An Introduction To Viral Propaganda Theory

On Friday CNN published an article about a study that may explain why people conform with majority opinions. They lead off the article with a very powerful revelation:

Decades of research show people tend to go along with the majority view, even if that view is objectively incorrect. Now, scientists are supporting those theories with brain images.

A new study in the journal Neuron shows when people hold an opinion differing from others in a group, their brains produce an error signal. A zone of the brain popularly called the “oops area” becomes extra active, while the “reward area” slows down, making us think we are too different.

There are many sociological and psychological theses based on the premise that we are each looking for acceptance. That acceptance (by others) is critical to our self-esteem, our ability to moderate our feelings and actions, and our general health and well-being. In other words, the human being has evolved to exist in a state of cooperative support with other human beings. We are social creatures, requiring the support of the group for a variety of fundamental reasons.

This support mechanism makes a lot of sense when the world operates at a rational level below the threshold of social cultures that can sustain specialist activities. In other words, in a hunter-gatherer group where everyone must share in the burden of survival, our need for acceptance motivates us to do what is best for the group.

The study cited above included an experiment described as follows:

Participants, all female, had to rate 222 faces based on physical beauty on a scale from 1 to 8. Afterwards, researchers told each participant either that the average score was higher or that it was lower than her rating. Some participants were told the average rating was equal to her rating. The researchers then chatted with the participant before suddenly asking the participant to do the rating again. Most subjects changed their opinion toward the average.

Emphasis is mine.

Another recent study of group behavior (based on schools of fish) revealed a very similar pattern:

…Some fish spot the best choice early on, although others may make a mistake and go the wrong way. The remaining fish assess how many have gone in particular directions. If the number going in one direction outweighs those going the other way, then the undecided fish follow in the direction of the majority.

That particular report cites an 18th century philosopher who argued that the larger a group is, the more likely its consensus is to be accurate. However, the new research just published “…calls into question decision-making bodies that operate by consensus….”

In essence, the research shows that individuals (in social species) will follow a perceived majority as a survival tactic. We don’t trust our own decisions enough to stand on our own because we are safer following the group. Hence, in human society we’ll come to our own decisions and then abandon those decisions if we think other people have reached contrary decisions.

In any public discussion, the first expressed opinion constitutes the early majority. Whether that early majority is reinforced depends on how believable the expressed opinion seems. If the opinion first reaches someone who agrees with it, the opinion is reinforced when that person expresses agreement.

Imagine a group of people stretching across a room. At either end of the room is a window. 3 people stand close enough to each window to see outside. On the right side of the room the three people each respectively see Blue, Green, and Red. Let’s assume that the Blue person says, “I see Blue.”

If someone standing nearby says, “There is blue outside the window” and other people will follow suit, the Green and Red people must either dispute the Blue person’s claim or sacrifice what they see to agree with the group. They will most likely forget that they saw Red and Green and claim to see Blue.

However, if either the Red or the Green person challenges the Blue person’s statement, a debate may arise — provided someone else echoes the Green person’s point of view. As soon as either the Green or Blue party prevails by getting more people to repeat their claims, the rest of the vocal supporters will tend to fall in line. Let’s assume that Blue wins out. Eventually, people stop saying there is Green outside the window. If any rebel voices insist on speaking of Green, they are removed from the group.

However, while all this occurs on the right side of the room, the three people standing near the left window see a Square, a Circle, and a Triangle. The first person to speak says, “I see a square”. Again, people who cannot see the window begin to repeat that knowledge: “There is a square outside the window”. Maybe one of the other people near the window speaks up and says, “I see a circle”. Once again we have a localized debate until a consensus forms, where either Square people or the Circle people simply outnumber the other.

In both extremes, as long as there are new voices to add to the confusion, the point of view most likely to win is the one that gathers the most new voices to its side. People who have previously said nothing will choose an opinion based on what they hear around them. This is the Viral Effect of Social Organization. Bees and Ants use this Viral Effect of Social Organization to pass on information about where to find food, where enemies are attacking the colony, and so forth.

