Public vs. doomers dichotomy

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

My curiousity is at an all time high regarding the supposed NGI's and the GI's. I consider myself one who see's the potential challenges involved with the rollover. Preparations have been underway for a few months. My question is why the obviously huge disparity between the masses and the few Technical and non-technical people that are preparing like mad. Not being a programmer, I can trace my own evolution with this subject back a couple years, just comming across the subject on a PBS channel. Then was introduced to Gary Norths site in Feb.99 by an I.T. guy at Multi-national company in Detroit. Since then it has been nothing but read,search,prepare,read,search,prepare. I'm curious what others evolution has been with this subject and why some minds are receptive to the point of action and others refute and defend the seeming indefensible?

Respectfully, D.B.

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), June 13, 1999

Answers

Dear David,

Here is my answer (unpleasant though it is) to your question. This applies not only to why some people have prepared for possible Y2K problems, but for many other personal decisions as well. The fact is, only a relatively small fraction (I estimate about 5% or so) of people are able to think rationaly. Granted, most people manage to function in their daily lives, but it is not because they are rational. They are doing something inside their brains, manipulating and experiencing feelings and emotions, but it is not a rational process. It is a non-rational thought process and (just like most wild animals manage to survive and thrive without rationality)is adequate for 99% of a creature's needs. These non-rational people are often very successful, perhaps kind, perhaps respected public figures with a long string of diplomas and awards, but they are not actualy living in the same conceptual world that you experience. They place primacy on how they feel or on what they desire to be true, not on what the cold hard facts show.

Be very careful when you deal with such people. You cannot reason or compromise with them, not for long. You can't reason with a wild animal. If you try to compromise, you will find that you may maintain the mutual deal, but in a short while they will want another concession from you, and another, and another... Why? Because after you reach a compromise, you will now have a new fact (the mutual agreement) to consider, but once their feeling of excitment or satisfaction has worn off, they will have (once again)the same old feelings they had before the agreement, so they will demand (once again) that you give them another concession.

If you recognize such a person, remember that if they are aware of your preparations they will come empty handed and knock on your door if the need arises. They may be saying right now that you are a fool, or crazy, but if they have a feeling of need, then that feeling is all that matters, and they will claim your preparations to be their rightful property. Why? Because they feel like it.

D'Joan

-- D'Joan (doghouse@alpharalpha.blvd), June 13, 1999.


Doug Carmichael has some good things to say about this; my nutshell synopsis is that those who believe in the present day culture as reality think nothing can ever happen to disrupt it. It is a belief system like a religion. Those who have experience of other realities, for example folks who lived through the Great Depression and WW2, or those who have a real religion like Christianity, see that this false belief system is not reality.

Essentially,one is asking people to give up the religion of endless prosperity and no consequences.

Religious wars are the worst!

-- seraphima (seraphima@aol.com), June 13, 1999.


D'Joan has made some interesting points, so I'll add to them. I tend to think that too many either ignore or simply do not have intuition. My discovery was based on the arguement presented by the Newsweek article, North, Hamasaki, Yardeni, DeJager, Greenspan, Bennett, Dodd, Ed Yourdon and Many others. The logic was sound. The potential became more and more obvious upon further investigation. The arguements presented by "the other side" were weak and full of holes. This was apparent. As time passed, the statistics of work completed, testing in place and *verified*, and almost total lack of contingency planning, made *my* obvious outcome more concrete with each passing day. The announced rate of errors found per x number of lines of *remediated* code (Gartner Group, I believe) displayed the obvious conclusion that for the too few examples of "fhewww...we're done", we would continue to see potential showstopper problems, and what about those MANY who will NEVER reach "fhewww...we're done"? All that is needed (in my opinion) is the ability to gather available data, assess the results, *imagine* the outcome and question the possibility or validity of it occuring, then go with some "gut feeling". Most are able to do this, however, they are lacking the *imagination* and *instincts* and demanding proof...proooffff. Is this do to terror? Denial? Refusal to "let go" of the only way "it's" been in their world? Don't know. Don't much care any longer either, you see, it's *JUNE 1999*. The work isn't completed, some haven't even begun and don't intend to. The importance of end-to-end testing is being ignored( and there is no time left to do this) and the verification doesn't exist or is self-reported. Time's up. DING

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 13, 1999.

