Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is It Necessary to Lie to Win a Controversial Public Debate? An Answer from Sociophysics

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Nonlinear Phenomena in Complex Systems: From Nano to Macro Scale

Abstract

Controversial public debates driven by incomplete scientific data where nobody can claim absolute certainty, due to the current state of scientific knowledge, are studied. To adopt a cautious balanced attitude based on clear but inconclusive data appears to be a lose-out strategy. In contrast overstating arguments with incorrect claims which cannot be scientifically refuted appears to be necessary but not sufficient to eventually win a public debate. The underlying key mechanisms of these puzzling and unfortunate conclusions are identified using the Galam Unifying Frame (GUF) of opinion dynamics . It reveals that the existence of inflexible agents and their respective proportions are the instrumental parameters to determine the faith of incomplete scientific data in public debates. Acting on one’s own inflexible proportion modifies the topology of the flow diagram, which in turn can make irrelevant the value of initial support. On the contrary focusing on open-minded agents may be useless given some topologies. Accordingly, the inflexibles rather than the data are found to drive the opinion of the population. The results shed a new but disturbing light on designing adequate strategies to win a public debate. The cases of global warming is briefly discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Galam S (2012) Sociophysics: a physicist’s modeling of psycho-political phenomena. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Galam S (2011) Collective beliefs versus individual inflexibility: the unavoidable biases of a public debate. Physica A 390:3036–3054

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Galam S (2010) Public debates driven by incomplete scientific data: the cases of evolution theory, global warming and H1N1 pandemic influeza. Physica A 389:3619–3631

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Galam S (2002) Minority opinion spreading in random geometry. Eur Phys J B 25(Rapid Note):403–406

    Google Scholar 

  5. Galam S (2005) Heterogeneous beliefs, segregation, and extremism in the making of public opinions. Phys Rev E 71:046123-1-5

    Google Scholar 

  6. Galam S, Gefen Y, Shapir Y (1982) Sociophysics: a mean behavior model for the process of strike. Math J Sociol 9:1–13

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Galam S (2004) Sociophysics: a personal testimony. Physica A 336:49–55

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Fortunato S, Macy M, Redner S (2013) Editorial. J Stat Phys 151:1–8

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Ellero A, Fasano G, Sorato A (2013) Stochastic model of agent interaction with opinion leaders. Phys Rev E 87:042806

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mobilia M (2013) Commitment versus persuasion in the three-party constrained voter model. J Stat Phys 151:69–91

    Article  ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Nyczka P, Sznajd-Weron K (2013) Anticonformity or independence? Insights from statistical physics. J Stat Phys 151:174–202

    Article  ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Sîrbu A, Loreto V, Servedio VDP, Tria F (2013) Opinion dynamics with disagreement and modulated information. J Stat Phys 151:218–237

    Article  ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Borge-Holthoefer J, Meloni S, Gonçalves B, Moreno Y (2013) Emergence of influential spreaders in modified rumor models. J Stat Phys 151:383–393

    Article  ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Crokidakis N, Anteneodo C (2012) Role of conviction in non-equilibrium models of opinion formation. Phys Rev E 86:061127

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Vicente R, Martins ACR, Caticha N (2009) Opinion dynamics of learning agents: does seeking consensus lead to disagreement? J Stat Mech 03:P03015

    Google Scholar 

  16. Martins ACR (2008) Continuous opinions and discrete actions in opinion dynamics problems. Int J Mod Phys C 19:617–624

    Article  ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Behera L, Schweitzer F (2003) On spatial consensus formation: is the Sznajd model different from a voter model? Int J Mod Phys C 14:1331–1354

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sznajd-Weron K, Sznajd J (2000) Opinion evolution in closed community. Int J Mod Phys C 11:1157–1165

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Galam S, Chopard B, Masselot A, Droz M (1998) Competing species dynamics. Eur Phys J B 4:529–531

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Galam S, Moscovici S (1991) Towards a theory of collective phenomena: consensus and attitude changes in groups. Eur J Soc Psychol 21:49–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Galam S (2005) Local dynamics vs. social mechanisms: a unifying frame. Europhys Lett 70:705–711

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. Galam S (1986) Majority rule, hierarchical structures and democratic totalitarianism: a statistical approach. J Math Psychol 30:426–434

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Schneider JJ, Hirtreiter C (2005) The impact of election results on the member numbers of the large parties in Bavaria and Germany. Int J Mod Phys C 16:1165–1215

    Article  ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Fortunato S, Castellano C (2007) Scaling and universality in proportional elections. Phys Rev Lett 99:138701

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lambiotte R, Saramaki J, Blondel VD (2009) Dynamics of latent voters. Phys Rev E 79:046107

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Galam S (2013) The drastic outcomes from voting alliances in three-party democratic voting (1990 → 2013). J Stat Phys 151:46–68

    Article  ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Pajot S, Galam S (2002) Coexistence of opposite global social feelings: the case of percolation driven insecurity. Int J Mod Phys C 13:1375–1385

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lambiotte R, Ausloos M (2007) Coexistence of opposite opinions in a network with communities. J Stat Mech 08:P08026

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Bouzdine-Chameeva T, Galam S (2011) World-of-mouth versus experts and rputation in the individual dynamics of wine purchasing. Adv Complex Syst 14:871–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Martins ACR, Pereira CB, Vicente R (2008) An opinion dynamics model for the diffusion of innovations. Physica A 388:3225–3232

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Stauffer D (2013) A biased review of sociophysics. J Stat Phys 151:9–20

    Article  ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Castellano C, Fortunato S, Loreto V (2009) Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev Mod Phys 81:591–646

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Galam S (2008) Sociophysics: a review of Galam models. Int J Mod Phys C 19:409–440

    Article  ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Chakrabarti BK, Chakraborti A, Chatterjee A (eds) (2006) Econophysics and sociophysics: trends and perspectives. Wiley VCH, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  35. Stauffer D, Moss de Oliveira S, de Oliveira P, Sá Martins J (2006) Biology, sociology, geology by computational physicists. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Galam S, Jacobs F (2007) The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics. Physica A 381:366–376

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was support in part by French Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA, Grant 2012 60 0013 00470 75 01).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CEVIPOF – Centre for Political Research, CNRS and Sciences Po, 98, rue de l’Université, 75007, Paris, France

    Serge Galam

Authors
  1. Serge Galam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Serge Galam .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Turin Polytechnic University in Tashkent, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

    Davron Matrasulov

  2. Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    H. Eugene Stanley

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this paper

Cite this paper

Galam, S. (2014). Is It Necessary to Lie to Win a Controversial Public Debate? An Answer from Sociophysics. In: Matrasulov, D., Stanley, H. (eds) Nonlinear Phenomena in Complex Systems: From Nano to Macro Scale. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8704-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8704-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8703-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8704-8

  • eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation