Open AccessArticle

Unanimity, Coexistence, and Rigidity: Three Sides of Polarization

Serge Galam

CEVIPOF—Centre for Political Research, Sciences Po and CNRS, 1 Place Saint Thomas d’Aquin, 75007 Paris, France

Entropy 2023, 25(4), 622; https://doi.org/10.3390/e25040622

Submission received: 6 March 2023 / Revised: 2 April 2023 / Accepted: 4 April 2023 / Published: 6 April 2023

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Entropy-Based Applications in Sociophysics)

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

Political polarization is perceived as a threat to democracies. Using the Galam model of opinion dynamics deployed in a five-dimensional parameter space, I show that polarization is the byproduct of an essential hallmark of a vibrant democratic society, namely open and informal discussions among agents. Indeed, within a homogeneous social community with floaters, the dynamics lead gradually toward unanimity (zero entropy). Polarization can eventually appear as the juxtaposition of non-mixing social groups sharing different prejudices about the issue at stake. On the other hand, the inclusion of contrarian agents produces a polarization within a community that mixes when their proportion x is beyond a critical value

x_{c} = \frac{1}{6} \approx 0.167

for discussing groups of size three and four. Similarly, the presence of stubborn agents also produces a polarization of a community that mixes when the proportion of stubborn agents is greater than some critical value. For equal proportions of stubborn agents a along each opinion,

a_{c} = \frac{2}{9} \approx 0.22

for group size four against

a_{c} = \frac{1}{4} = 0.25

for group size three. However, the evaluation of the proportion of individual opinion shifts at the attractor

\frac{1}{2}

and indicates that the polarization produced by contrarians is fluid with a good deal of agents who keep shifting between the two opposed blocks (high entropy). That favors a coexistence of opposite opinions in a divided community. In contrast, the polarization created by stubborn agents is found to be frozen with very few individuals shifting opinion between the two opinions (low entropy). That yields a basis for the emergence of hate between the frozen opposed blocks.

Keywords:

sociophysics; polarization; opinion dynamics; prejudices; stubbornness; contrarians

1. Introduction

In the last years, the phenomenon of political polarization has become an issue of major concern among scholars, pundits, journalists, and politicians [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Indeed, the current polarization of modern societies is often perceived as a direct and immediate threat to the stability of democratic societies. Both the 2021 American [8] and 2023 Brazilian [9] elections as well as the Israeli 2023 crisis related to the will of reforming the judicial system [10] have enlightened the reality of this fear by exhibiting countries divided into two almost equal, opposite parts, irreconcilable and hating each other. When the hateful trait is present, the polarization is often referred to as affective polarization [3,11]. Polarization also emerges on non-political but societal issues or challenges such as global warming, Brexit, nuclear energy, and secularism.

While the issue of understanding the phenomenon of polarization has attracted a great deal of work, there is still no consensus among the researchers working on the topic as to what causes polarization to occur in a given population [12,13,14]. A good part of the work addresses the issue from the perspective of the dynamics of opinion within sociophysics [15,16,17,18]. Most related papers consider binary variables [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42], with a few having three discrete opinions [43,44]. Among the numerous models is the Galam model, which has been deployed in a multi-dimensional space of parameters to study the competition between discrete opinions [45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54].

In this paper, I review and extend the Galam model of opinion dynamics in connection to the emergence of polarization. Introducing a novel quantifier which calculates the proportions of agents shifting opinion at a given moment, I found that polarization is a threefold feature, which I denote unanimity, coexistence, and rigidity.

The origin of each side of the opinion update scheme is found to stem from heterogeneity among the psychological characters of the agents composing the social group when engaged in a debate about a collective issue. To date, three particular psychological traits have been included with floaters, contrarians, and the stubborn.

The floaters: floaters are agents who have an opinion and argue and vote for it, but eventually they may shift to the opposite one when being in the minority in a local discussion group [47,48,49,50].
The contrarians: contrarians are agents who have an opinion and argue and vote for it but eventually shift to the opposite one when being in the majority in their local discussion group. The shift is independent of the opinions themselves [51].
The stubborn: the stubborn are agents who do have an opinion and argue and vote for it, but contrary to other agents, they stick to their initial opinions whatever the composition of their local discussion group [52,53,54].

The various associated effects on the opinion dynamics can be investigated thanks to a universal formula for the updates of opinions. The formula has been derived within a parameter space of five dimensions which are the size of the discussion groups, the proportion of contrarians, the two proportions of stubborn agents for respective opinions, and the distribution of prejudices in favor of each opinion [45].

The corresponding multi-dimensional phase diagram is rather rich with a combination of both tipping point dynamics and single attractor dynamics as a function of the values of the five parameters. Polarization, unanimity, and coexistence are then recovered as respective deviations from one another as a function of the respective proportions of each psychological subgroup. Those deviations are pinned by the psychological traits which deviate from the associated dynamics towards unanimity.

New results are obtained with respect to the nature of a polarized stable state. In particular, floaters are found to produce segregated polarization (zero entropy), contrarians produce a fluid polarization (high entropy), and the stubborn produce a frozen polarization (low entropy).

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 sets the ground of opinion dynamics with the various ingredients used in the paper. The spontaneous drive towards democratic unanimity is outlined in Section 3. The prejudices breaking a perfect democratic dynamics are reviewed in Section 4, while Section 5 investigates the effect of having contrarian agents on the related dynamics of opinion. The stubborn agents are introduced in Section 6 followed by some conclusions.

2. Opinion Dynamics, Definitions, and Reality

The phenomenon of polarization is mainly used to describe large communities of agents which, over some period of time, are divided into two opposite groups, each considering the other as extreme. These extreme societal visions are generally deployed along a global societal project.

To address this phenomenon and account for the above definition, I consider a community of people who have to decide between two opposite choices denoted A and B. Before the launching of the collective campaign, each agent has reached a choice, either A or B according to its own values, experiences, and visions. These individual alignments yield initial proportions

p_{0}

and

(1 - p_{0})

of agents holding, respectively, opinions A and B. What made each agent’s initial choice is out of the scope of the present work. I only assume that agents are aware of what motivates their respective choices and will argue to promote them among those who have made the opposite choice when debating the topic in an informal social meeting.

Moreover, the model assumes that people discuss informally the issue at stake in small groups during social events, such as dinners, lunches, coffees, drinks, commuting, and more. Even during large gatherings of people, such as, for instance, at a wedding, when the assembly divides into small groups.These ongoing and repeated encounters in small groups shape individual opinions, which end up, over time, as aggregated collective opinions.