In 1973 I moved to New Mexico with my young wife and we tried to live a "self-sustaining" life. we had a greenhouse business, big garden, small livestock, and an old pick-up to haul manure and firewood. When the oil embargo hit we thought it was teotwawki. Instead life returned to "normal". I didn't get on the web until mid '98 and it was Jan. 99 before I started looking at y2k. I didn't have to think twice! Fortunatley, we live in a rural setting, on a lake, and have a wood cookstove. The area abounds in timber and while I have only a small garden, more land is available (albeit not mine.) We live paycheck to paycheck, so I can divert little for preparations and will have to feed six. I bought all the Organic wheat, rye, beans and corn I could afford from the health food store...about 400 lbs. altogether. Started a flock of chickens + turkey. Bought big 2 man cross cut saw and other good stuff from primitives dealer. The rest of my food preps may well have to be feed grains, figure we can survive on that and I have good knowledge of edible plants. My 29 yrs in horticulture and 1973 practice has put me in fair shape. Incidentally, grow grain the Chinese way...a tsp. full of seeds every 18"-24". That way you can hoe the weeds out and harvest with a sickle. Broadcasting won't work without herbicides. Wish some prepared people would move here. Its called Sam's Point. Lots of property for sale... its at Canadian exit between McAlester and Muskogee, OK.

-- Sand Mueller (smueller@azalea.net), June 13, 1999.

Simple answer really.

Our education system does not teach critical thinking skills. It teaches people to sit down, shut up and do what they are told by authority figures. After 12 years of this followed often by 2 to 8 years of college most people are pretty well trained. After they sit down at work all day and do what they are told they are ripe to sit in front of a Tee Vee and buy what they are told to buy, eat what they are told to eat and believe what they are told to believe.

I have noticed a couple of traits consistant to those who Get It. They have a healthy disrespect for authority, the capacity for independent thought, and a vivid imagination that allows them to visualize a life other than what they are experiencing at the moment. Without those basic skills you are toast whenever there is a major cultural transition.

Alas there is nothing peculiar about the reactions of the masses. Any time imminent change looms there are precious few who are willing to see what is coming. They simply can not imagine another way of existing.

I have been a rebel my whole life. Never did swallow the swill they tried to pass off as history. Always questioned my teacher's assumptions. Never was willing to pretend that my boss knew more than I did just because she/he was my boss du'jour. As a result I have been accused of having a "bad attitude" more than once.

As far as I'm concerned having a bad attitude towards mindless conformity is a survival skill. Which would go a lot towards explaining the often contentious discussions here. Anyone with the chutzpah to have an independent thought is not going to just agree with whoever spoke up last.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), June 13, 1999.



Great answer, D'Joan, may I add :

thinking is hard work!

possibly the most difficult aspect of thinking is the integration of complex concepts

most people do not know how to think

therefor, most people do not think

most people have little capacity for the integration of complex concepts into their daily operations

the y2k 'grand concept' is, as Infomagic suggests, a very tangled web of mulifluous threads, all interconnected in some way or another with all the others

to grasp the 'total y2k concept' - i.e. to totally integrate into ones thinking all the possible consquences that might arise from all the possible isolated events, is an act in which few, sadly, can engage; the greater ones capacity to integrate those concepts, the greater ones capacity to 'see' the possible consequences [thus, Infomagics 'devolutionary spiral' becomes almost incomprehensible for most...]

thus, most people cannot understand the grand y2k concept because they are ill-equipted and are largely unable to do so

granted, there are some who could think if they chose, but many CHOOSE not to think - the effort is too difficult

sadly, most politicians and supposed 'leaders' fall into these latter classifications

thus, even though 'the code is broken', and the problem started out being 'technical', the real problem ahead is going to become one of largely, avoiding the 'irrational' reactions of other people; i.e. how others react to that for which they insufficiently prepared

the large unthinking mass might be thought of as being the feet of an elepant; those few who may possess some bit of awareness and preparation will have to think like a mouse : avoid the elephants feet - if possible

trying to convince one who cannot integrate complex concepts into his way of thinking is an act of desparation; our ganglia and synapses are connected through years of habit and use : trying to teach some old dogs new tricks IS difficult! though not impossible...