In other words, in any group, each individual member of the group can only obtain information from sources immediately adjacent to it. Only those members on the periphery of the group have access to “new” information (that is, information that is not already being passed around inside the group). Members near the center of the group form opinions based on what members near them say. Members near the edge of the group can choose to form opinions based on what they see outside the group but they are more likely to agree with opinions expressed around them in order to remain a part of the group.

In our imaginary room, the majority Left Window point of view (Square) spreads rightward until it meets the wave of majority Right Window point of view (Blue) spreading leftward. At this point, because there are many voices of support for both points of view, a Debate erupts. The dynamic of the group changes dramatically.

The people who first expressed the prevailing opinions (the Blue person and the Square person) become leaders and they can either immediately accept the other point of view or they must move to the center of the group to help move influence the debate. If both leaders converge in the center there is a conflict. If only one leader moves to the center he is more likely to influence the other leader’s followers to change sides. If neither leader moves to the center of the room the debate will rage endlessly.

We can sum this up by saying that, given any two opposing points of view, a group will fall into one of three states depending on how the leading advocates for those points of view behave:

1. State 1: Resolution. Resolution occurs when either leader concedes to the other. The entire group then adopts the successful leader’s point of view.
2. State 2: Conflict. Conflict occurs when both leaders move to the center of the group in an effort to win over the other leader’s followers. A conflict may result in a division of the group.
3. State 3: Stalemate. Stalemate occurs when neither leader moves to influence the other leader’s followers. A stalemate always results in the division of the group.

This is what I call The Theory of Viral Propaganda.

Ideas spread from person to person in the form of propaganda. People accept without question whatever they are told as long as it seems reasonable. New information seems reasonable if it does not conflict with information you already hold. Information can be shaped through deliberate omission in order to seem reasonable.

The Collision of Propaganda is a shock to the group system and that shock process produces one of two effects in the group: people may either begin to evaluate information rationally (subsequently discarding irrational information) or they may emotionally embrace the information they already possess.

Rational evaluation does not guarantee that an individual (or group) will either abandon or adopt an idea. In fact, rational evaluation simply adds a new layer of debate on top of the old debate. Rational evaluation may be more intense than simple repetition, but emotional embracement can be the most intense reaction. Individuals identify themselves with information they have emotionally embraced.

In that sense, it is better to seek Resolution through Rational Evaluation before Emotional Embracement occurs because once Emotional Embracement begins the most likely outcome of the collision will be Stalemate (in which the group is divided).

So what does all this have to do with search engine optimization? I’m glad you asked.

The First Principle of Viral Propaganda Theory can be stated thus: the first point of view constitutes the first majority.

The Second Principle of Viral Propaganda Theory can be stated thus: a majority point of view sustains itself by reaching previously uncommitted supporters before other points of view.

These principles help explain what happens when you build a query space. By creating the first content in the new query space you establish the majority point of view. By reaching new searchers before other content providers your sustain and reinforce your majority point of view.

By the time other people begin populating the query space with new content they either have to follow your lead or challenge it. When your lead is challenged you have to decide if you will remain where you are (which either results in Resolution favoring the other content provider OR in Stalement) or by accepting the challenge (which results in Conflict).

Viral Propaganda Theory Conflict makes a query space more competitive. You have to invest more resources in maintaining your majority point of view (or in challenging someone else’s majority point of view). This is the least desirable state to achieve in search engine marketing.

Viral Propaganda Theory Stalemate divides a query space between two or more competitors. You enjoy the benefit of maintaining the majority point of view but you reach a smaller audience. The “seo theory” query space is an example of a Stalement situation. I could not seize control over the highly competitive “seo” query space, but no one had optimized for “seo theory”. A smaller audience is interested in “seo theory” than in “seo” so I enjoy the majority point of view but reach fewer people.

Viral Propaganda Theory Resolution rarely exists for long. Resolution tends to be unstable when new information is constantly reaching the group. In terms of marketing, you cannot maintain Resolution when new competitors are constantly arriving to challenge you.

New information can destroy Resolution by changing the fundamentals. That is, if old information becomes obsolete and new information is available, the group will go through the process of forming and spreading points of view all over again, as if no points of view are already prevailing. That is the process of Viral Regeneration.