1 Unanimous Indifference and Diversity in Social Systems: Simulating Mechanisms for Maintenance and Change Edmund Chattoe 1 Centre for Research on Simulation in the Social Sciences (CRESS) Department of Sociology University of Surrey Guildford GU2 5XH, UK E.Chattoe@surrey.ac.uk http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/staff/edmund_chattoe.html 25th October 1999 IMAGES WORKING PAPER UOS-99-02 PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN INTERNAL WORKING PAPER FOR DISCUSSION ONLY. PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT CONSULTING THE AUTHOR. Abstract This paper focuses on the relationship between two “everyday” beliefs about social systems. The first is that the variable attributes of individuals (attitudes, beliefs, opinions) in a social system do not typically tend to unanimous indifference. The second is that the attitudes, beliefs and opinions of individuals in a social system undergo some mutual influence. This paper uses simulation to explore a number of different mechanisms for such influence and shows that many of them have a strong tendency to unanimous indifference. It also explores some mechanisms that avoid this phenomenon. The intention is to suggest individual interaction and decision mechanisms for individuals that are behaviourally plausible without leading to implausible collective behaviour (unanimous indifference). The paper also attempts to situate its findings within the existing literature. 1. Introduction There are two beliefs about human behaviour that seem both widely true and essential to an interesting social science. The first is that unanimity of attitude, belief or opinion is very much the exception rather than the rule. 2 Economics and politics - constituting significant areas of 1 This paper has benefitted from extensive discussions with Nigel Gilbert and Guillaume Deffuant. 2 There are interesting areas of research that run contrary to this observation. Freudian psychology identifies common drives that may manifest themselves in different ways. Conversation Analysis attempts to identify common patterns in the diversity of everyday talk. Anthropology has drawn attention to areas of unconscious unanimity like the use of “category breaking” words as terms of abuse. There is also some evidence (Fishbein and Ritchey 1999) that the intuition about social influence is just wrong under certain circumstances.