PDA

View Full Version : To get to the Tipping Point, we need to create a CASCADE.




Article V
02-23-2012, 02:56 PM
Ron Paul (and his message) is the water of our movement. We've long ago discussed the tipping point and yearned for its subsequent waterfall effect; but while we're so focused on the tipping point/waterfall, we've somehow missed the bigger picture of the stream that exists before, during, and after the tipping point/waterfall. The tipping point and its subsequent waterfall are merely describing moments of activity on the larger stream, but the stream itself is known as a cascade.

If we understand a cascade, then we'll know what's happening during a tipping point, why a waterfall happens afterwards, and how we can cause both. (We'll also be a lot less frustrated with the media, and a lot less prone to our own counter-productive conspiracy theories.) So with all those benefits...are you ready for a really long post? I promise it'll be worth it to those who stick it out.

What's a cascade?

An information cascade happens when people make decisions in sequence rather than all at once. One person decides something, then another, then another, then another. If the first few people disagree, the next person in the chain looks to their own private information for guidance; but if the first few people are all in agreement, the next person in the chain becomes influenced in such a way that makes him more likely to pay attention to the decisions of others rather than to his own private information. As more and more people pile up on one side, it becomes ever more likely that a person will disregard their private information in favor of siding with the new information that he's getting from the group. At a certain point (the tipping point), the information cascade becomes so strong that it creates a feeling of inevitability that causes the cascade to tip into a surging waterfall. Make sense?

Explained another way:


Imagine: you arrive outside two thai restaurants. You want the meal that tastes the best. As you peruse the menus, you think that perhaps one place will be better than the other; but you're still not sure and you really want to make the right decision, so you seek out more information. You peek into both restaurants to find one bustling with business while the other is largely empty. Initially, you were inclined to choose the menu of the empty restaurant, but now that you've gotten this new information (that all the individuals before you decided to dine at the other restaurant) you become more inclined to disregard your private information (that one menu looks better) and more likely to side with the existing group because you quite rationally assume that each of the individuals in that existing group know something you don't and if they all opted for the other restaurant, then its very likely that one has the better tasting food.

Now, it's entirely possible that the empty restaurant has better food and, if you had paid attention to your own information (that one menu looks better) while disregarding the information of the group, you might have been happier. But you didn't, because you were persuaded by the decisions of those before you. You were swept into the cascade.

If the first diners were operating on good information, then good for you because you're likely at a good restaurant. If the first diners were operating on flawed information (one had a gf who was a waitress, one was a critic looking to try the new place, one was a fan of the critic, etc.), then you likely got swept into a bad information cascade. The point is both good and bad cascades happen, and they happen for reasons that are totally reasonable and rational.
Now of course, there are lots of times when people independently choose their action based on their own signals, but there are also plenty of occasions when people do closely observe the actions of others before making their own decision. Under those circumstances, information cascades are not just possible, they're likely. Voting (like the restaurant scenario above) is one of those situations, as is news reporting, as is fashion designing, as is movie-going, as is stock-trading, etc.

Because none of us can know everything, we pay attention to the information other people have. As each person shares their information with us, it influences us and we aggregate it with our own knowledge. If the first few people all say the same thing, we become more persuaded to trust their information; and at a certain point (the tipping point), we largely ignore our own information and side with the group creating the inevitable waterfall. If the initial decisions of the cascade are good ones, then what results is a good information cascade (like people investing in gold); but if the initial decisions are poor, then a bad information cascades follows (like people investing in Bernie Madoff). As each new person invests in gold, the price goes up and more people are safe from a dollar crash; as each new person invests in Bernie Madoff, his lie becomes more believable and more people are endangered to trust him. Make sense?

We're fighting a bad information cascade that the media has been unfortunately swept into (some willingly, most ignorantly) causing surge after surge for every candidate but ours. Cascades also explain how political momentum occurs, both as a result of polling (one bad Iowa poll can cause an actual Santorum surge in Iowa) and as a result of the sequential method of our nomination process (Iowa chooses Santorum, causing people to believe he has a chance, so it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where Santorum actually does have more of a chance; Iowa does not choose Bachmann, causing people to believe she has no chance, so it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where Bachmann's funding dries up and she must drop out). If we want to create a tipping point for our information, then we need to create a new cascade with that good information.

In order to get to the tipping point part of the cascade, we need individuals who are part of what Malcolm Gladwell calls: "The Law of the Few."
The Law of the Few consists of three groups:

mavens (information specialists who are consistently in search of new information regarding their interest),
connectors (people who link up information from one group to another by connecting the necessary information with the people of influence in the next group), and
salesmen (these are the persuaders of a group, who can influence their own group in large ways).


Ron Paul Grassroots Central is full of mavens. Nearly all of us specialize in Ron Paul and if someone wants to know about him, they're likely coming to us. Our movement also has salesmen. If Adam Kokesh makes organizes a rally, more of us will show up than if some unknown Ron Paul supporter organizes one. But salesmen in our group can't help with an information cascade outside our group. Adam Kokesh may be influential in RPGrassroots, but he has largely no influence outside it. Doug Wead is our connector to our salesman Ron Paul... but again, we don't need connectors to our own salesman. Not if we're trying to create a cascade of those outside our movement.

