond 25% the dynamics is reversed with a unique attractor at a fifty-fifty stable equilibrium. But a very small advantage in inflexibles results in a decisive lowering of the separator at the advantage of the corresponding opinion. A few percent advantage does guarantee to become majority with one single attractor. The model is solved exhaustedly for groups of size 3.
△ Less
Submitted 2 March, 2007;
originally announced March 2007.