The debate will eventually modify the proportions

p_{0}

and

(1 - p_{0})

to new values

p_{T}

and

(1 - p_{T})

, where T is a function of the time at which either a vote is taking place or people stop debating the topic to eventually start on a new one. On this basis, I define three states of polarization.

Unanimity: when $p_{T}$ is either equal to 1 or very large, around 0.80, as well as equal to 0 or very low, around 0.20, I define the associated state as unanimity. Most agents share opinion A in the first case and opinion B in the second one. The values 0.80 and 0.20 are chosen arbitrarily to set a boundary beyond which one opinion overwhelms the other. In reality, these values fluctuate but preserve the feeling of a landslide victory. Having an overwhelming majority of agents who share the same opinion against a small minority holding the other opinion makes the related entropy small and even zero in cases $p_{T} = 1$ and $p_{T} = 0$ .
Coexistence: when $p_{T}$ is of the order of $0.50 \pm 0.03$ , i.e., 0.53 and 0.47, I define the associated state as coexistence if and only if a substantial part of the population keeps shifting opinion without modifying the overall proportions $p_{T}$ and $(1 - p_{T})$ . It means that the global opinion has reached an attractor located around 0.50, but individual choices are not frozen with noticeable parts of the agents who keep shifting opinions. The value $\pm 0.03$ is chosen arbitrarily to set a fuzzy boundary around 0.50. In reality, these values fluctuate a bit but preserve the feeling of a hung outcome in the case of an election. The high level of ongoing shift of individual opinion puts the associated entropy at a high value.
Rigidity: when $p_{T}$ is of the order of $0.50 \pm 0.03$ , i.e., 0.53 and 0.47, I define the associated state as rigidity if and only if the stable global opinion around 0.50 is frozen at individual choices. No noticeable part of the agents keeps shifting opinions. The choices of $\pm 0.03$ are chosen arbitrarily to set a boundary around 0.50. In reality, these values fluctuate a little while preserving the feeling that the winner has stolen its victory from the competitor in the event of an election. In this case, the low level of individual opinion shifts produces a low entropy.

At this stage, to avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to emphasize that the results obtained from the model should not be taken literally. They are intended to be indicators of the hidden trends which drive the dynamics of the social and political reality the model aims to describe.

3. The Spontaneous Drive towards Democratic Unanimity

The Galam model of opinion dynamics operates in three successive steps, which are repeated a number, T, of times. First, agents are distributed randomly in small groups. Second, majority rules are applied simultaneously in each group to update locally the opinions of agents. Third, all agents are reshuffled.

When the population is homogeneous, being composed of only floaters, all agents who are a minority in a group shift opinion to adopt the one having gained the vote majority [47,48,49].

For the sake of readiness and analytical solving, I restrain the review of update groups of size

r = 4

. A random distribution of A and B agents in a group of 4 leads to

2^{4} = 16

possible configurations; 5 configurations have a majority of A, 5 have a majority of B, and 6 have 2 A and 2 B. Majority rule attributes the first five to A and the last five to B. The 6 configurations with a tie do not have a majority, and a physicist would assume that in this case no update occurs, keeping 2 A and 2 B.

Accordingly, starting with an initial proportions

p_{0}

and

(1 - p_{0})

of agents holding respectively opinions A and B, one update cycle leads to new proportions

p_{1}

and

(1 - p_{1})

, where

p_{1}

is given by

p_{1} = p_{0}^{4} + 4 p_{0}^{3} (1 - p_{0}) + 3 p_{0}^{2} {(1 - p_{0})}^{2} .

(1)

The first two terms of Equation (1) account for a majority of A among the 4 agents yielding 4 A, and the last term accounts for the unchanged tie configurations 2 A and 2 B.

After one cycle of updates, agents are reshuffled and distributed again randomly in groups of size four, leading to a proportion

p_{2}

obtained from Equation (1) applied to

p_{1}

. Repeating the process yields a tipping point dynamic, as seen by solving the fixed point equation

p_{1} = p_{0}

, which yields two attractors

p_{A} = 1

and

p_{B} = 0

separated by a tipping point in between located at

p_{c} = \frac{1}{2}

At this stage, it is worth noting that expanding Equation (1) yields

p_{1} = - 2 p^{3} + 3 p^{2}

, which is equal to

p_{1} = p^{3} + 3 p^{2} (1 - p)

, which turns out to be the update Equation for groups of size three. Keeping invariant the tie configuration makes update groups of four agents identical to the update groups of three.

The tipping point

p_{c} = \frac{1}{2}

makes an iteration of Equation (1) to produce a series

p_{0} < p_{1} < \dots < p_{T} \to 1

when

p_{0} > 0.50

. For

p_{0} < 0.50

, the series is

p_{0} > p_{1} > \dots > p_{T} \to 0

. Therefore, the initial majority of aggregated opinions convinces the minority through local and repeated discussions leading towards unanimity, with all agents sharing the same opinion provided enough updates have been made. In this case, at the attractor, the related entropy is thus zero.

Provided that people keep discussing for a sufficient time, I obtain a representation of an ideal perfect democracy. Through informal and open-minded discussions, conflicts between opinions have disappeared with no more difference among the opinions of agents. No additional arguing is required, with everyone sharing the same opinion via a rational process, which made the opinion initially supported by the majority of the agents prevail. The unanimity which has emerged is thus democratic.

It is of importance to underline that in connection to reality, one cycle of opinion update driven by Equation (1) is the equivalent of an average of several local discussions in the real world. The number of these real discussions is a matter of intensity of the ongoing campaign.

4. Prejudices Unconsciously Break the Perfect Democratic Dynamics

However, even within an ideal society, perfection does not exist. Paradoxically, rationality may produce local collective doubts by gathering arguments. The result is two different choices that seem equally valid given the arguments for and against each. Indeed, such a situation appears quite naturally within the model in the tie configurations 2A–2B.

In case of a tie, the agents thus decide either A or B, by chance, as in a coin toss. No rational argument is evoked in the selected choice. They could have equally selected the other one. Mathematically, this tie breaking yields an identical contribution

3 p_{0}^{2} {(1 - p_{0})}^{2}

to Equation (1). However, now at a tie, instead of no update implemented with 2A–2B, all 4 agents choose either A (4A) or B (4B) with equal probabilities.

