Nonviolent Civil Resistance - The 3.5% Rule

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

It seems today that it really doesn't matter if the disobedience turns violent or remains peaceful to effect Change

Social Media has become such a powerful and LOUD tool in the hands of many that changes are happening at a much faster pace than ever before.

Conversations have become far more Polarized.
Attitudes and outlooks Darker, so that factions of protesters can become violent yet the cause is not diminished as others spin the reasons in 24hr News cycles

People no longer just disagree, they demonize!

It is now a much sadder world where group intimidation and social bullying is in itself psycholocally violent

This leads to a whole different aspect...what exactly is "civil resistance" and at what level did the study consider it?

Is small town sheriff run out for not pursuing a case with a horrible attrocity but where the odds of getting a conviction are pretty much nil vs national level regime change? Odds are you will see different responses have different effectiveness.

Also, what is defined as "success". With the Civil Rights movement, laws got passed and changes made...but there are those who would claim we haven't solved the problems yet.

On a related note, you have to consider "who" is resisting and "who" is violent. If they are using news stories, there is often a built in bias that can be misleading...Example: if some non-violent protesters are attacked by violent counter-protesters and they defend themselves...are they now violent protesters? And if the media labels the originally non-violent protesters as instigating the violence,.... it just gets messy real quick and the truth is easily subverted by the media agenda.

While we can learn from this type of study, you really have to dig under the hood...a fixed percentage impact without knowing exactly what it means and how it was arrived is at best a distraction.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I appreciate your frustration here Group, but I take comfort in the enragement. Felons are not expected to act with honour, nor within the confines of the law. Police certainly are.

As I know you know (better than me), police are one of the few agencies given state sanction to use violence against the citizenry. This is no small license, and should always be held tightly in check.

For sure. The good news for some, I guess, is that I am hearing of more and more cases where police officers didn’t use deadly force when they should have. I was speaking yesterday to a law enforcement friend in Baltimore who just retired. He said non-policing was in full gear there, now. The police have changed their role to armed, after the fact, report takers. No one wants to be proactive, or god forbid, witness a crime in progress. I suspect that trend will continue to its final conclusion. We’ll see, I guess.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

T...While we can learn from this type of study, you really have to dig under the hood...a fixed percentage impact without knowing exactly what it means and how it was arrived is at best a distraction.

The concept of statistically small-percent outliers providing the tipping point for massive change is an old observation (though Malcolm Gladwell for one in modern times is getting rich writing about it). This book (written by a math professor with an unfortunately kitschy title "How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking") I think sufficiently lays out the groundwork how to arrive at this +/- 3.5% number for yourself (warning that acquiring the math heuristic can't be undone and studies like that referenced in the original post become banal).

The tail has always wagged the dog. As GB Shaw observed "the reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefor all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

~80% of people are reasonable and don't question anything (beyond the boundaries of binary "our side vs their side" thinking); 15% ordinarily are non-binary thinkers and question everything...but don't attempt massive change (they tend to retract away from the herd...create/seek their own personal paradise...e.g. sailors); 5% are the sociopaths/positive change agents (depending on your perspective) with the gumption to stay with the herd and develop means to adapt the herd behavior to suit their own needs/ideals (to make life tolerable for them (~5%r) selves).

You can pretty much write any paper using these numbers. The numbers stay roughly the same...only the nouns, verbs, and adjectives change.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Singularity

The concept of statistically small-percent outliers providing the tipping point for massive change is an old observation (though Malcolm Gladwell for one in modern times is getting rich writing about it). This book (written by a math professor with an unfortunately kitschy title "How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking") I think sufficiently lays out the groundwork how to arrive at this +/- 3.5% number for yourself (warning that acquiring the math heuristic can't be undone and studies like that referenced in the original post become banal).

The tail has always wagged the dog. As GB Shaw observed "the reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefor all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

~80% of people are reasonable and don't question anything (beyond the boundaries of binary "our side vs their side" thinking); 15% ordinarily are non-binary thinkers and question everything...but don't attempt massive change (they tend to retract away from the herd...create/seek their own personal paradise...e.g. sailors); 5% are the sociopaths/positive change agents (depending on your perspective) with the gumption to stay with the herd and develop means to adapt the herd behavior to suit their own needs/ideals (to make life tolerable for them (~5%r) selves).

You can pretty much write any paper using these numbers. The numbers stay roughly the same...only the nouns, verbs, and adjectives change.

I've done enough statistical analysis to know I can make the numbers show anything I want by asking the question in the right way and it will hold up to statistical analysis. That's in the more fact driven engineering world.