a common trick of salesmen is to 'qualify' your sales candidates before spending too much time trying to sell them what they may not want to buy; i.e. size up the person to whom you are about to attempt to convince, and if you perceive they are one of a type who is largely unconvinceable, don't waste your time - move on, and try to convince someone else who may be more receptive [ I suspect that maybe that's what Ed has done...]

in the end, those who can think can recognize the problem, therefor, only those who can think can then attempt to become part of the solution

as for me, as a thinker, and one who can see the beauty of life and what an existence based upon a rational premise might be, I'm sorry to have to admit that I'm scared sh--less about what the future is about to bring

my best to each of you

Perry

-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), June 13, 1999.


OOOOOOOOHhhhh, "R". You've just hit the nail on the head, Dude ( or dudette). Nothing more to add to that one. Says it all. No doubt......BRAVO.... applause....BRAVO!!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 13, 1999.

would be interesting to do a study of believers and deny'rs in relation to the amount and kind of tv they watch, as a gauge of activity and general approach to life. I chair a Y2K group. the first wave of people came in the end of last year, listened and left to prepare. Now, when I address groups, (much less often) it's a non-subject. Those who don't already believe KNOW that THEY will work it out, will continue to take care of them. Though when confronted, they don't know how it will happen. But some seemingingly intelligent people buy it if it's said by a representative of officialdom. take notes- think what a book we can all write, sitting around a warm wood fire.

-- rachel windsong (windstar@northcoast.com), June 13, 1999.

Where the heck are all the heavy hitters today? They have alot of nerve taking a day off, without letting the rest of us know about it. We need some schedules here. post 'em, then make the commitment. This is *JUNE 1999* for God's sake. Finish your preps on your own time. We've got work to do here.......lot's and lot's of it! HA

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 13, 1999.

I was dating an MIS professor who delivered a paper on academetia's responsibility for not warning the business sector sooner. That was in '96 or '97. Didn't think much more about it and how it might hit me personally until '98. When I saw an article referencing y2k, my awareness re-surfaced, although it took several months to reach any point of action. Then I spoke with several hard core "survivalists" I know and it hit me like a freight train late in '98.

Living on the edge of a mountain wilderness, as I do, I have been without basic services and supplies several times. Did not want to repeat the experience.

I believe some of the DGI is due to the "disconnect" the vast majority of people have from the land and the industries and people who provide raw resources - food, fiber, minerals. Their lifestyle has been "sanitized" to such an extent that they have no contextual experience to understand what goes into making fancy cereal in a box, panneled walls in the den, heat from the register, meat cut and wrapped in cellophane, little pills in a plastic vile, fuel from the pump, stainless steel sink in the bar, etc. They have become so dependent that they cannot conceive of how to take care of their basic needs, nor do they have control over the resources and skills to do so.

Most preparations emphasize "stockpiling" products. Realistically, that is about as far as society, as a whole, can go due to the massive weight being carried by a tiny foundation of people involved in the basic domestic raw resource industries. (Only about 1.5% of the population are farmers or ranchers. Less than 5% are farmers, fishermen, ranchers, loggers and miners combined. And from what I have seen, only about a half of the raw resources we depend upon are now produced domestically.)

Deep preparation based on self-sufficiency is beyond the grasp of the vsat majority of people. There simply are not enough resources and land to go around if we revert to ancient mathods. Besides, most of those skills take years of experience to acquire.

If one really confronts his/her own dependancies, the bottom line is terrifying to the point of paralysis. Only a few closer to the means to survive or the very strongest in spirit will attempt the massive effort that may be involved to cross over to independence. The less time they are given, the less likely they are to attempt it.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), June 13, 1999.



The answer, as several other posters have pointed out, is the lack of critical thinking among the population. This can be explained partly by our "educational system", but personality type, or to be more precise, temperament, also plays an important role. Take a look at the temperament and contrast this with the other three temperaments ("Dionysian" (SP), "Epimethean" (SJ), and "Apollonian" (NF)) which are described on the pages linked at the top and bottom of the NT page. You will see why the other temperaments are unwilling or unable to "get" Y2K. By the way, NTs make up only about 13% of the population, as I recall, and of course not all of them will really get it for one reason or another. However, the other types have very little likelihood of grasping such a complex, unobvious problem.