At this point, I introduce a fundamental assumption to incorporate the human character of agents as opposed to the processing of atoms. I assume that in the event of a tie, all four agents doubt and that this state of doubt unconsciously opens the door to an invisible bias that guides their choice. Therefore, when the group selects “by chance” one choice over the other, the “chance” is being biased along the leading prejudice, which is activated by the issue at stake.

I account for that effect by allocating the group choice to A with probability k and to B with probability

(1 - k)

[50]. The value of k is a function of the distribution of prejudices, which are in tune with opinion A among the agents. The associated update Equation (1) becomes

p_{1, k} = p_{0}^{4} + 4 p_{0}^{3} (1 - p_{0}) + 6 k p_{0}^{2} {(1 - p_{0})}^{2},

(2)

which yields the same two attractors

p_{A, k} = 1

and

p_{B, k} = 0

as above, but now the tipping point is located at

p_{c, k} = \frac{(6 k - 5) + \sqrt{13 - 36 k + 36 k^{2}}}{6 (2 k - 1)} .

(3)

Equation (3) gives

p_{c, 0} = \frac{5 - \sqrt{13}}{6} \approx 0.23

p_{c, \frac{1}{2}} = \frac{1}{2}

and

p_{c, 1} = \frac{1 + \sqrt{13}}{6} \approx 0.77

for respectively

k = 0, \frac{1}{2}, 1

. Therefore,

0 \leq k \leq \frac{1}{2} \Rightarrow 0.23 \leq p_{c, k} \leq \frac{1}{2}

and

\frac{1}{2} \leq k \leq 1 \Rightarrow \frac{1}{2} \leq p_{c, k} \leq 0.77

The case

k = 1

illustrates the phenomenon of minority spreading. Opinion A, being favored by the group prejudice, needs to gather an initial minority proportion of only 0.23 to convince the initial majority of agents who share opinion B to adopt instead opinion A via local and open mind discussions. The previous democratic character of the dynamics has been broken naturally and unconsciously without notice. No coercion has been used.

4.1. Segregated Polarization

While the prejudice effect preserves the dynamic of unanimity, it produces a democratic breaking at the advantage of the opinion in tune with the leading prejudice of a social community. This opinion is either initially held by a minority or a majority of agents.

However, within the same country, different social communities are spread over with their respective members not mixing together in social meetings where informal discussions are being held, and it often happens that in these different communities different prejudices are activated by the same issue at stake. As a result, opposite opinions may end up to spread along opposite unanimities in adjacent communities, creating a de facto stable polarization at a higher aggregated level.

Nevertheless, this segregated frozen polarization is not perceived as a threat or a problem since it subscribes to the specific features which make what differentiates those communities. Moreover, it is usually not used as a background to reach power at global levels, which overrules all communities.

4.2. Combining Groups of Different Sizes

I have restricted the update Equations to groups of sizes three and four, but in practice people discuss in groups of different sizes s. On this basis, it is possible to consider a distribution of group sizes from

s = 1

s = L

, where size 1 accounts for agents who do not discuss during one update, and L is the larger size of group discussion. L is rarely larger than five or six since informal larger groups always split spontaneously into smaller groups.

For a distribution of size s with respective proportions

g_{s}

, Equation (1) becomes

p_{L, 1} = \sum_{s = 1}^{L} \{g_{s} [\sum_{l = \bar{s} + 1}^{s} (\binom{s}{l}) p_{0}^{l} {(1 - p_{0})}^{s - l} + δ [\bar{s} - \frac{s}{2}] k (\binom{s}{s / 2}) p_{0}^{\frac{s}{2}} {(1 - p_{0})}^{\frac{s}{2}}]\},

(4)

where

\bar{s} \equiv [\frac{s}{2}]

with

[\dots]

meaning the integer part,

δ [\dots]

is the Kronecker function and

\sum_{s = 1}^{s = L} g_{s} = 1 .

(5)

The two attractors

p_{A, k} = 1

and

p_{B, k = 0}

obtained from Equation (2) are also the attractors associated with Equation (4). However, the value of the tipping point

p_{c, k}

is now modified as expected. On the one hand, larger even sizes reduce the probability of occurrence of a tie shifting

p_{c, k}

closer to

\frac{1}{2}

, but on the other hand, for size two, the tipping point is located at 0 for

k = 1

and at 1 for

k = 0

. These two opposite effects show that having a combination of sizes for small groups will not modify qualitatively the results obtained for sizes " and four. For instance, choosing

g_{1} = 0.20, g_{2} = 0.30, g_{3} = 0.20, g_{4} = 0.20, g_{5} = 0.10

yields

p_{c, 0} = 0.85

and

p_{c, 1} = 0.15

instead of

p_{c, 0} = 0.77

and

p_{c, 1} = 0.23

for size four.

5. Contrarians Fuel Coexistence

In the case of no prejudice effect (

k = \frac{1}{2}

), the inclusion of a proportion x of contrarians makes the equation (2) written as [51]

p_{1, x} = (1 - 2 x) [p_{0}^{4} + 4 p_{0}^{3} (1 - p_{0}) + 3 p_{0}^{2} {(1 - p_{0})}^{2}] + x,

(6)

which yields three fixed points,

p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}

and

p_{A, x; B, x} = \frac{- 1 + 2 x \pm \sqrt{1 - 8 x + 12 x^{2}}}{2 (- 1 + 2 x)} .

(7)

with the last two being valid only in the range

0 \leq x < x_{c} = \frac{1}{6} \approx 0.167

and

x \geq \frac{1}{2}

. However, for

x \geq \frac{1}{2}

, the two values are not valid since there

p_{A, x} > 1

and

p_{B, x} < 0

The associated dynamics are identified using the parameter

λ_{x} = \frac{p_{1, x}}{d p_{0}} |_{\frac{1}{2}} = \frac{3}{2} (1 - 2 x)

to determine the stability of

p_{c, x}

. The fixed point

p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}

is thus a tipping point when

λ_{x} < - 1

and

λ_{x} > 1

, making

p_{A, x; B, x}

the two attractors of the dynamics. For

- 1 < λ_{x} < 1

p_{c, x}

is an attractor, which implies that in this range

p_{A, x; B, x}

does not exist. Accordingly, to obtain the associated phase diagram, I solve the inequality which makes

p_{c, x}

an attractor,

- 1 < \frac{3}{2} (1 - 2 x) < 1,

(8)

which is identical to

\frac{1}{6} < x < \frac{5}{6} .

