Advertisement

Sociophysics Approach of Simulation of Charismatic Person and Distrusted People in Society Using Opinion Dynamics

Application of New Opinion Dynamics Theory Including both Trust and Distrust Between People
  • Nozomi Okano
  • Akira IshiiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings in Adaptation, Learning and Optimization book series (PALO, volume 12)

Abstract

The problem of socially isolated people who are not trusted by the people around them is considered using a new opinion dynamics theory that can handle both trust and distrust among people. This can be not only in the real world, but also in human relations on SNS. Using the new theory of opinion dynamics, we perform simulations related to isolated persons. We found that a charismatic popular person could be saved by having a relationship with an isolated person. However, on the other hand, the charismatic population is weakened. The best way is to resolve distrust of themselves by everyone before using the popularity of the charismatic person.

Keywords

Opinion dynamics Trust Distrust Charismatic person 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP19K04881.

References

  1. 1.
    Deffuant, G., Neau, D., Amblard, F., Weisbuch, G.: Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Adv. Complex Syst. 3, 87–98 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weisbuch, G., Deffuant, G., Amblard, F., Nadal, J.-P.: Meet, discuss and segregate! Complexity 7(3), 55–63 (2002) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hegselmann, R., Krause, U.: Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 5(3), 1–33 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castellano, C., Fortunato, S., Loreto, V.: Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev. Modern Phys. 81, 591–646 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sîrbu, A., Loreto, V., Servedio, V.D.P., Tria, F.: Opinion dynamics: models, extensions and external effects. In: Loreto, V., et al. (eds.) Participatory Sensing, Opinions and Collective Awareness. Understanding Complex Systems, pp. 363–401. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ishii, A., Kawahata, Y.: Opinion dynamics theory for analysis of consensus formation and division of opinion on the internet. In: Proceedings of The 22nd Asia Pacific Symposium on Intelligent and Evolutionary Systems (IES2018), pp. 71-76. arXiv:1812.11845 [physics.soc-ph]
  7. 7.
    Ishii, A.: Opinion dynamics theory considering trust and suspicion in human relations. In: Morais, D., Carreras, A., de Almeida, A., Vetschera, R. (eds.) Group Decision and Negotiation: Behavior, Models, and Support. GDN: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 351st edn, pp. 193–204. Springer, Cham (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ishii, A., Kawahata, Y.: Opinion dynamics theory considering interpersonal relationship of trust and distrust and media effects. In: The 33rd Annual Conference of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, 2019, 33 (2019) Volume JSAI2019 2F3-OS-5a-05Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    French, J.R.P.: A formal theory of social power. Psychol. Rev. 63, 181–194 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harary, F.: A criterion for unanimity in French s theory of social power. In: Cartwright, D. (ed.) Studies in Social Power. Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor (1959)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abelson, R.P.: Mathematical models of the distribution of attitudes under controversy. In: Frederiksen, N., Gulliksen, H. (eds.) Contributions to Mathematical Psychology. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York (1964)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Groot, M.H.: Reaching a consensus. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 69, 118–121 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lehrer, K.: Social consensus and rational agnoiology. Synthese 31, 141–160 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chatterjee, S.: Reaching a consensus: some limit theorems. Proc. Int. Statist. Inst. pp. 159–164 (1975)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tanimoto, K., Kita, H., Mitukuni, A.: Opinion choice model in public meeting by using evolutionary game theory infrasturcture planning review, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 8995 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galam, S.: Rational group decision making: a random field Ising model at T = 0. Physica A 238, 66 (1997) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sznajd-Weron, K., Sznajd, J.: Opinion evolution in closed community. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 11(6), 1157–1165 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sznajd-Weron, K., Tabiszewski, M., Timpanaro, A.M.: Phase transition in the Sznajd model with independence. Europhys. Lett. 96, 48002 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Galam, S.: Application of statistical physics to politics. Physica A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 274, 132–139 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Galam, S.: Real space renormalization group and totalitarian paradox of majority rule voting. Physica A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 285 1–2(15), 66–76 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Galam, S.: Are referendums a mechanism to turn our prejudices into rational choices? An unfortunate answer from sociophysics Chap. 19. In: Morel, L., Qvortrup, M. (eds.) The Rout-ledge Handbook to Referendums and Direct Democracy. Taylor & Francis, London (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Galam, S.: The Trump phenomenon: An explanation from sociophysics. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 31, 1742015 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jager, W., Amblard, F.: Uniformity, bipolarization and pluriformity captured as generic stylized behavior with an agent-based simulation model of attitude change. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 10, 295–303 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jager, W., Amblard, F.: Multiple attitude dynamics in large populations. In: The Agent 2005 Conference on Generative Social Processes, Models and Mechanisms at The University of Chicago, 13-15 October 2005Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kurmyshev, E., Juárez, H.A., González-Silva, R.A.: Dynamics of bounded confidence opinion in heterogeneous social networks: concord against partila antagonism. Physica A 390, 2945–2955 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ishii, A., Arakaki, H., Matsuda, N., Umemura, S., Urushidani, T., Yamagata, N., Yoshida, N.: The ‘hit’ phenomenon: a mathematical model of human dynamics interactions as a stochastic process. New J. Phys. 14, 063018 (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Okano, N., Ishii, A.: Isolated, untrusted people in society and charismatic person using opinion dynamics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence, 14–17 October 2019, Thessaloniki, Greece (2019)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ishii, A., Kawahata, Y.: Phase transition like behavior in consensus building using new opinion dynamics theory including both trust and distrust into human relationships to be publishedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Mathematics and PhysicsTottori University KoyamaTottoriJapan

Personalised recommendations