-- Eddie Willers (
ed_willers@hotmail.com), June 13, 1999.

The answer, as several other posters have pointed out, is the lack of critical thinking among the population. This can be explained partly by our "educational system", but personality type, or to be more precise, temperament, also plays an important role. Take a look at the "Promethean" (NT) temperament and contrast this with the other three temperaments ("Dionysian" (SP), "Epimethean" (SJ), and "Apollonian" (NF)) which are described on the pages linked at the top and bottom of the NT page. You will see why the other temperaments are unwilling or unable to "get" Y2K. By the way, NTs make up only about 13% of the population, as I recall, and of course not all of them will really get it for one reason or another. However, the other types have very little likelihood of grasping such a complex, unobvious problem.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), June 13, 1999.

R: Are you my alter ego ? You took the words right out of my mouth! Accurate and concise.

-- curtis schalek (schale1@ibm.net), June 13, 1999.

Great thread everybody!, especially R.

Previous posts have covered most of the main aspects of the dichotomy, but here's a few extras. Most people, and most DGI's, don't have a lot of general knowledge. And this is probably because they don't have much curiosity. I would blame schooling for the general lack of curiosity, but that's another issue. Without general knowledge, it is that much harder for a multifarious problem like y2k to be explained to them. They don't know much about how banks work, or what money is, or how recent economic history is unfolding. They might have heard of the depression, or they might have wondered where petrol or electricity come from, and they no doubt know a bit about a few things. But pretty often they haven't even got the jist of how systems operate...the a-to-b's that bring them the content of their lives. Bringing someone up to speed on all the info relevent to y2k is pretty difficult, it's a full-time job just to keep oneself fully informed.

People who are worldly and know alot of different things and have had practice integrating their knowledge are much more likely to "get" y2k than most people. And people who research, i.e. find out their own facts rather than relying on media bs, are obviously more likely to bump into this y2k topic. People who don't research are at the mercy of others; and those others (media, politicians etc)just happen to be unscrupulous cretins, for the most part.

Some other qualities I've noticed amongst Yourdonforites at least ...They're contrarians, they're cynical, they are A-grade bullshit detectors, they distrust authority, they're interested in important topics other than the bug.

-- Number Six INTJ (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), June 13, 1999.


Just jumping in with a half-finished thought here, but:

Being a non-conformist type looking ahead to y2k is considered a survival attribute here.

We've come together to discuss one pivotal date of societal upheaval ahead, but in the course of discussion, we've covered a dozen or more points of potential crisis or breakdown.

Whether or not y2k is the BIG date, the beginning of an eroding functioning, or a relief to us all, those other problems won't go away. We will still need to stay alert, prepared, and see whether we can safely (or at least, reasonably) make a social contribution to solving any of them before they engulf our children.

It is inspiring to find a group of people joined together to share their best problem-solving skills. I wonder if you are a rarity -- or a microcosm of society, who might do the same if given the same chance to meet one another?

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), June 13, 1999.



David:

All of these posts are very informative and salient.

I have difficulty dealing with coworkers, family and neighbors who DGI; they are not stupid, but they are extremely conditioned to routines and schedules. For the most part they are comfortable, settling down in their lives, nurturing their families and hoping that their 401K and other pension plans will be available when they retire. They honestly don't want to believe TEOTWAWKI could happen within months. By wishful thinking and blind optimism they push the terrible scenarios way out into the next Millennium.

I had a cousin who was almost a GI, but she fell asleep; then at a recent neighborhood Y2K meeting she became all concerned again, mainly due to a deeply religious Christian family who believes our world will be ending very soon with the Second Advent of Christ. When I asked her husband if she truly GI, he answered "No"; she has not made any provisions. I would like to talk to her about what concerned her at that Y2K meeting, but her husband informed me she's spending several weeks down in Hilton Head vacationing. She was the only one of my family relations who seemed to have an inkling of Revelation type scenarios, but apparently it's too much for her to handle now. She's read the books "Left Behind", and I guess she thinks she'll be raptured away before anything truly heinous occurs.