(9)

Four distinct regions with different behaviors are obtained from Equation (9), as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Region 1 lies within the range $0 \leq x < x_{c}$ , featuring tipping point dynamics with $p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}$ being the tipping point. The initial majority is increased by the repeated cycles of local discussions with a monotonic convergence towards the relevant attractor, either $p_{A, x}$ when $p_{0} > \frac{1}{2}$ or $p_{B, x}$ when $p_{0} < \frac{1}{2}$ . In the first case, A wins the public debate or the related vote but loses in the second case. In both cases, a core minority B (A) subsists against the majority A (B). The two attractors move towards each other with increasing x towards $x_{c}$ .
Region 2 starts at $x_{c}$ where the two attractors $p_{A, x}$ and $p_{B, x}$ merge and disappear at $p_{c, x}$ , turning the tipping point $p_{c, x}$ into an attractor. The dynamics shifts suddenly from a tipping point one to a single attractor dynamics. In the range $x_{c} \leq x \leq \frac{1}{2}$ , any initial proportion $p_{0}$ is moved monotonously by the update dynamics towards $\frac{1}{2}$ , i.e., an equal proportion of agents hold opinions A and B. We have a perfect stable coexistence of both competing opinions in the range $x_{c} \leq x \leq \frac{1}{2}$ .
Region 3 marks the transition to a situation where contrarians are more numerous than floaters with $x > \frac{1}{2}$ . Due to this fact, while $p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}$ remains an attractor, reaching it follows an oscillatory convergence. The oscillatory convergence holds in the range $\frac{1}{2} < x < \frac{5}{6}$ . Once the attractor has been reached, the two competing opinions coexist at equal proportions as Region 2.
Region 4 is the counter part of region 1 where $p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}$ is again a tipping point, but now, the very high proportion of contrarians turn the dynamics into an oscillating divergence from the tipping point instead of a monotonic divergence. In addition, once an attractor has been reached, the dynamics become oscillating between $p_{A, x}$ and $p_{B, x}$ . Region 4 extends in the range $\frac{5}{6} < x \leq 1$ .

5.1. The Polarization at $p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}$ Is Fluid

In Regions 2 and 3, the stable state is a perfect equality between the respective numbers of agents holding opinions A and B. The community is thus divided into opposite parts, which in turn could lead to feature it as a polarized community. However, that could be misleading since the two opposite parts are not two frozen opposite parts.

Indeed, contrarians make the division fluid with a good number of agents constantly moving from one side to the other but in equal proportions. I thus denote that fluid polarized state as coexistence.

To quantify the degree of fluidity of coexistence, I introduce four new quantities

\begin{matrix} S_{A, p, x_{-}} & = & (1 - x) [p^{3} (1 - p) + \frac{3}{2} p^{2} {(1 - p)}^{2}], \\ S_{A, p, x_{+}} & = & x [{(1 - p)}^{4} + 3 p {(1 - p)}^{3} + \frac{3}{2} p^{2} {(1 - p)}^{2}], \\ S_{B, p, x_{-}} & = & (1 - x) [p {(1 - p)}^{3} + \frac{3}{2} p^{2} {(1 - p)}^{2}], \\ S_{B, p, x_{+}} & = & x [p^{4} + 3 p^{3} (1 - p) + \frac{3}{2} p^{2} {(1 - p)}^{2}], \end{matrix}

(10)

which are, given proportions p and x, the proportions of agents shifting opinions from B to A and from A to B. These shifts are triggered respectively by local majorities (

S_{A, p, x_{-}}, S_{B, p, x_{-}}

) and contrarians (

S_{A, p, x_{+}}, S_{B, p, x_{+}}

) during one update.

The total proportion of agents shifting opinion from B to A during one update is thus

S_{A, p, x} = S_{A, p, x_{-}} + S_{A, p, x_{+}}

and

S_{B, p, x} = S_{B, p, x_{-}} + S_{B, p, x_{+}}

from A to B. The resulting total proportion of shifts is

S_{T, p, x} = S_{A, p, x} + S_{A, p, x}

. With only floaters (no contrarians), the associated values are

S_{A, p, 0}, S_{A, p, 0}, S_{T, p, 0}

k = \frac{1}{2}

Figure 3 shows the variations of theses quantities as a function of p for

x = 0.20

and

x = 0.65

, which are located respectively in Regions 2 and 3, where

p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}

is the attractor of the dynamics.

The top parts exhibit the magnitudes of the shifts with respect to opinion A where $S_{A, p, x_{-}}$ (in red) is the gain from local majority rule diminished by the contrarians. The gain from the loss of local majorities favorable to B is $S_{A, p, x_{+}}$ (in blue). The net gain for A is $S_{A, p, x}$ (in green). When only floaters are discussing, $S_{A, p, 0}$ (in red dashes) is the gain for A.
The middle part exhibits the magnitudes of all shifts at the benefit of A ( $S_{A, p, x}$ in red) and B ( $S_{B, p, x}$ in blue) as well as the total shifts accounting for both A and B ( $S_{T, p, x} = S_{A, p, x} + S_{A, p, x}$ in green). This total is also shown in the absence of contrarians with $S_{T, p, 0}$ (in red dashes).
The bottom part exhibits the magnitude of the difference $S_{A, p, x} - S_{A, p, x}$ (in red) in proportions of shifts at the benefit of respectively A and B. The equivalent $S_{A, p, 0} - S_{A, p, 0}$ (in blue) with only floaters is also shown.

To label the nature of the polarized state at the attractor, I evaluate the total proportion of shifts at

p = p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}

as a function of x. From Equation (10), the associated proportions of individual shifts are

S_{A, \frac{1}{2}, x} = S_{B, \frac{1}{2}, x} = \frac{5 + 6 x}{32}

and

S_{T, \frac{1}{2}, x} = \frac{5 + 6 x}{16}

. It yields 0.388 and 0.556 for

x = 0.20

and

x = 0.65

, respectively. The attractor is thus marked by a significant proportion of individual shifts between A and B. Despite the division of the community into two opposite halves, the high fluidity between the groups prevents the setting of hate between them. On this basis, I label that polarization as coexistence. The associated entropy is high.

It is worth noting that, having

S_{T, \frac{1}{2}, 0.65} = 0.556

points, above fifty percent of contrarians, the magnitude of individual shifts becomes smaller than the proportion of contrarians as expected with more contrarians than floaters and shown in the upper part of Figure 4.

