How Clusters are Maintained when the Stakes are High: Antivaxxers
We have talked about cascades in the context of every node having to make a decision about something, which is often portrayed as a product. This product is not necessarily very good or very bad but rather seen as something that may be “worth it” or “not worth” depending on the connections to other nodes any node may have and the decisions that the connected nodes have made. But what happens when the decision is not something that is generally accepted as being morally ambiguous? what if the decision is something that could have very dangerous consequences? As the first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are delivered to all 50 states, one cannot but fear that not enough individuals will be willing to become vaccinated for the vaccine to be helpful and effective in stopping the spread of Covid-19. This fear would not be generally unfounded either. The Pew Research Center found in September that only 51% of Americans would “definitely” or “probably” get the vaccine, while the remaining 49% said they would “definitely” or “probably” not get it. This number has since climbed to 60% but is still relatively low.
Now, it is unreasonable to assume that 49% of the population could be labeled as individuals who are staunchly anti-vaccine, but the problem brings into question how clusters that may actively impede a cascade such as pro-vaccine thought are created and maintained. After all, would not the larger pro-vaccine group of nodes be able to overpower smaller clusters by virtue of the sheer number of nodes and abundance of evidence? I believe that these clusters can exist and thrive because of the teachings and arguments of the cluster selecting for people that are not connected enough to exceed the current density of the cluster and are thus able to actively protect the cluster and grow it. Anti-vaccine Facebook groups such as the one noted in the article argue that vaccines are a government “conspiracy to kill children” or that they may cause “autism”. The same Pew Research Center article noted that the higher an education level an individual has the more likely they are to be interested in receiving the Covid 19 vaccine. This is not to say that anti-vaccine individuals are necessarily not as smart as anyone else but it is understandable and reasonable to assume that individuals who did not receive a college or high school diploma will not be as closely connected to individuals who have and are more privy to current scientific findings and conclusions. These connections would be imperative to keep a would-be anti-vaccine individual in the pro-vaccine group and they are just not there.
The clusters built on an “Us vs. Them” mentality, such as the argument that the government or big pharma are out to get the general public, is then able to survive because it is hyper-aware of the density of the group and the arguments being made. If an individual joins who has too much outside connection, it is easy to picture what may happen to them: they may be discounted as essentially conspiring with the enemy and told to cut contact with the outside or leave. These pivotal points are real-time applications of a cluster trying to protect itself. Cutting contact would at least maintain the overall density of the cluster because that node is no longer posing a threat as “the most connected to the outside”, and forcing the individual to leave would ensure that the current density is maintained. The cluster is only as strong as its most connected member, and this member will always be under the scrutiny of the cluster because of the nature of their connections, regardless of how much they may or may not believe in anything.
I have had personal experience with tight-knit communities and have seen first hand how the dynamics of vaccination play out in relation to cascade effects. An individual I was friendly with had decided to go get and get vaccinated despite her parent’s desires. She had explained how her parents among others in the community had immediately begun to make comments on her judgment and commitment to the values she was raised to respect and uphold. As an outsider looking in, it is now clear this was in fact an internal node in a cluster. This node had been turned to not only the “other” choice but the choice that the rest of the cluster believes is fundamentally wrong. The cascade was moving in but the cluster was fighting back in the only way they could: to control its own density by focusing on individuals that may pose sufficient risk to the rest of the group.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/anti-vax-covid-vaccines-pfizer-fda-washington-b1774013.html
https://qz.com/1579023/how-people-become-anti-vaxxers-and-how-to-stop-them/