这篇文章通过模拟展示了信念如何在人群中传播，以及信念之间间接关系如何导致意想不到的相关性。模拟表明，人类倾向于接受与自身已有信念相一致的信念，以维护认知一致性，并避免认知失调。该模拟还揭示了即使没有直接关联，信念之间也会产生关联，这解释了现实生活中一些看似奇怪的信仰组合现象，例如基督教与枪支拥有之间的关联。

🤔该模拟基于认知一致性原则，即人们倾向于接受与自身已有信念相一致的信念，以避免认知失调。模拟中的每个节点代表一个个人，每个节点都包含一组信念，每个信念都有一个数值，代表其与其他信念的关联程度。

🤝当一个节点接收到一个新的信念时，它会根据该信念与自身已有信念的关联程度来决定是否接受该信念。如果新信念与已有信念的总关联度为正，则该节点会接受该信念；如果总关联度为负，则该节点会保留其已有信念中最一致的组合，即使这意味着拒绝新信念。

📈模拟结果显示，即使没有直接关联，信念之间也会产生关联。例如，在模拟中，即使没有直接将“基督教”与“枪支拥有”关联起来，但由于这两个信念都与其他信念相关联，例如“保守主义”，最终会导致“基督教”和“枪支拥有”之间产生关联。

🧩该模拟揭示了信仰网络的复杂性，以及信仰之间的间接关系如何导致意想不到的相关性。它也提醒我们，在评估他人信仰时，要考虑其信仰网络的复杂性，而不是仅仅关注表面上的关联。

💡该模拟可以帮助我们理解社会现象，例如政治极化、社会分层和文化冲突。它也可以帮助我们设计更有效的传播策略，以促进社会和谐和理解。

Published on October 13, 2024 12:27 AM GMT

Humans are social animals, and as such we are influenced by the beliefs of those around us. This simulation explores how beliefs can spread through a population, and how indirect relationships between beliefs can lead to unexpected correlations. The featured simulation only works in the original post. I recommend visiting to explore the ideas fully.

STRANGE BED-FELLOWS

There are some strange ideological bed-fellows that emerge in the realm of human beliefs. Social scientists grapple with the strong correlation between Christianity and gun ownership when the “Prince of Peace” lived in a world without guns. Similarly there are other correlations between atheism and globalisation or pro-regulation leftists who are also pro-choice, and then we have the anti-vax movement infiltrating both the far-left and far-right of politics.

Does this all mean that people are just confused?

The simulation explores the network effects of belief transmission and runs on the principle that humans adopt beliefs that align with their pre-existing beliefs, seeking cognitive coherence over cognitive dissonance.

“A receiver of a belief either accepts the incoming belief or not based on the context of their own belief system (internal coherency)…”
- Rodriguez et al

Each belief in this simulation has a valence with each other belief-with those sharing a positive valence being complementary ideas, and those with a negative valence being dissonant. The simulation doesn’t specifically model bias, but apparent bias is an emergent property of the system.

INSTRUCTIONS

The opening sample is simply my own intuitions about what logical relationship some religious and political beliefs have with one another on . I have purposefully left anything I do not see as directly connected as zero. You can edit these valence values or categories to reflect your own intuitions, or the issues important to you.

It’s a bit of a learning curve thinking about valences, as each belief here is actually a pair-the belief and its opposite. So, if you have have a single issue like “taxes” this will be interpretted as “Pro-Tax”/”Anti-Tax”. When relating this to another related factor like “Right Wing/”Left Wing” you are looking for one value to describe how aligned “Pro-Tax” and “Right-Wing” are, and also how aligned are “Anti-Tax” and “Left Wing” are. So in this case, you might say -75.

VALENCE MATRIX

The simulation depicts nodes transmitting ideas (coloured rings). If an incoming idea increases the total valence value of the node it is adopted, if not then the most coherent set of beliefs is adopted, which might involve rejecting the incoming idea or ejecting a pre-existing belief.

The dot itself is coloured corresponding to its most aligned (strongest) belief.

SIMULATION GRID

FINDING (CIRCUITOUSLY CAUSED) CORRELATIONS

You can explore the correlations between beliefs, revealing how many familiar correlations arise even without a specific valence being ascribed.

Depending on how many beliefs or factors you’re using this will make for a fairly long list, at the bottom of which will be the comments section, where I hope you’ll post notes on your own explorations.

SO…

I’ve kept this post as simple as possible, but I intend to refine the model and write a much more detailed analysis of the methodology involved, informed by your feedback, so please drop a comment with anything interesting you discover.

RELATED MATERIAL

Collective Dynamics of Belief Evolution under Cognitive Coherence and Social Conformity by Rodriguez et al is a fascinating, evidence-based look at the way ideas are transmitted, featuring accessible diagrams and explanations.For those uber-nerds out there who want to send in their own tables, if you open your web inspector, there’s a console log output of the current table in csv format made whenever you run the simulation. If you want to copy and paste that to me, I’ll check it out and integrate it into the page.If you’re interested in the spread of ideas, check out our post on Genes, Memes and Susan Blackmore’s concept of Temes, or our post on originality-Taking Credit

Discuss