5.2. The Magnitude of Fluidity Is a Function of the Discussion Group Size

I showed in Section 3 that keeping invariant the tie configuration makes the update rule identical for both groups of four and three agents. However this equality does not hold with respect to the proportions of individual opinion shifts at the attractor

p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}

. Indeed, for groups of size three, Equation (10) is

\begin{matrix} S_{A, p, x_{-}} & = & (1 - x) p^{2} (1 - p), \\ S_{A, p, x_{+}} & = & x [{(1 - p)}^{3} + 2 p {(1 - p)}^{2}], \\ S_{B, p, x_{-}} & = & (1 - x) p {(1 - p)}^{2}, \\ S_{B, p, x_{+}} & = & x [p^{3} + 2 p^{2} (1 - p)], \end{matrix}

(11)

yielding

S_{T, \frac{1}{2}, x} = \frac{1 + 2 x}{4}

, giving 0.350 and 0.575 for

x = 0.20

and

x = 0.65

, respectively.

Middle and lower parts of Figure 4 exhibit the proportions of individual shifts as a function of p for groups of size three and four with

x = 0

x = 0.20

, and

x = 0.65

The results indicate that larger groups of discussion increase the magnitude of individual shifts and thus enlarge the coexistence part of the divided community.

However, it is worth stressing that in the case of size four, keeping the tie 2A2B unchanged implies a weaker magnitude of individual shifts against turning the tie 2A2B into either 4A or 4B with equal probabilities

\frac{1}{2}

. In the first case, at the attractor, the magnitude of shifts is

\frac{1 + 3 x}{8}

versus

\frac{5 + 6 x}{16}

for the second case. For groups of size three, the magnitude is

\frac{1 + 2 x}{4}

. Table 1 shows the respective magnitudes as a function of x and for

x = 0.20

and

x = 0.65

Thus, when nothing happens at a tie, groups of size four involve less shifts than groups of size three. Indeed, in the unchanged tie case, contrarians are neutralized at a tie by the absence of local majority. The proportion of groups at a tie being

6 p^{2} {(1 - p)}^{2}

, its value at the attractor

p = \frac{1}{2}

is significant with

\frac{3}{8} = 0.375

Variations of the different magnitudes of individual shifts as a function of x are shown in the upper part of Figure 4. All three cases exhibit a good deal of fluidity between the two opposite halves of the community. Contrarians add to the fluidity of the polarized state by their own shifts of opinion.

6. Stubbornness Produces Polarization

Denoting a and b the respective proportions of stubborn agents along opinions A and B and keeping a balanced prejudice effect with

k = \frac{1}{2}

, update Equation (1) is written [52],

\begin{matrix} p_{1, a, b} = & p_{0}^{4} + 4 p_{0}^{3} (1 - p_{0}) + 3 p_{0}^{2} {(1 - p_{0})}^{2} \\ + & \frac{a}{2} {(1 - p_{0})}^{2} (2 + p_{0}) - \frac{b}{2} p_{0}^{2} ([3 - p_{0}) . \end{matrix}

(12)

While Equations (1) and (6) have one parameter each, k and x, Equation (12) has two parameters, a and b, which makes it richer with respect to its dynamics. Figure 5 illustrates the various associated regimes exhibiting the interplay of attractors and tipping points as a function of a for

b = 0, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25

. Two regimes are found.

Regime 1 The first regime is shown in Figure 5 for $b = 0, 0.15, 0.20$ , where two dynamics are taking place. For small values of a, the dynamic is a tipping point dynamic, but the associated region shrinks with increasing values of b. When a becomes a bit large, above about $0.20$ , the dynamics become a single attractor dynamic with A always winning over B.
Regime 2 The second regime shown in Figure 5 for $b = 0.20$ has a unique type of dynamics with single attractor dynamics. The opinion having more stubborn agents on its side eventually wins over the other.

At this stage, for the sake of simplicity and without loss of generality, I investigate further the case

a = b

, which allows an analytical solution. In this case, Equation (12) becomes

p_{1, a, b} = - 2 p_{0}^{3} + 3 p_{0}^{2} + \frac{a}{2} (2 p_{0}^{3} - 3 p_{0}^{2} - 3 p + 2),

(13)

which yields three fixed points,

p_{c, a} = \frac{1}{2}

and

p_{A, a; B, b} = \frac{- 2 + a \pm \sqrt{4 - 20 a + 9 a^{2}}}{2 (- 2 + a)} .

(14)

with last two being valid only in the range

0 \leq a < a_{c} = \frac{2}{9} \approx 0.22

Therefore, regime 1 prevails in the range

0 \leq a < a_{c} = \frac{2}{9}

with

p_{c, a} = \frac{1}{2}

acting as a tipping point between the two attractors

p_{A, a}

and

p_{B, a}

. On the other hand, regime 2 prevails for

\frac{2}{9} \leq a \leq \frac{1}{2}

with

p_{c, a} = \frac{1}{2}

being the unique attractor, as seen in Figure 6.

The polarization arises in regime 2 monitored by the attractor

p_{c, a} = \frac{1}{2}

. It is worth to mention that in case

a \neq b

with a small difference between a and b the polarization still occurs but then the two opposite parts are unequal. Either A (

a > b

) or B (

a < b

) has a numerical advantage at the attractor.

6.1. Size Three for the Discussion Group

Earlier study of the case of size three with stubborn agents has the update Equation

p_{1, a, b} = p_{0}^{3} + 3 p_{0}^{2} (1 - p_{0} - \frac{b}{3}) + a {(1 - p_{0})}^{2}

(15)

instead of Equation (12). With

a = b

, the associated fixed points are

p_{c, a} = \frac{1}{2}

(as for size 4) and,

p_{A, a; B, b} = \frac{1}{2} (1 \pm \sqrt{1 - 4 a}) .

(16)

with last two being valid only in the range

0 \leq a < a_{c} = \frac{1}{4} = 0.25

instead of

a_{c} = \frac{2}{9} \approx 0.22

for size four.

It is worth notiing that while contrarians do not modify the value

x_{c}

when moving from size three to four, stubborn agents do modify

a_{c}

from size three to four.

