Support 911Blogger


shock and awe

Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks

  1. Jeffrey T. Hancockc,d
  1. aCore Data Science Team, Facebook, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025;

  2. bCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143; and

  3. Departments of cCommunication and

  4. dInformation Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

  1. Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved March 25, 2014 (received for review October 23, 2013)

Significance

We show, via a massive (N = 689,003) experiment on Facebook, that emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness. We provide experimental evidence that emotional contagion occurs without direct interaction between people (exposure to a friend expressing an emotion is sufficient), and in the complete absence of nonverbal cues.

Abstract

Emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness. Emotional contagion is well established in laboratory experiments, with people transferring positive and negative emotions to others. Data from a large real-world social network, collected over a 20-y period suggests that longer-lasting moods (e.g., depression, happiness) can be transferred through networks [Fowler JH, Christakis NA (2008) BMJ 337:a2338], although the results are controversial. In an experiment with people who use Facebook, we test whether emotional contagion occurs outside of in-person interaction between individuals by reducing the amount of emotional content in the News Feed. When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred. These results indicate that emotions expressed by others on Facebook influence our own emotions, constituting experimental evidence for massive-scale contagion via social networks. This work also suggests that, in contrast to prevailing assumptions, in-person interaction and nonverbal cues are not strictly necessary for emotional contagion, and that the observation of others’ positive experiences constitutes a positive experience for people.

 

Full Text: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full

Rumsfeld Memoir 'Known And Unknown' Reveals Doubts But Remains Self-Righteous

via Huffington Post
Marcus Baram

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/rumsfeld-memoir-known-and-unknown_n_818446.html

"Donald Rumsfeld has a few regrets -- but not many.

In his upcoming memoir "Known And Unknown," the Bush-era Pentagon chief lists some of them: claiming that the U.S. knew the location of Iraqi WMDs, not authorizing more troops after the invasion of Iraq, and not quitting after the Abu Ghraib detainee abuse scandal.

But for the most part, Rumsfeld remains defiantly self-righteous about his tenure as Bush's Defense Secretary -- defending his often-criticized decisions and blaming almost everyone else for mistakes that were made -- in the 800-page book, a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post. Notably missing from the book is any mention of Pat Tillman, the football star turned soldier whose death by friendly fire was covered up by the Pentagon.

MITOP and the Double Bind

This is Part 6 of "The Logical Reconstruction of Reality." Parts 1-5 (and the rest of this part) can be accessed at http://www.mdmorrissey.info/title.

I want to elaborate somewhat on the idea of transparent conspiracy (see part 3), lest the idea seem too big to chew. It is chewable, but it takes a little work. Even though I have been chewing on it for some time, I am only now arriving at the conclusion, as I pointed out in part 4, that the theory is correct.
First of all, let's give it a name that will itself be more transpaent: MITOP. We are familiar with LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) and MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose). Now we have "Made It Transparent On Purpose."
What do so many people now think 9/11 was an inside job? Because there are so many reasons to think so? Yes--for all of those reasons, and for one more that not so many people may have thought of: we are supposed to think so. The perpetrators, the people on the inside (Orwell's "Inner Party") want us to think so.