Self-fulfilling Prophecies
I was going to post this topic to my QuipSpot blog, but I’d like to hear a wider array of comments. It pertains to the two-party system that we succumb to in the U.S. Enjoy.
What’s the similarity between the items in this list?
- Automobiles
- Computers
- VCRs
- Cell phones
Easy…they all went through the same stages of acceptance, i.e. diffusion of innovations.
So what?
In every technical endeavor, you have five groups of people - innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Some models indicate that the rate of change is known (see the S-curve theory).
I have seen models that say this: however long it takes for 10% of the population to accept a technology, that’s how many more years before 90% of the population accepts it. (e.g. If it takes five years for 10% of the population to accept/buy/use the iPod, then the next 80% will accept it in another five years.) I’m not so sure about the consistency of the numbers, but I do believe the theory applies.
We are starting to see it in homeschooling, so I’m not so sure the concept deals solely with technological movements. How about the green movement? How about radical Islam?
My point? I believe grass roots political movements will grow through the same pattern of diffusion. Most people don’t like change. They will make excuses for staying the same instead of changing.
My point, part 2? The overwhelming majority of people are not innovators when it comes to politics. (No duh, look at who we’ve permitted to be elected into offices of all varieties over the last two decades.) If the innovaters don’t do it first - “throw away” their vote, per se - then the early adopters won’t do it. If the early adopters don’t do it, the movement won’t grow enough for the “me, too-ers” to join; it would still be too painful for them.
(Disclaimer: before y’all throw something at me…you can be an innovator in technology but not in politics, or vice versa. I’m in the “late majority” category in technology, even though I’ve worked in I.T. for twenty years.)
My point, part 3? Those who are not innovators or early adopters will see this, as I said above, as “throwing away” a vote. Hence, it looks like a self-fulfulling prophecy - people vote for a candidate from another party, it doesn’t make a difference, and the wrong person wins. Realistically, it’s not a self-fulfilling prophecy; the movement just has not developed far enough yet.
So, to those of us who consider ourselves innovators for political change, the time to innovate is now. Without our example, the adopters will never catch on, and it will be the same old story.
Innovators of the U.S, unite! For the longstanding improvement of the country!
February 26th, 2007 11:27
This kind of pattern shows up again and again. My question is whether you think the shift from fringe to mainstream simply occurs or doesn’t, regardless of what the innovators do, or do you think there are qualities among the innovators which drive change. If so, what might those factors be?
February 26th, 2007 12:06
A+ Rick!
Brian, I think it requires innovators to move. They must be the “evangelists” for the innovation.
For example, look at betamax video tapes. The Beta technology is superior to the VHS standard, but Beta didn’t have enough evangelists with enough budget to get a majority. VHS did, and it caught on and killed Beta quickly.
Scott
February 26th, 2007 12:34
Brian,
Great question, I thought about addressing this in the original post.
I don’t believe the movement occurs naturally. For technology, cost prohibition could kill the movement. Cell phone use didn’t reach critical mass until cell phone companies started giving them away.
With products, there is a combination of marketing (i.e. incentives) and education that are required. I believe the same is true here. Someone has to promote the product - in this case, multiple party government instead of dual party government - and do so convincingly to the early adopters. I don’t think it is all about passion for change, either; the message has to be sound, and delivered in a way that the early adopters can buy. You need not only the ability to tell a friend about the movement, but explain why you believe in it.
In other words, find a market, and fill it. We have solid channels of communication to get the message out. We are not yet adequate at explaining the cause, or showing the “benefits and features” of the shift. That’s what we need to do next, followed by identifying the “market” of early adopters. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, but it does take someone who understands the product and marketing.
Hope that helps.
Rick
February 26th, 2007 18:10
Are you willing/able to stand up to the plate, or do you know someone who is?
February 26th, 2007 19:39
Rick, I’m interested in your ideas of product and marketing, specifically in the rise of homeschooling. Do you think this is something which has become more widely chosen because of marketing? I’m not sure I agree, but I’m interested in your perspective. I believe it does help to have those who are currently doing it explain to others why they believe in it. But homeschooling is still receiving negative press in the media (there are some positive articles, but I’d say in the minority).
And, for what it’s worth, I’m a proud owner of a Betamax in working order. It doesn’t get used much, but it’s still loved and appreciated.
Julia
February 27th, 2007 19:56
Julia,
I wish I had an answer on the homeschooling movement. We’ve done it for five years now, and I still don’t see marketing and promotion of the movement to “outsiders”, but lots of catering to those who do homeschool. this movement seems to be a social reaction to decaying educational mores.
As my wife and I are talking about your question, she mentioned that she doesn’t spread the homeschool gospel, per se, any more than I do. However, when people ask her where our kids go to school, she answers honestly and rationally. For many people, this leads to more questions based out of curiosity. People are getting educated, softened up to the idea, if you will. It’s not as foreign the next time they hear about it; they typse of questions change.
The innovaters were homeschooling up through the 1980s. The early adopters have been doing it since, and the movement is starting to break into the early majority group.
So maybe word of mouth does work. I just don’t want it to take forty years for the multi-party political movement to get through the early adopters. To which…
Brian,
What do you have in mind? This issue and the ability to have a “none of the above” vote hit my hot buttons.
Thanks,
Rick
February 27th, 2007 22:13
Rick,
Mainly I was wondering if you had the background in marketing. As Scott said, having evangelists is key. But the shift only occurs when the evangelists have evangelists. I’m interested in an academic sense how that occurs. How does one key into other people and energize them to your cause?
Brian
February 28th, 2007 06:41
Brian,
You had to mention the “m” word, didn’t you. My practical background covers neither marketing nor P.R. I have heard people joke, though, that an advocacy group is nothing more than 2-3 people with a fax machine.
Now, if you need tech-heads, they are accessible to me. Not the marketing people though. Maybe we should put out a “help wanted” ad for the site. Agreed we need a person or two (or ten) who have that aptitude.