6.2. The Rigidity of the Stubborn Made Polarization

Along the analysis of the fluidity of polarization produced by contrarians, I now evaluate the extent of freezing produced by stubborn agents within the two opposite halves of the population. Equations (10) and (11) are deeply modified since stubbornness reduces only the shifting of agents from each opinion. The related shifts from B to A and from A to B are written, respectively,

\begin{matrix} S_{A, p, a} & = & \frac{1}{2} p^{2} (1 - p - b) (3 - p), \\ S_{B, p, b} & = & \frac{1}{2} {(1 - p)}^{2} (p - a) (2 + p), \end{matrix}

(17)

with by symmetry

S_{A, p, a} = S_{B, 1 - p, b}

Setting

a = b

, when

a > a_{c} = \frac{2}{9}

, the unique attractor of the dynamics is

p_{c, a} = \frac{1}{2}

, as seen in Figure 6. The associated total proportion of shifts is

S_{T, p, a} = \frac{5}{8} (\frac{1}{2} - b)

(Figure 4). It yields

0.188

for

a = 0.20

, which is quite low. Accordingly, at the attractor, the community is mostly frozen between two opposite halves. With

a = 0.25

the shifts amount to only

0.156

7. Conclusions

I have addressed the issue of polarization using the Galam model of opinion dynamics to find that within its frame, polarization arises spontaneously by the dynamics of opinions in the presence of either contrarians or stubborn agents.

Moreover, by calculating the proportion of individual opinion shifts at the attractor

p_{c, a} = \frac{1}{2}

, I unveiled three types of polarization, which all arise from the same local majority update dynamics.

The fluid polarization is produced by contrarian agents with a good deal of agents who keep shifting opinion between the two opposite parts of the community. This polarization favors a coexistence between the group with a related high entropy.
The frozen polarization is produced by stubborn agents, which in turn provides a social and psychological basis for hate between the two split parts of a community with a kind of inside ignorance of the other side, with a low value entropy. The community is trapped in a rigid distribution of opinions.
The segregated polarization is produced by floaters In the absence of contrarians and stubborn agents. The dynamics lead toward unanimity within a connected social subgroup and to segregated polarization between adjacent non-mixing sub-communities. Associated entropies are zero.

In a future work, I intend to investigate the combined effect of mixing together the three kinds of agents, the floaters, the contrarians, and the stubborn.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No data has been used. No data has been created.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

Gajewski, L.G.; Sienkiewicz, J.; Holyst, J.A. Transitions between polarization and radicalization in a temporal bilayer echo-chamber model. Phys. Rev. E 2022, 105, 024125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kaufman, M.; Kaufman, S.; Diep, H.T. Statistical Mechanics of Political Polarization. Entropy 2022, 24, 1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Törnberg, P.; Andersson, C.; Lindgren, K.; Banisch, S. Modeling the emergence of affective polarization in the social media society. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0258259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zafeiris, A. Opinion Polarization in Human Communities Can Emerge as a Natural Consequence of Beliefs Being Interrelated. Entropy 2022, 24, 1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Baumann, F.; Lorenz-Spreen, P.; Sokolov, I.M.; Starnini, M. Emergence of polarized ideological opinions in multidimensional topic spaces. Phys. Rev. 2021, 11, 011012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Doniec, M.; Lipiecki, A.; Sznajd-Weron, K. Consensus, Polarization and Hysteresis in the Three-State Noisy q-Voter Model with Bounded Confidence. Entropy 2022, 24, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sobkowicz, P. Social Depolarization and Diversity of Opinions-Unified ABM Framework. Entropy 2023, 25, 568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack (accessed on 1 January 2023).
Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Brazilian_Congress_attack (accessed on 1 January 2023).
Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform (accessed on 1 January 2023).
Iyengar, S.; Lelkes, Y.; Levendusky, M.; Malhotra, N.; Westwood, S.J. The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2019, 22, 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schweighofer, S.; Schweitzer, F.; Garcia, D. A weighted balance model of opinion hyperpolarization. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 2020, 23, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Saintier, N.; Pinasco, J.P.; Vazquez, F. A model for the competition between political mono-polarization and bi-polarization. Chaos 2020, 30, 063146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Waldner, D.; Lust, E. Unwelcome change: Coming to terms with democratic backsliding. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2018, 21, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brazil, R. The physics of public opinion, Physics World. January Issue. 2020. Available online: https://physicsworld.com/a/the-physics-of-public-opinion/ (accessed on 1 January 2023).
Schweitzer, F. Sociophysics. Phys. Today 2018, 71, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Galam, S. Sociophysics: A Physicist’s Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Chakrabarti, B.K.; Chakraborti, A.; Chatterjee, A. (Eds.) Econophysics and Sociophysics: Trends and Perspectives; Wiley-VCH Verlag: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
Da Luz, M.G.E.; Anteneodo, C.; Crokidakis, N.; Perc, M. Sociophysics: Social collective behavior from the physics point of view. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2023, 170, 113379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Crokidakis, N.; Sigaud, L. Role of inflexible minorities in the evolution of alcohol consumption. J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2022, 9, 093403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tiwari, M.; Yang, X.; Sen, S. Modeling the nonlinear effects of opinion kinematics in elections: A simple Ising model with random field based study. Physica 2021, 582, 126287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tòth, G.; Galam, S. Deviations from the Majority: A Local Flip Model. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2107.09344v1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kowalska-Styczeń, A.; Malarz, K. Noise induced unanimity and disorder in opinion formation. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235313. [Google Scholar]
Maciel, M.V.; Martins, A.C.R. Ideologically motivated biases in a multiple issues opinion model. Physica 2020, 553, 124293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Redner, S. Reality-inspired voter models: A mini-review. Comptes Rendus Phys. 2019, 20, 275–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Galam, S.; Moscovici, S. Towards a theory of collective phenomena. III: Conflicts and Forms of Power. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 25, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jedrzejewski, A.; Marcjasz, G.; Nail, P.R.; Sznajd-Weron, K. Think then act or act then think? PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0206166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Singh, P.; Sreenivasan, S.; Szymanski, B.K.; Korniss, G. Competing effects of social balance and influence. Phys. Rev. E 2016, 93, 042306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Cheon, T.; Morimoto, J. Balancer effects in opinion dynamics. Phys. Lett. A 2016, 380, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Galam, S.; Mauger, A. On reducing terrorism power: A hint from physics. Physica 2003, 323, 695–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Crokidakis, N. Radicalization phenomena: Phase transitions, extinction processes and control of violent activities. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2212.11361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bagnoli, F.; Rechtman, R. Bifurcations in models of a society of reasonable contrarians and conformists. Phys. Rev. E 2015, 92, 042913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Carbone, G.; Giannoccaro, I. Model of human collective decision-making in complex environments. Eur. Phys. J. B 2015, 88, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sznajd-Weron, K.; Szwabiński, J.; Weron, R. Is the Person-Situation Debate Important for Agent-Based Modeling and Vice-Versa? PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e112203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chacoma, A.; Zanette, D.H. Critical phenomena in the spreading of opinion consensus and disagreement. Pap. Phys. 2014, 6, 060003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Florian, R.; Galam, S. Optimizing conflicts in the formation of strategic alliances. Eur. Phys. J. -Condens. Matter Complex Syst. 2000, 16, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Javarone, M.A. Networks strategies in election campaigns. J. Stat. Mech. 2014, 2014, P08013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Goncalves, S.; Laguna, M.F.; Iglesias, J.R. Why, when, and how fast innovations are adopted. Eur. Phys. J. B 2012, 85, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Ellero, A.; Fasano, G.; Sorato, A. A modified Galam’s model for word-of-mouth information exchange. Physica 2009, 388, 3901–3910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gimenez, M.C.; Reinaudi, L.; Vazquez, F. Contrarian Voter Model under the Influence of an Oscillating Propaganda: Consensus, Bimodal Behavior and Stochastic Resonance. Entropy 2022, 24, 1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Iacominia, E.; Vellucci, P. Contrarian effect in opinion forming: Insights from Greta Thunberg phenomenon. J. Math. Sociol. 2023, 47, 123–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brugnoli, E.; Delmastro, M. Dynamics of (mis)information flow and engaging power of narratives. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2207.12264v2. [Google Scholar]
Calvõ, A.M.; Ramos, M.; Anteneodo, C. Role of the plurality rule in multiple choices. J. Stat. Mech. 2016, 2016, 023405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Mobilia, M. Fixation and polarization in a three-species opinion dynamics model. Eur. Phys. Lett. 2011, 95, 50002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Galam, S.; Cheon, T. Tipping points in opinion dynamics: A universal formula in five dimensions. Front. Phys. 2020, 8, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Galam, S. Opinion Dynamics and Unifying Principles: A Global Unifying Frame. Entropy 2022, 24, 1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Galam, S. Majority rule, hierarchical structures, and democratic totalitarianism: A statistical approach. J. Math. Psychol. 1986, 30, 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Galam, S.; Chopard, B.; Masselot, A.; Droz, M. Competing species dynamics: Qualitative advantage versus geography. Eur. Phys. J. B 1998, 4, 529–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Galam, S. Minority Opinion Spreading in Random Geometry. Eur. Phys. J. B 2002, 25, 403–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Galam, S. Heterogeneous beliefs, segregation, and extremism in the making of public opinions. Phys. Rev. 2005, 71, 046123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Galam, S. Contrarian Deterministic Effects on Opinion Dynamics: The Hung Elections Scenario. Physica 2004, 333, 453–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Galam, S.; Jacobs, F. The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics. Physica 2007, 381, 366–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Galam, S. Collective beliefs versus individual inflexibility: The unavoidable biases of a public debate. Phys. Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2011, 390, 3036–3054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Martins, A.C.R.; Galam, S. Building up of individual inflexibility in opinion dynamics. Phys. Rev. 2013, 87, 042807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]

