Online likes can foster a herd mentality

[sprinkles]

But that is working underneath the assumption that there is just one herd.

It must work under that assumption because two herds should backwash into the data and make it inconclusive.

In other words a two herd hypothesis should not only collide on the thumbs down side.

If a mixed result occurs from two herds then why does it not apply to one side that could just as easily have two herds?

 

[Trifoilum]

It must work under that assumption because two herds should backwash into the data and make it inconclusive.

In other words a two herd hypothesis should not only collide on the thumbs down side.

If a mixed result occurs from two herds then why does it not apply to one side that could just as easily have two herds?

...Sorry, I honestly don't know. I feel we're looking at this from a different angle-- an angle that I think is fine and valid, but I personally do not have an answer to your query-- not without polluting it with other aspects of human nature.

Again, you're awesome and I love you *hugs*

 

[sprinkles]

...Sorry, I honestly don't know. I feel we're looking at this from a different angle-- an angle that I think is fine and valid, but I personally do not have an answer to your query-- not without polluting it with other aspects of human nature.

Again, you're awesome and I love you *hugs*

It's fine.

There's a third floating option. The fact is that evolution does not care, which is why suboptimal or detrimental traits remain and propagate. A species can happily have detrimental traits until it is entirely dead, because evolution does not cause you to have good traits, it just kills you for having ones that are bad enough.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

It must work under that assumption because two herds should backwash into the data and make it inconclusive.

In other words a two herd hypothesis should not only collide on the thumbs down side.

If a mixed result occurs from two herds then why does it not apply to one side that could just as easily have two herds?

...Sorry, I honestly don't know. I feel we're looking at this from a different angle-- an angle that I think is fine and valid, but I personally do not have an answer to your query-- not without polluting it with other aspects of human nature.

Again, you're awesome and I love you *hugs*

An individual may occasionally break from his/her herd to correct a perceived error. But then the individual will basically fall back in with the herd, once the error has been corrected.

However, if various correcting individuals group together, then their principal of unity (unity being sought for its own sake) will be to oppose the original herd arbitrarily.

If an individual then finds he/she must break from the second herd, he/she will probably signal this by returning to the first herd - if the first herd is basically perceived to be the contrary position of the second herd.



Whether the two herd actually differ greatly is not so significant as the perceived difference. This can raise the ridiculous possibility of people transferring from opposing herds, actually thinking they are correcting an error, when in fact they may simply be skipping between two identical entities, differentiated solely on the note of mutual opposition. (Presuming the original departure point has long been forgotten).

 

[knight in battle]

The new study illustrates how simple it would be for companies to manipulate reviews of their products by simply adding a few positive ratings of their own early in the process, Aral adds.

Very sneaky. Luckily, I find myself with limited resources at times and manage to be more skeptical about hyped up products and opinions.

Having limited patience and cognitive capacity, I try to remain "open to extreme possibilities" ( [MENTION=4717]subwayrider[/MENTION] ), so that I can be less influenced by artificially popular tastes. even if I may not get to exploring many of those possibilities.

 

[YourFavoriteNightmare]

Now, I just had to "like" this post after reading it. xD

 

[Quiet]

So maybe we could try to make review ratings, 'likes' and polls invisible until the person has already voted to get a more accurate idea of what the individual actually thinks.

Pre-polling before elections strongly effects voting behaviour. As does speculation prior to sports events. Knowing the survey results changes the way people answer surveys.

I guess people want to be on the winning team. And its also possible that they have no real opinion of their own. They just want to add their support to thier peers , or dissent to those that are contrary to their peers. Or perhaps people want to be harmonised with those around them and create more cohesion. Given that the negative points were corrected, this seems to be likely.

As [MENTION=4108]Radiant Shadow[/MENTION] mentioned, there is a large body of research that explores human conformity, obedience and social behaviour.

These things are well known and frequently used to manipulate public opinion and sell ideas and products.

Please dont be evil internet, i love you!