I'm getting bothered by the majority of sheeple who have discounted any Y2K news. They really don't care. Prosperity has lulled them into complacence; they are satisfied, do not want to change, and sometimes grow resentful and irritated that they even be forced to consider a deep depression approaching. One marketing manager said that after a recent discussion with me, he almost considered purchasing some bottled water. Then he was hit with the "nah, I'm overreacting" mindset and didn't.

By this month JUN99 I had thought things would be falling apart in America. Nope. If my understanding of JIT production relating to Y2K is realistic, then the longer people refuse to prepare and live in denial, the worse the degree of panic when EVERYONE awakens to the dangers approaching. I'm anticipating a surprise trigger.

Are we going to hunt elephants?

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), June 13, 1999.


Randolph says, "I had a cousin who almost got it, but she fell asleep" OOOOHHHHHHH SHEEEEEEEESSSSE, ROFLMAO. wheewwww. That was great. I love you guys....too funny!!!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 13, 1999.

Thanks for all the comments, from R to Marsh. This is a great thread. It is another angle in my mind why we are doomed to TEOTWAWKI. I still remember GI in early 1997, and thinking about 1999. What strikes me still today is that the very worst case scenario for the months leading up to Y2k is exactly what is and has been happening these months and days.

Look, I'm not sure if our culture is capable of Panic. Unfortunately, this seals the gurantee of mass death and suffering in Y2k. Happy new year!

What we are left with is what each of our parts are in TBOTWAWBI (The beginning of the world as we build it). I hope and pray that our preparations will enable us to lead and conceive ideas on how everything will be better in a decade or two. Anti-authoritarian types should show why decentralization is better for all, and how "empire" thinking leads to meaninglessnes, death and utter unhappiness. My two cents worth.

-- Jim the Window Washer (Rational@man.com), June 13, 1999.


There is perhaps one other factor that one needs to consider when comparing a Get It versus a Don't Get It: the need to do something about it! Prior to my re-location from the Washington, D.C. area to Northwest Arkansas, I attended many Y2K meetings and presentations (e.g., Washington DC Y2K Group, George Washington University's series of engagements). I can tell you that, in talking with other people, there were plenty who Got It -- but, at least as of the time that I left, were doing practically nothing in the way of personal preparation.

It is one thing to understand Y2K impact at the intellectual level, it is another thing to actually put that understanding into real action. I honestly think that many, many GIs are doing nothing because they are in a sort of frozen, "deer caught in the headlights" sort of mental state.

And to me, if Y2K turns out like I think that it will, this is especially sad for the GIs who did nothing. Because they will realize that they knew, they had time to take action, but they did nothing.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), June 13, 1999.

Very true that thinking takes effort and training. And for many reasons, y2k can be classed among the hardest things to think about.

1) To a large degree we're dealing with the future. Nobody has a good, consistent track record predicting the future.

2) The most critical details are simply not available. The two key questions to corraling the scope of y2k are: Just exactly where does (and will) remediation stand in those places where it counts (wherever they are); and Just exactly what will failed, incomplete, or unperformed rediation cause to happen? Nobody knows. Nobody.

3) All of the information we do have has been filtered through one or more agendas, leaving us to guess about the nature of any original raw data. Key commentators about y2k often have flagrant biases.

Add these together, and any determined research project into y2k becomes a phantasmagorical trip through Spin City. Very few have the mental fortitude to survive this trip for very long, before they take comfort in a Conviction. The nature of this Conviction doesn't really matter, what matters is surcease from doubt. This is the normal human reaction when faced with something which is both extremely important, and fundamentally undecideable. So long as you're undecided, you don't know what to *do*. You need a guiding decision, even (or especially) in cases where the case for any decision is as weak as for any other decision.

I'm always amazed by people's ability to pick some decision when faced with critically incomplete and fundamentally ambiguous information, assure themselves that they Got It and that those who picked a different decision Don't Get It, and are actually comfortable that they've been honest with themselves. The human propensity for self-deception is bottomless and unfathomable. But the creativity displayed in defending a fixed position, while surrounded by a world of swirling changes, is both impressive and often comical.