Figure 1. Contrarians produce four distinct regions with different behaviors as a function of their proportion. A tipping point dynamic with

p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}

prevails in the range

0 \leq x < x_{c}

(region 1). The two associated attractors feature a stable coexistence of a majority and a minority. In the range

x_{c} \leq x \leq \frac{1}{2}

, the dynamics turn into a one-attractor dynamic located at

\frac{1}{2}

. Any initial support

p_{0}

moves monotonously towards

\frac{1}{2}

with repeating local updates (region 2). There, both opinions coexist in a perfect overall balance. When

\frac{1}{2} < x < \frac{5}{6}

the dynamics are still monitored by one attractor at

\frac{1}{2}

, but the convergence towards it becomes oscillatory (region 3). The fourth region extends in the range

\frac{5}{6} < x \leq 1

. The dynamic returns to a tipping point one but with oscillatory dynamics between the two attractors (region 4).

Figure 1. Contrarians produce four distinct regions with different behaviors as a function of their proportion. A tipping point dynamic with

p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}

prevails in the range

0 \leq x < x_{c}

(region 1). The two associated attractors feature a stable coexistence of a majority and a minority. In the range

x_{c} \leq x \leq \frac{1}{2}

, the dynamics turn into a one-attractor dynamic located at

\frac{1}{2}

. Any initial support

p_{0}

moves monotonously towards

\frac{1}{2}

with repeating local updates (region 2). There, both opinions coexist in a perfect overall balance. When

\frac{1}{2} < x < \frac{5}{6}

the dynamics are still monitored by one attractor at

\frac{1}{2}

, but the convergence towards it becomes oscillatory (region 3). The fourth region extends in the range

\frac{5}{6} < x \leq 1

. The dynamic returns to a tipping point one but with oscillatory dynamics between the two attractors (region 4).

Figure 2. Illustration of the dynamics of opinions in each one of the four regions produced by contrarians with respectively

x = 0.10, p_{0} = 0.40

(upper left),

x = 0.25, p_{0} = 0.20

(upper right),

x = 0.70, p_{0} = 0.20

(lower left),

x = 0.90, p_{0} = 0.35

(lower right). All cases have

k = \frac{1}{2}

. The respective values of the attractors and tipping points are indicated (in red).

Figure 2. Illustration of the dynamics of opinions in each one of the four regions produced by contrarians with respectively

x = 0.10, p_{0} = 0.40

(upper left),

x = 0.25, p_{0} = 0.20

(upper right),

x = 0.70, p_{0} = 0.20

(lower left),

x = 0.90, p_{0} = 0.35

(lower right). All cases have

k = \frac{1}{2}

. The respective values of the attractors and tipping points are indicated (in red).

Figure 3. Given

x = 0.20

(region 2, left part) and

x = 0.65

(region 3, right part), the Figure shows the variations of

S_{A, p, x_{-}}, S_{A, p, x_{+}}, S_{A, p, x}, S_{A, p, 0}

(upper part),

S_{A, p, x}, S_{B, p, x}, S_{T, p, x}, S_{T, p, 0}

(middle part),

S_{A, p, x} - S_{B, p, x}, S_{A, p, 0} - S_{B, p, 0}

(lower part), as a function of p.

