"When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10%, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas…once that number grows above 10 %, the idea spreads like a flame."

legerero · 2018-07-08T19:27:37+00:00

the MRM will be the default belief of Republicans/Conservatives and feminism will be the default belief of Democrats/Liberals?

Possibly -- if we limit ourselves to Repubs/Dems in the short term. But in terms of the left/right divide I think it's more likely we'll see the left supporting certain aspects of the MRM and the right doing likewise. This is already true to a certain extent. For example I think opposition to MGM, helping the homeless, eliminating conscription, maintaining workplace safety standards etc. is more likely to come from the left. Some on the left and even radical left have already criticized MeToo as a Victorian style moral panic, opposed the criminalization of prostitution, opposed "carceral" feminism (by which we throw men in prison due to feminist policies), condemned campus Kangaroo courts (see eg the world socialist website), etc.

It's even possible we'll see the next generation of leftists leading the charge on men's rights in pursuit of actual (egalitarian) gender policies.

MRAhollywood · 2018-07-09T05:44:29+00:00

The MRM is definitely more prominent than ever before, social awareness is higher than it's ever been. I think it's inevitable that we hit a "critical point" after will we will grow exponentially.

omegaphallic · 2018-07-08T23:13:09+00:00

As a lefty MRA that would suck balls for me, how about MRAs become default for both.

Philip8000 · 2018-07-10T06:00:10+00:00

I have noticed that there are plenty of people that are aware of this. In fact, I've had women notice this more than men do, speaking about how unfair it is.

The problem is: most don't care enough to actually do anything about it. Some notice it, but that's the extent of it. For a lot of people, it has to impact them personally to motivate them and sometimes not even then. Generally, I hear feminists described as a bunch of fat losers, but many doesn't realize the sheer influence they can hold, particularly the ones who do hate men.

They might be very much in the minority, but it's enough to keep people silent. Very difficult to speak up when you suffer serious social consequences for doing so.

Imnotmrabut · 2018-07-08T16:04:59+00:00

You fail to factor in that many people are able to hold conflicting views simultaneously and not be conflicted.

Imnotmrabut · 2018-07-10T22:23:24+00:00

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

2018-07-09T08:39:59+00:00

Both women and men are biologically wired to favor women, feel more empathy towards them, feel that they are discriminated against even when they are not. That's not going to change until we're liberated from our biological bodies and move to our individual realities - and even there we want to help women because, well, we want to.

CountVonVague · 2018-07-11T06:59:27+00:00

Maybe it means that once 10% of people are committed MRAs..

Then it won't be easy for antis to shout derision and instead specific talking points and goals will have to be either talked down or met.

DignifiedAlpaca · 2018-07-11T07:06:07+00:00

Maybe it means that once 10% of people are committed MRAs, the MRM will be the default belief of Republicans/Conservatives and feminism will be the default belief of Democrats/Liberals?

I keep seeing more and more evidence that this might be what is happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrhHkQhglig

tenchineuro · 2018-07-10T18:52:37+00:00

This looks a lot like the 100th monkey effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect

Popularisation of the effect

The account of such a phenomenon originated with Lawrence Blair and Lyall Watson in the mid-to-late 1970s, who claimed that it was the observation of Japanese scientists.[1]

The story of the hundredth monkey effect was published in Lyall Watson's foreword to Lawrence Blair's Rhythms of Vision in 1975,[2] and spread with the appearance of Watson's 1979 book Lifetide. The account is that unidentified scientists were conducting a study of macaque monkeys on the Japanese island of Koshima in 1952.[3]These scientists observed that some of these monkeys learned to wash sweet potatoes, and gradually this new behavior spread through the younger generation of monkeys—in the usual fashion, through observation and repetition. Watson then concluded that the researchers observed that once a critical number of monkeys was reached, i.e., the hundredth monkey, this previously learned behavior instantly spread across the water to monkeys on nearby islands.

Only problem is, it was discredited.

Effect discredited

An analysis of the appropriate literature by Ron Amundson, published by the Skeptics Society, revealed several key points that demystified the supposed effect.

Unsubstantiated claims that there was a sudden and remarkable increase in the proportion of washers in the first population were exaggerations of a much slower, more mundane effect. Rather than all monkeys mysteriously learning the skill it was noted that it was predominantly younger monkeys that learned the skill from the older monkeys through observational learning, which is widespread in the animal kingdom;[8] older monkeys who did not know how to wash tended not to learn. As the older monkeys died and younger monkeys were born the proportion of washers naturally increased. The time span between observations by the Japanese scientists was on the order of years so the increase in the proportion was not observed to be sudden.

Claims that the practice spread suddenly to other isolated populations of monkeys may be called into question given the fact that at least one washing monkey swam to another population and spent about four years there and also the monkeys had the researchers in common. Amundson also notes that the sweet potato was not available to the monkeys prior to human intervention. The number of monkeys in the colony was counted as 59 in 1962 indicating that even in numbers no "hundredth monkey" existed.[1][8]

Comments

Popularisation of the effect

Effect discredited