The problem is just the opposite of unreceptive minds. The problem is that our minds are *too* receptive, and capable of fitting round pegs into square holes without noticing. People have a will to believe. What's important isn't the nature of the belief, what's important is believing.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 13, 1999.


What is important is surviving. End game.

-- Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), June 13, 1999.

Will:

I'm not sure how to classify my cousin, Pamela. She intellectually understands what could happen, but she has made no physical preparations. According to her husband, she wants to appear as a GI, open to social action since she's very involved in community affairs, but she is not following through beyond words. Her husband said Pamela has Y2K in the back of her mind; she hasn't forgotten it, but she's not panicking. The economy is stable, business is growing as are her two children. Pamela doesn't seem to desire to expend the time and resources necessary to get prepared.

There was the point weeks ago when she would mock and ridicule me. I felt this was odd if she was truly a GI. Pamela considers me the nutcase eccentric of the family, so anything relevant I say is easily dismissed and taken as perceived mental imbalances.

So, I suppose she never went back to a deep sleep, only a DGI nap.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), June 13, 1999.


Randolph...it's been my experience that anyone who truely get's it....will panic. It's the nature of the beast, it's what puts your ass in gear, don't you think? NOWWWWWW, Mr. Flint. Let's take a lookie at what you've done here. (again, hehehe) 1. Are you able to 'predict" a bowel movement? They have indications too, you know. 2. It will cause mayhem, nuckle-head. 3. It appears to me that you are "flagrantly" blind. Don't look now Flint, but you're about to fill your "Fruit of the Looms".

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 13, 1999.

Actually, I was thinking of CPR when I wrote that. But he's not the only one blinded by his conviction, it applies generally. And then again, there are those who can't think at all. And the beauty of being stupid is, you don't have what it takes to realize it! Some of the lesser lights here seem convinced that personal attacks can actually substitute for thought, not realizing that it's a blazing demonstration of thoughtlessness. I encourage you to enjoy your fixation, though. For some, it's a *lot* easier than trying to satisfy curiosity, which takes effort and has risks.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 13, 1999.

Some people are congenitally brain-dead.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 13, 1999.

Will:

My cousin has the potential to panic; I've sensed it in her voice. She thinks there might be something to Y2K problems, but she has a DGI husband who is there to calm her down. He thinks he's doing what is best for his family.

I'm over the worst initial panic. My next major session won't happen until the stock market crashes. Then I'll freak out as I witness the masses panic.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), June 13, 1999.


Flint:

I admire your skill at twisting verbal assaults back into those who are grossly argumentative.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), June 13, 1999.


Randolph:

If an argument is actually made, I can evaluate it (I often agree with arguments here, in part if not entirely). But you can't argue with a bad odor. All you can do is hold your nose. And whole threads have been popping up lately complaining about these odors. I hope they help, but I can only hold my breath so long.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 13, 1999.


Oh for pete's sake flint. That odor is your inability to read the "indications". You don't argue, that requires taking a logical stand. You don't possess logic. You are a brown-noser. Why the hell do you continually set yourself up for "whippins"? It must really piss you off to be challenged with logic by someone you percieve to be logically challenged, eh? I have no fluffy education, but you have no sense. We're the perfect couple, whip-boy. Admit it. Go ahead, don't be shy.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 13, 1999.

Randolph:

Didn't take long to present Exhibit 'A', did it? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 13, 1999.


Ah well. once again I have proven Flint's inability to take the multitude of indications in respect to y2k, examine and assess the obvious facts in the case and then form a logical conclusion based upon the profound indications available. Once again....the towel picks up his marbles and retreats to the safety of a "thread in hiding". I'm just too tired tonight to go find him. he he he

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 13, 1999.

Meanwhile, back at the subject. R - When I was very young I thought that is was possible to figure out the meanings of words from how they were made up. Example, history = "his" "story", as opposed to "somebody else's" "story". Of course I grew up and became more sophiticated and knew that wasn't true. Then I grew up a little more and found out I was right the first time.