In social science...I could prove your dog is the antichrist if I had a mind to do it.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Group9

For sure. The good news for some, I guess, is that I am hearing of more and more cases where police officers didn’t use deadly force when they should have. I was speaking yesterday to a law enforcement friend in Baltimore who just retired. He said non-policing was in full gear there, now. The police have changed their role to armed, after the fact, report takers. No one wants to be proactive, or god forbid, witness a crime in progress. I suspect that trend will continue to its final conclusion. We’ll see, I guess.

I kinda miss the days of....
"Go ahead, make my day"
and
"Are you feeing lucky?"

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I kinda miss the days of....
"Go ahead, make my day"
and
"Are you feeing lucky?"

along with "swift justice" and "an eye for an eye."

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I've done enough statistical analysis to know I can make the numbers show anything I want by asking the question in the right way and it will hold up to statistical analysis. That's in the more fact driven engineering world.

In social science...I could prove your dog is the antichrist if I had a mind to do it.

Not picking on you, rather speaking to the logic you presented (that I otherwise agree with in the context previously provided):

If this was a philosophical discussion 2,000 years ago in the West you'd be asked to "do it." To coalesce your observations both of your "fact driven engineering world" with your observation of the dog-antichrist observation in a manner that made coherent sense to other critical thinkers. It's one thing to make an analysis that is internally valid...quite another to make an analysis that is externally valid/harmonious with seemingly disparate concepts.

In modern times, where hard-science types are often self-anointed as the only ones capable of genuine critical thought...it's quite convenient to discount the entire ~social science spectrum of human existence as being "unknowable." This is made easy by the reality that most Western social science for the last 2,000 years is fanciful observations to get published and/or stimulate conversation....but generally only internally valid inside the discretely social science realm. It must be noted that in the West for the last 2,000 years of critical thought the dominant paradigm has been that that some mystical force governs all the social science stuff such that there's no point in trying to understand it.

I suppose that if "real science" people dedicated time applying their "real science" methodology to personal observations of factual history that they might start to understand that it's all real science. But doing so requires effort that is seemingly wasted when you're already a card carrying member of the smartest club.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

In social science...I could prove your dog is the antichrist if I had a mind to do it.

Lol. .....only if we both were Dyslexic![emoji6]

[Group9]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

In social science...I could prove your dog is the antichrist if I had a mind to do it.

If you said my cat was the anti-Christ, I'm not sure I would even ask for proof. I have long suspected such.

[AndyEss]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Hi, Tiger,
I grew up in Chicago--the most violent city in the US for gun shootings. I lived on the Northwest Side and never saw one act of gun violence by the police. My cousin lived on the Southwest side of the city and experienced the same lifestyle and safety. Our neighborhoods were safe and the police were respected. Our neighborhoods were exclusively White. The "gun violence" that exists/existed was on the South and West sides of the city were Ghetto areas with very high crime rates(burglary, rape, murder, robbery, car jacking) in exclusively African-American areas. So, when you make generalized claims ,as you have above, they must have a reference point so that readers do not believe that this is a widespread problem but rather one that is endemic to low income, minority areas where violence is a fact of daily life and the police must be ready for a worst case scenario every minute they are on the job. For those of us who have seen real combat in the military, we are acutely aware that any small mistake can end your life. This creates a super-sensitivity that people do not need or have in safe, non-violent situations and the police who work in these areas MUST have this survival sense to SURVIVE. I am certain that if you own a 55-foot gunboat, you most likely never lived in dangerous areas as described above for the majority of your life since economics is always the great barrier between safe and unsafe neighborhoods. Earl Frederick III reports in the "Harvard Public Health Review, Vol. 19, Death, Violence, Health and Poverty in Chicago": "Among neighborhoods that reported the highest concentrations of poverty between 2005 to 2009, all were predominantly African American and one-half had the highest homicide rates based on age-adjusted data per 100,000 persons (Table 1). Chicago’s richest and predominantly White neighborhoods (Lakeview, O’Hare, and Near North) each reported one murder annually between 2005-2009. Neighborhoods with lower incomes and larger African-American populations reported significantly higher numbers homicides, ranging from 3 (in Riverdale and Burnside) to 23 (Chatham) annually." So, when you make outrageous "blanket claims" against the police, you must fill in the spaces so the reader does not assume that this "police violence" is widespread and across the board when the facts dictate that it occurs predominately in the most dangerous areas of our country where a mental error can result in the death of the police officer. Good luck and safe sailing . . . Rognvald

I grew up in Chicago on the near west side. Plenty of family and friends in LEO positions. Anecdotally, I have also heard of LEO stepping back and becoming recorders, rather than peacekeepers.
The tail does seem to be wagging the dog in many places in the US these days.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Not picking on you, rather speaking to the logic you presented (that I otherwise agree with in the context previously provided):

If this was a philosophical discussion 2,000 years ago ...