Figure 3. Given

x = 0.20

(region 2, left part) and

x = 0.65

(region 3, right part), the Figure shows the variations of

S_{A, p, x_{-}}, S_{A, p, x_{+}}, S_{A, p, x}, S_{A, p, 0}

(upper part),

S_{A, p, x}, S_{B, p, x}, S_{T, p, x}, S_{T, p, 0}

(middle part),

S_{A, p, x} - S_{B, p, x}, S_{A, p, 0} - S_{B, p, 0}

(lower part), as a function of p.

Figure 4. The upper part shows

S_{T, \frac{1}{2}, x}

with

\frac{5 + 6 x}{16}

for size 4 (in blue),

\frac{1 + 3 x}{8}

for size 4 with no change at ties (in dotted blue),

\frac{1 + 2 x}{4}

for size 3 (in red) and

S_{T, \frac{1}{2}, a} = \frac{5}{8} (\frac{1}{2} - x)

for stubborn agents studied below (in magenta). The middle part shows

S_{A, p, x_{-}}, S_{A, p, x_{+}}, S_{A, p, x},

for size 3 (in red, blue, green) and 4 (in dashed red, dashed blue, dashed green) at respectively

x = 0.20

and

x = 0.65

. The quantities at

x = 0

are added in both cases (in black for size 3 and dashed black for size 4).

Figure 4. The upper part shows

S_{T, \frac{1}{2}, x}

with

\frac{5 + 6 x}{16}

for size 4 (in blue),

\frac{1 + 3 x}{8}

for size 4 with no change at ties (in dotted blue),

\frac{1 + 2 x}{4}

for size 3 (in red) and

S_{T, \frac{1}{2}, a} = \frac{5}{8} (\frac{1}{2} - x)

for stubborn agents studied below (in magenta). The middle part shows

S_{A, p, x_{-}}, S_{A, p, x_{+}}, S_{A, p, x},

for size 3 (in red, blue, green) and 4 (in dashed red, dashed blue, dashed green) at respectively

x = 0.20

and

x = 0.65

. The quantities at

x = 0

are added in both cases (in black for size 3 and dashed black for size 4).

Figure 5. Attractors and tipping points as a function of a for a given b from Equation (12). Four cases are exhibited with

b = 0

b = 0.15

b = 0.20

, and

b = 0.25

Figure 5. Attractors and tipping points as a function of a for a given b from Equation (12). Four cases are exhibited with

b = 0

b = 0.15

b = 0.20

, and

b = 0.25

Figure 6. The two distinct regimes produced by stubborn agents as a function of their proportion for

a = b

. A tipping point dynamic with

p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}

prevails in the range

0 \leq a < a_{c}

. The two associated attractors feature a stable coexistence of a majority and a minority. In the range

a_{c} \leq a \frac{1}{2}

, the dynamic is driven by one single attractor located at

\frac{1}{2}

. Any initial support

p_{0} < 1 - a

moves monotonously towards

\frac{1}{2}

with repeating local updates. There, both opinions coexist in a perfect balance.

Figure 6. The two distinct regimes produced by stubborn agents as a function of their proportion for

a = b

. A tipping point dynamic with

p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}

prevails in the range

0 \leq a < a_{c}

. The two associated attractors feature a stable coexistence of a majority and a minority. In the range

a_{c} \leq a \frac{1}{2}

, the dynamic is driven by one single attractor located at

\frac{1}{2}

. Any initial support

p_{0} < 1 - a

moves monotonously towards

\frac{1}{2}

with repeating local updates. There, both opinions coexist in a perfect balance.

Table 1. Total proportion of individual shits

S_{T, \frac{1}{2}, x}

at the attractor

p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}

for sizes 3, 4 with tie-breaking and 4 with unchanged tie. The related values are also shown for

x = 0.20

and

x = 0.65

Table 1. Total proportion of individual shits

S_{T, \frac{1}{2}, x}

at the attractor

p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}

for sizes 3, 4 with tie-breaking and 4 with unchanged tie. The related values are also shown for

x = 0.20

and

x = 0.65

Size	3	4	4 Unchanged
$S_{T, \frac{1}{2}, x}$	$\frac{1 + 2 x}{4}$	$\frac{5 + 6 x}{16}$	$\frac{1 + 3 x}{8}$
$S_{T, \frac{1}{2}, 0.20}$	0.35	0.388	0.20
$S_{T, \frac{1}{2}, 0.65}$	0.575	0.556	0.369

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Galam, S. Unanimity, Coexistence, and Rigidity: Three Sides of Polarization. Entropy 2023, 25, 622. https://doi.org/10.3390/e25040622

AMA Style

Galam S. Unanimity, Coexistence, and Rigidity: Three Sides of Polarization. Entropy. 2023; 25(4):622. https://doi.org/10.3390/e25040622

Chicago/Turabian Style

Galam, Serge. 2023. "Unanimity, Coexistence, and Rigidity: Three Sides of Polarization" Entropy 25, no. 4: 622. https://doi.org/10.3390/e25040622

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

Unanimity, Coexistence, and Rigidity: Three Sides of Polarization

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Opinion Dynamics, Definitions, and Reality

3. The Spontaneous Drive towards Democratic Unanimity

4. Prejudices Unconsciously Break the Perfect Democratic Dynamics

4.1. Segregated Polarization

4.2. Combining Groups of Different Sizes

5. Contrarians Fuel Coexistence

5.1. The Polarization at $p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}$ Is Fluid

5.2. The Magnitude of Fluidity Is a Function of the Discussion Group Size

6. Stubbornness Produces Polarization

6.1. Size Three for the Discussion Group

6.2. The Rigidity of the Stubborn Made Polarization

7. Conclusions

Funding

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI

Article Menu

Unanimity, Coexistence, and Rigidity: Three Sides of Polarization

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Opinion Dynamics, Definitions, and Reality

3. The Spontaneous Drive towards Democratic Unanimity

4. Prejudices Unconsciously Break the Perfect Democratic Dynamics

4.1. Segregated Polarization

4.2. Combining Groups of Different Sizes

5. Contrarians Fuel Coexistence

5.1. The Polarization at p c , x = 1 2 Is Fluid

5.2. The Magnitude of Fluidity Is a Function of the Discussion Group Size

6. Stubbornness Produces Polarization

6.1. Size Three for the Discussion Group

6.2. The Rigidity of the Stubborn Made Polarization

7. Conclusions

Funding

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI

5.1. The Polarization at $p_{c, x} = \frac{1}{2}$ Is Fluid