[HN Gopher] Human behavior on social media is similar to collect...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Human behavior on social media is similar to collective behavior in
       nature
        
       Author : elorant
       Score  : 57 points
       Date   : 2022-11-13 13:23 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.noemamag.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.noemamag.com)
        
       | nomdep wrote:
       | So... animals
        
       | amelius wrote:
       | I assume behavior in nature is typically more polite, though.
        
       | seydor wrote:
       | one of the mysteries of biology in this century is why/how
       | collective behavior appears to be a fractal from cell cultures to
       | societies and their digital facsimiles
       | 
       | (also, social media are part of nature)
        
         | Silverback_VII wrote:
         | you say cell culture but look at this:
         | https://youtu.be/0Kx4Y9TVMGg very complex patterns simply with
         | particles attracting or repulsing each other.
        
         | ispo wrote:
         | Think of the dynamics, at each scale they might be different,
         | but similar patterns emerge: rich (or fit) gets richer, minimum
         | distance (or effort) to achieve a goal (e.g. convey
         | information).
        
           | soulofmischief wrote:
           | And then enters living systems, with the unique quality of
           | being able to continuously absorb external energy in order to
           | intentionally enter a higher energy state in order to satisfy
           | longer term goals outside of the concern of stabilization and
           | free energy minimization. A human can jump, but a rock can't.
        
         | soulofmischief wrote:
         | Doesn't seem like much of a mystery to me. It's clear to me
         | that there is a fundamental grammar underpinning all dynamic
         | systems, and multi-agent systems of sufficient complexity are
         | bound to have fractal similarities resulting from this grammar.
         | 
         | For example, a universal concept which can apply to any system
         | with measurable state variables is "compression", a naturally
         | occurring phenomenon as high-energy systems tend toward lower
         | energy states. Our DNA compresses genetic expression via
         | instruction sets, our brain compresses incoming information,
         | matter itself compresses over time when left to its own
         | devices.
         | 
         | The underlying mechanism for each of these processes varies,
         | but it results from the same basic energy principles. Other
         | such universal concepts include expansion, oscillation, pretty
         | much any movement of a measured value around or between a range
         | of target values. This grammar accounts for much of the
         | behavior of complex dynamic systems, due to energy conservation
         | being a fundamental quality of stable systems.
        
       | Operative0198 wrote:
       | The research study being quoted:
       | https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2025764118
        
       | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
       | In a sense, this article confirms my personal pet theories on the
       | subject. Despite being a little more evolved than birds, by
       | evolutionary standards we are really not that far off. One of the
       | few things that may actually make us sufficiently different is
       | the fact that we can pass knowledge that would take millennia for
       | evolution to sort out.
       | 
       | Naturally, the question becomes what we do about it, implications
       | that social media effectively controls our modern life and that
       | despite some reasons to moderate its influence, slim chance of
       | that appears to be possible.
        
         | mattgreenrocks wrote:
         | I take issue with the presumption of the inevitability of
         | social media. Collectively we cannot put the genie back in the
         | bottle, so I don't wish for that. Individually, we can choose
         | how we engage with it, and in doing so, moderate the effects of
         | it somewhat.
         | 
         | Another way to say it is: one must choose to be terminally
         | online, and become part of the mob.
        
           | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
           | You raise a valid point. I think I both agree and disagree.
           | Shadow profiles do exist and even if you do not directly
           | participate, more social family or social circle member may
           | choose to tag you for one reason or another. I absolutely
           | agree that as individuals we bear responsibility for choosing
           | being part of the mob, but... and I think I used that
           | comparison before here.. have you ever been to a baseball
           | game? The cheering crowd can rouse even a person like me who
           | is there for no reason other than a social obligation. In
           | other words, there is a reason why mob mentality is a common
           | phrase.
        
       | ispo wrote:
       | So what? Any complex system behaves like that, which makes the
       | analogy banal.
        
         | bobthepanda wrote:
         | Part of good science is trying to verify the obvious, because
         | sometimes what is "obvious" is not correct, and sometimes it is
         | partially true but differs in ways that are unexpected. We have
         | a whole science crisis around replicating results as it is.
        
           | Xeoncross wrote:
           | True, science has taught me to always request more science
           | before believing any science
        
             | ispo wrote:
             | And on your way you forget the details of what you already
             | published.
        
         | jason-phillips wrote:
         | Not quite, I would argue. That may be true of any unregulated
         | system of peers, but not a structured, regulated system.
        
           | williamcotton wrote:
           | Such as the hard-earned trials that over time led to what we
           | call civilization.
        
         | mandmandam wrote:
         | The potential to massively alter collective human behaviour via
         | tiny variations in social networks is _objectively_
         | interesting, and important. There 's quite a lot at stake
         | there, if you care to look - as the article does a decent job
         | of beginning to address.
         | 
         | The comparison and similarities of human flocking behaviour to
         | other complex systems are _not_ one to one, and are poorly
         | understood. Consider that you might simply be overestimating
         | your understanding.
        
           | Silverback_VII wrote:
           | To say that interconnected humans behave like a flock of
           | birds is very flawed in my opinion. Each bird in a flock sees
           | the REAL behaviour of the other birds but this is not
           | necessarily the case with the internet since an entity can
           | heavily influence your perception of the other people by
           | controlling the communication channel. The Internet and
           | social network is more like adding the possibility to create
           | one virtual bird for each real bird and then remotely control
           | the whole flock.
        
             | 082349872349872 wrote:
             | Books on propaganda from the 1920's explicitly discuss
             | "closing triangles" to artificially influence perception of
             | near-neighbour opinions.
        
               | ispo wrote:
               | Please can you provide a citation?
        
               | 082349872349872 wrote:
               | I believe I'm remembering either _Crystallizing Public
               | Opinion_ (1923) or _Propaganda_ (1928), both by Bernays.
               | (IIRC, the exploitation of local social graphs is in his
               | description of the techniques used to sell US entry into
               | the Great War /WWI)
               | 
               | But there were other authors I consulted in the same
               | timeframe, and Linebarger, in _Psychological Warfare_
               | (1948) points out that propaganda /public relations men
               | (they were all men, in those days) are less than
               | completely reliable sources when it comes to testimony as
               | to their methods and their efficacy. So you'll probably
               | want to triangulate a bit yourself.
               | 
               | Edit: _Propaganda_ Ch.I,p18 is already promising:
               | 
               |  _... it must be remembered that these thousands of
               | groups interlace. John Jones, besides being a Rotarian,
               | is member of a church, of a fraternal order, of a
               | political party, of a charitable organization, of a
               | professional association, of a local chamber of commmerce
               | ... This invisible, intertwining structure of groupings
               | and associations is the mechanism by which democracy has
               | organized its group mind and simplified its mass
               | thinking. ... To admit that [this structure] exists, but
               | expect that it shall not be used, is unreasonable._
        
               | ispo wrote:
               | Amazing description of for what today are called the
               | layers of a multiplex.
        
             | ispo wrote:
             | Look at this from the other way around, imagine you could
             | put a few drones influencing the birds.
        
           | Oxidation wrote:
           | Indeed, if it turns out social media platforms allow not only
           | measurement but _control_ over the parameters of the  "flock"
           | behaviour, it's only a matter of time before it's possible to
           | engineer sheepdogs.
           | 
           | You can't control what you can't measure, and social media is
           | a very effective measurement tool of crowd behaviour. Whether
           | you _can_ control what you _can_ measure, well that 's up to
           | Cambridge Analytica 2.0 to figure out.
        
           | ispo wrote:
           | Thanks for your enlightening comment.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-11-13 23:00 UTC)