We are often more certain than the evidence really allows.
More quotesPerson 0 acts with nobody else.
Person 1 needs one person acting.
Person 2 needs two.
Continue the sequence and a whole crowd moves.
Change person 1’s threshold to two and the event stops after the first individual. Near-identical crowd; one different value; riot becomes tantrum.
Average enthusiasm cannot reveal that structure. Collective behaviour depends on who moves early, whose action counts for whom, and whether each step supplies enough evidence for the next threshold. Ninety people may approve privately and remain still while each waits to see ten others.
This creates absurd confidence in surveys asking, “Would you attend?” or “Would you switch?” The answer describes an isolated intention. The real action may depend on friends, visible uptake, perceived safety and whether the first participants resemble the person answering.
Trace the sequence. Find people willing to act with little social proof. Observe where movement stalls. At that point, another testimonial may be useless if the next group needs lower risk, easier action or participation from a different kind of person.
The model is simple and reality is messier. Thresholds change; networks matter; people leave as well as join. But it explains why two apparently similar populations can surprise us in opposite directions.
Person 0 shouts.
Person 2 watches.
Nothing else happens yet.