Problem is it's not 2000yrs ago. It's the modern world of the sound bite. No one is looking at the underlying issues, including the journalists who write the headline based on the sound bite after supposedly reviewing the studies.

I don't have any special ability to arbitrate which is right...other than I generally assume blanket statements are usually at best half truths and more often than not have a blatant agenda driven purpose.

Even the engineering world is subject to the ability to manipulate the numbers. Example: While I wasn't involved in the studies, I have seen them and the results...In road construction, you typically build roads with Asphalt Concrete or Portland Cement Concrete (not many high volume gravel roads being built in the USA anymore). During the design processes, a life cycle analysis is required by FHWA to determine which is the cheaper option.

After a few years on an industry wide level, you typically see one material start to dominate as they adapt to the life cycle costing process but both industries are political players, so what happens is an updated study is commissioned and amazingly, it always results in the old percentage of each material being used. If you look at the numbers in the studies, they are all look reasonable and are defensible...unless you really dig deep and know what to look for. Everyone involved knows exactly what's going on but it's a check box that the politicians require, so the system appeases them. It's not right but it's what happens.

Now if you move into the world of social science where the definitions are much more "squishy", it's much easier to manipulate the results...especially if 99.99% of people will only ever see the sound bite.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Group9

For sure. The good news for some, I guess, is that I am hearing of more and more cases where police officers didn’t use deadly force when they should have. I was speaking yesterday to a law enforcement friend in Baltimore who just retired. He said non-policing was in full gear there, now. The police have changed their role to armed, after the fact, report takers. No one wants to be proactive, or god forbid, witness a crime in progress. I suspect that trend will continue to its final conclusion. We’ll see, I guess.

We already are seeing the predictable conclusions, and it's painfully visible in cities across the US. A direct result of the vilification of all law enforcement at a national level based on the inevitable bad conduct of a few.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Now if you move into the world of social science where the definitions are much more "squishy", it's much easier to manipulate the results...especially if 99.99% of people will only ever see the sound bite.

Exactly. A good example is that "hands up don't shoot" never happened. But only after witnesses recanted and both the local DA and the Obama Justice Dept. had no choice but to reach that conclusion. Yet it remains a rallying cry, overshadowing the conditions which led to justified police resentment in Ferguson, MO & elsewhere. And ignoring questionable police shootings committed by black officers against black suspects, and even homicide prosecutions against white officers who clearly acted unlawfully. How many soundbites were produced about those incidents?

The real tragedy lies with law-abiding citizens in crime-ridden areas who now have a police force which understandably refuses to get out of their cars for fear of arbitrary vilification and even possible ambush. Rather than fixing the very real problem of a small minority of abusive cops, our "leaders" (and gullible media) have managed to persuade all too many to indict all of law enforcement. Par for the course these days . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Group9

If you said my cat was the anti-Christ, I'm not sure I would even ask for proof. I have long suspected such.

Me too . . .

[atlroofman]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“The Success of Nonviolent Civil Resistance” ~ Erica Chenoweth at TEDxBoulder
Between 1900-2006, campaigns of nonviolent civil resistance were twice as successful as violent campaigns. Erica Chenoweth, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School and a Susan S. and Kenneth L. Wallach Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, talks about her research on the impressive historical record of civil resistance in the 20th century and discuss the promise of unarmed struggle in the 21st century.
She focuses on the so-called “3.5% rule”—the notion that no government can withstand a challenge of 3.5% of its population without either accommodating the movement or (in extreme cases) disintegrating. In addition to explaining why nonviolent resistance has been so effective, she also shares some lessons learned about why it sometimes fails.

Excerpt: “... Researchers used to say that no government could survive if five percent of its population mobilized against it. But our data reveal that the threshold is probably lower. In fact, no campaigns failed once they’d achieved the active and sustained participation of just 3.5% of the population—and lots of them succeeded with far less than that [5]. Now, 3.5% is nothing to sneeze at. In the U.S. today, this means almost 11 million people.
But get this: Every single campaign that did surpass that 3.5% threshold was a nonviolent one. In fact, campaigns that relied solely on nonviolent methods were on average four times larger than the average violent campaign. And they were often much more representative in terms of gender, age, race, political party, class, and urban-rural distinctions ...”

The Script & MORE ➥ https://rationalinsurgent.com/2013/1...-the-3-5-rule/


The Talk ➥

SHUT UP ABOUT POLITICS - great song. Now let's get back to cruising topics

[GordMay]

A total 457 civilians have been fatally shot by police officers as of July 2, 2019.
Twenty-seven officers have been feloniously killed so far this year, and another 15 have died in accidents like car crashes.
17:1