If we want to get to the tipping point, we need to be strategic in how we go about creating our good information cascade. Since most of us are mavens, what we need is outside connectors who will then transfer our information to the salesman of other groups. This is exactly what an organization like Media Matters is. They are connectors. One of their writers is a left-wing socialist maven, he shares his info with Media Matters who then connects that info with the salesman of other groups (whether those salesmen are at CNN, Washington Post, the White House, elsewhere, or a combination of them all).

As much as we dislike them, people like Dick Morris and Bill Kristol are connectors. They learn information from the mavens of their neoconservative movement (not because they're part of a secret conspiracy, but because they actually believe the message of the neoconservatives, which is why they're in that group to begin with) and then they connect that information with the connectors of the media group (such as the producers of the Fox News shows) who then share that info with the salesman of the media group, such as Bill O'Reilly/Sean Hannity/etc. Because the most powerful media salesmen tend to be the ones most apt to get the "scoop" first, they are the ones most likely to cause information cascades both good and bad. For the same reason, because Iowans get to vote first, they are the ones most likely to cause information cascades both good and bad.

Still following me?

Really good media outlets are more susceptible to cascades than most individuals are. This is not because the media is part of a conspiracy as most here would like to pretend. Instead, it's part of the natural order of being in the media. To rise in power in the media group, you need to get the scoop first. To get the scoop first, you need as many connectors into the established powers as possible. The establishment are the mavens of your business. The connectors in the establishment usually have the scoop far more often than the anti-establishment's connectors, simply because the establishment is the group that is in power. Naturally, the media then cultivates more relationships with connectors of the establishment group and, naturally, these are the sources they turn to first when seeking out new information (again, not because of some conspiracy, but simply because the media is always developing these sources and engaging with them, just like drug reps are constantly developing relationships with doctors because the doctors are their connectors with the sick group). Understand?

If the media wants to know Ron Paul's chances, they first go to their establishment connectors. Their establishment connectors ask the establishment mavens who relay the message that "Ron Paul can't win." Again, this is not a conspiracy. The mavens of the establishment really believe Ron Paul can't win because their limited information tells them so (this information ranges from Ron Paul doesn't have enough friends on Capitol Hill to Ron Paul doesn't speak in succinct soundbytes to Ron Paul has a dangerous foreign policy to Ron Paul is too old, etc.); it doesn't matter if some of the mavens information is wrong. It only matters that they're mavens, they're in the establishment, and they happen to be echoing each other for a variety of related and unrelated reasons.

Because the media connectors have so many more connections in the establishment and because they are more likely to contact these connections first, the media connectors are thus more susceptible to be swept into an establishment information cascade than any other. And once swept into that establishment cascade, the media connectors usually transfer only that first-heard and more oft-echoed information to the media salesmen because that information is the one that feels more reliable. Again, this is not because of some conspiracy, but simply because the first several connections they contacted happened to say the same thing, so they were more apt to trust that information and disregard the minority opinion because the minority opinion was not only a minority voice, but was also a later-heard voice. Iowa has a lot of say not because it's Iowa, but because it's first. New Mexico has a lot less say not because it's less important (it's a swing state, so it's actually more important), but because it shares its information so much later in the voting sequence.

We are the mavens. What we need to do is connect with the connectors of outside influential groups. If we want to create a tipping point, we need to create a new cascade. To create a new cascade we need to convert the connectors of other groups and convert the salesman of other groups. The tipping point will be inevitable after that.

If you really want to help Ron Paul, then seek out the powerful connectors and salesmen of groups who don't yet believe in Ron Paul. It doesn't have to be part of a huge media conglomerate. You can start small. Figure out who is the "salesman" in the old-folks home of your community, then figure out where he gets the information he most trusts (perhaps it's his wife), then convert the connector who shares that influential information with that salesman. If you want to persuade the President, your best bet is to persuade his advisers because those are his trusted connectors to outside information. If you want to convert Bill O'Reilly, then your best bet is to convert the producer of The Factor. If you want to convert Sarah Palin, then your best bet is to convert her husband Todd (is it any wonder why Palin supporter Newt after Todd Palin endorsed Newt? Todd was the connector of the Newt message to the salesman that is Sarah Palin--again, not because of some conspiracy, because it's human nature! Cascades are economic laws!!).



We have to get to the salesman of other groups. We have to make those salesman our converts. They become converted via their connectors.
Connectors of other groups are our access. We have to make these connectors our converts. They become our converts via their own mavens or us.
The mavens of other groups are most apt to receive new information, but because they are specializing in information that isn't Ron Paul, they are also highly likely to distrust our information because so many other sources are telling them otherwise (this is an example of a cascade within a cascade).