I think one problem is that people do not appreciate how fragile our economic system has become. The average person thinks that retail stores make about 20-30% net profit of sales. They have no concept that places like K-mart and Wal-mart make about 1-2%. So if they hear that .x% of embedded chips will fail, or that yy% of oil might not be imorted, they think that there is plenty of "wiggle room". They think that if 5% of everything fails that that merely reduces output by 5%. They base their view on false assumptions of current reality, combined with errors of the magnitude that negative change will have on that percieved reality. Like that old joke goes, "No, it wasn't $50,000, it was $25,000. And he didn't make that much, he lost that much."

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), June 13, 1999.


(1) I must agree with Ken about the fragility of our economic/life support systm.

(2) I also know that most people don't plan ahead for major, catastrophic change. Even if they have been through one disaster, they don't often prepare much more that those whoe have been through none. It makes sense to do long term economic planning...yet only a few people do it.

(3) Most people don't want to hear bad news.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), June 14, 1999.


Ken,

People are trained to fall asleep as soon as they hear statistics of any kind. Which is a damn shame since critical thinking requires an understanding (however humble) of basic statistics. Then they are so distracted by language. Pretty words like "bump in the road" flutter by and stick in their heads while ugly numbers like "80% of all raw phamaceutical supplies will be non-existant" just drop off and blow away unregarded.

How anyone can consider the cessation of imports and the closure of the Panama Canal to be bumps in the road is anyone's guess.

Finally there is a very real problem which has been touched on in this forum briefly which is this - How is a "5" possible? Once those dominoes start falling I don't think they will just get to a level "5" or "7" and then stop. Once one goes - they all go. This makes it tougher to truly Get It. There really is no middle ground. Once you understand the interdependencies and so forth you can't really be moderate in your views or preps.

Most people don't like to be extremists. They like to fit in. there is just no way to do that with Y2k. It requires a strength of will and spine which is daunting. I struggle with it daily but I am willing to be odd. Fitting in with the crowd has never felt safe to me. On the other hand I never wanted to be this far on the fringe either. Y2k leaves me no choice.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), June 14, 1999.


I suppose deceiving others through self-deception is to be expected. It is, after all very efficient. "If you can fake sincerity, you've got it made." Self-deception is a survival trait with deep evolutionary roots.

Does that sound rational? Rationality is not necessarilly a survival characteristic---if you subscribe to the views of evolution-psychologist, Robert Ornstein, in this clip from his book Evolution of Conciousness [appended below because I can't find the link].

Hallyx

THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS Robert Ornstein

The mind is a squadron of simpletons. It is not unified, it is not rational, it is not well designed-or designed at all. It just happened, an accumulation of innovations of the organisms that lived before us. The mind evolved, through countless animals and through countless worlds.

Like the rest of biological evolution, the human mind is a collage of adaptations (the propensity to do the right thing) to different situations. Our thought is a pack of fixed routines-simpletons. We need them. It is vital to find the right food at the right time, to mate well, to generate children, to avoid marauders, to respond to emergency quickly. Mental routines to do so have evolved over millions of years and developed in different periods in our evolution, as Rumi noted.

We don't think of ourselves as of such humble origins. The triumphs that have occurred in the short time since the Industrial Revolution have completely distorted our view of ourselves. Hence, the celebrated triumph of humanity is its rationality: the ability to reason through events and act logically. to organize business. To plan for the future, to create science and technology. One influential philosopher, Daniel Dennet, wrote recently: "When a person falls short of perfect rationality ... there is no coherent ... description of the person's mental states."

Yet to characterize the mind as primarily rational is an injustice; it sells us short, it makes us misunderstand ourselves, it has perverted our understanding of our intelligence, our schooling, our physical and mental health. Holding up rationality, and its remorseless deliberation, as the model of the mind has, more important, set us along the wrong road to our future. Instead of the pinnacle, rationality is just one small ability in a compound of possibilities.

The mind evolved great breadth, but it is shallow, for it performs quick and dirty sketches of the world. This rough-and-ready perception of reality enabled our ancestors to survive better. The mind did not evolve to know the world or to know ourselves. Simply speaking, there has never been, nor will there ever be, enough time to be truly rational.