If you can convert another group's mavens, then more power to you. You'll be starting a HUGE chain reaction.
However, it's my belief that our best bet to starting a new cascade is to seek out as many connectors of other groups as possible (these people want to be sought out, they get their power through connections); but while doing so, we need to realize that these connectors are going to receive conflicting information from their other sources so be sure to stay with them till they're fully converted and spreading the Liberty message on their own.
If you can convert another group's salesmen, then good for you! That's awesome too. But the connectors will do that for you and will do it to more salesmen than you ever could, simply because the salesmen seek out and rely on the connectors far more than others.



Convert the connectors of power in other groups (both small and large) and you'll get your tipping point.

mikeforliberty
02-23-2012, 03:39 PM
Truth. I think we need to also become those connectors. Join the media, climb the GOP ladder, ascend the ranks of the military, become wealthy elites. Most of us have a healthy appreciation of information dissemination and entrepreneurial success, but I think we have an aversion to real power and influence. If we want to get our message of liberty out we need to take the positions of power. As long as we are holding them, nobody else will be able to use them against freedom.

danda
02-23-2012, 11:25 PM
bump.

eleganz
02-23-2012, 11:39 PM
Great breakdown though OP...what do you do?


This is why we're building coalitions here in LA with all of the niche freedom groups...you should all do the same.

TheGrinch
02-23-2012, 11:46 PM
"The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins, and everyone else is marginalized and made to seem as either a communist, a kook, some sort of disloyal person, and now it's conspiracy theorist - Something that shouldn't even be entertained for a minute that powerful people might get together and actually have a plan. DOESN"T HAPPEN. You're a kook and a conspiracy buff."

- George Carlin (RIP)


Carlin knew the 7 dirty words he wasn't supposed to say, and Ron is saying all 100 of them with regard to political discourse in this country.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous with regard to us winning over the elites in any other way than growing to that tipping point to where they have no choice. Bill Kristol doesn't not like Ron Paul because he doesn't understand him. Look up Project for a New American Century and his foundations. They clearly have an agenda at play, and yes, he's a messenger. What you call conspiracy is written out in those PNAC documents. What's referred to as conspiracy is really just strategy. That's what powerful people do. Conspiracy is only a dirty word because you make it one.

Yes we have to keep it simple and not push to many non-mainstream positions with folks, but if you think we're just a bunch of conspiracy theorists, well, I think your theory is bunk, and I have more than ample evidence to prove it, not from Alex Jones, but from academia.... I really thought this was going to be something helpful when I started reading this, but we're not going to win over the powerful interests hearts and minds, because they don't like the control we wish to bring back to the people.

If you don't understand that, then I'm not sure why you're supporting Dr. Paul. We're hear to wake people up to what's happening with the corrupt interests run amok in this country. The stakes are too high to hold back on the truth. We just have to make sure it's backed up with evidence and facts.

(ETA: I take back the why you're supporting Paul bit, we all have our reasons and he appeals to everyone. I admittedly got a little hot about even considering wasting people's time by courting Bill Kristol and the like, which I'm sorry it is. The "tipping point" as you call it is the only way they're going to take us serious. They know our positions good and well.)

Krtek
02-24-2012, 12:12 AM
sorry wrong topic

Crotale
02-24-2012, 01:18 AM
Truth. I think we need to also become those connectors. Join the media, climb the GOP ladder, ascend the ranks of the military, become wealthy elites. Most of us have a healthy appreciation of information dissemination and entrepreneurial success, but I think we have an aversion to real power and influence. If we want to get our message of liberty out we need to take the positions of power. As long as we are holding them, nobody else will be able to use them against freedom.

Yes but be careful that you don't get carried away. Be wary about how power corrupts. Stay pure.

Paul Fan
02-24-2012, 02:11 AM
This is why we're building coalitions here in LA with all of the niche freedom groups...you should all do the same.

Yes! THe OP is right. Each of us should be seeking out and converting the connectors and salesmen for the groups we personally are in - whether it is retirement homes, PTA, sports league, industry groups, extended families, school alumni groups, local interest groups, etc.

In other words, maximize your efforts (if you can) by converting those people who are in a position to convert others.

KingNothing
02-24-2012, 06:53 AM
Love the post. Positive reputations for the OP.

jdcole
02-24-2012, 07:14 AM
Bump for truth, justice, and the American way. +rep

presence
02-24-2012, 11:48 AM
Perhaps a method for isolating some of the most connected people:

Google "most connected facebook (http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=most+connected+facebook&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)"
Google "most connected linkedin (http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=most+connected+linkedin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)"
Google "twitter connections (http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=most+connected+facebook&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=l0K&channel=fs&sclient=psy-ab&q=twitter+connections&pbx=1&oq=twitter+connections&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=19652l21674l2l21846l11l9l0l1l1l1l470l2301l2-6.1.1l9l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=5d90671964ba4230&biw=1280&bih=906)"

etc.

social mixers
business mixers
community meetings

also offer good opportunities to meet connectors.

Another way to get connected... almost every large town in the US has a "gallery night (http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=gallery+night&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)" once a month where people tour historic districts and private art galleries. Great social networking events.

Personally, I've always considered myself a maven.

presence