Rationality is one component of the mind, but it is used rarely, and in a very limited area. Rationality is impossible anyway. There isn't time for the mind to go through the luxurious exercises of examining alternatives. Consider the standard way of examining evidence, the truth table, a checklist of information about whether propositions are correct or not. To know whether Aristotle is a hamburger, you would look up "Aristotle" or "hamburger" in this table. Now think of the number of issues you immediately know well-what Yugoslavia is, whether skateboards are used at formal dinners, how chicken sandwiches should taste, what your spouse wore this morning-and you will see that your own truth table, if entered randomly, would have millions of entries just waiting![p.p. 2-3]

A mind built up with countless specific adaptations can never be rational. We piece together the results of a small set of probes to judge the world, picking up a few signals and making quick assessments of what is outside, in the case of marauders, and inside, in the case of memories and dreams. Such a mind will never be rational; but it will always try to adapt. And it cannot always be correct either. If we consider a mind that has evolved to meet most situations adequately, say 95 percent of them, we may have a better idea of what being correct is. [p. 221]

Since the mind evolved to select a few signals and then dream up a semblance, whatever enters our consciousness is overemphasized. It does not matter how the information enters, whether via a television program, a newspaper story, a friend's conversation, a strong emotional reaction, a memory-all is overemphasized. We ignore other, more compelling evidence, overemphasizing and overgeneralizing from the information close at hand to produce a rough-and-ready realty. [p. 258]

The [mental] system we recruited had the primary aim of reacting quickly to immediate danger-those who did lived long enough to produce us. Those who acted more thoughtfully and with due deliberation of the proper course, who could avoid panic when confronted by mild threats-who acted rationally, that is-probably lived shorter, and thus less generative, lives. The survival argument against rationality in primeval conditions is that payoff is very lopsided: Fail to respond to a real danger, even if that danger would kill you only 1/10,000 as often, and you will be dead. A few years later, you will be deader in evolutionary terms, for fewer of your genes will be around. However, an overreaction to danger produces only a little hysteria, a little stress, and maybe a little embarrassment-probably little or no loss of reproductive ability. Maybe the excitement would even recruit a little more reproductive effort!

Running from every snake or tiger or loud noise probably doesn't disrupt life too much. Not running, while it might kill you only slightly more often, can eventually produce major changes in the population. The same numbers hold in this example as for the height difference cited earlier. If panic in response to a threat in all cases improved survival by even 1/10,000, those who panicked would be 484 million times more populous than those who did not. And so it was good to respond emotionally and quickly to the average dangers threatening most of our ancestors. Rationality is a great idea and ideal, but we never had the time for it; we don't have time for it now, and thus we don't have the mind for it. [p. 262]

THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS, Robert Ornstein; Prentice Hall, 1991, ISBN 0-13-587569-2

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), June 14, 1999.


This is just too funny to pass up.

"People are trained to fall asleep as soon as they hear statistics of any kind."

No, they're just lazy, preferring to hear what they want to hear. As we'll see.

"ugly numbers like "80% of all raw phamaceutical supplies will be non- existant" just drop off and blow away unregarded."

Well, someone wrote that 80% of the raw materials in pharmaceuticals are imported. To get from there to nonexistent, you must assume that there are no domestic supplies (false), that there are no substitutes (false), and that there will be no imports (false). Amazing whoat you can accomplish by making any false assumptions you feel like, eh?

"How anyone can consider the cessation of imports and the closure of the Panama Canal to be bumps in the road is anyone's guess."

How about being hit by a comet? How about nuclear war? How about an alien invasion? If you're going to take false assumptions for granted, why not go for the brass ring?

"Once one goes - they all go. This makes it tougher to truly Get It. There really is no middle ground."

More false assumptions. The real world is ALL middle ground, and always has been. Maybe this is clear only to those who truly understand statistics?

"Once you understand the interdependencies and so forth you can't really be moderate in your views or preps."

On the contrary, extreme viewpoints require a system *mis*understanding of interdependencies. A proper understanding shows why the number of things that *can* go wrong is always infinite, while the number of things that *do* go wrong is always manageable.

"Most people don't like to be extremists."

No, most people recognize that extremists are always wrong, and understand why. Which doesn't prevent the lunatic fringe from believing nonsense, but who cares?

"I struggle with it daily but I am willing to be odd."

Or resigned to being odd? There are always many choices. Refusing to see them doesn't make them go away. And you've had to exert some effort to string false assumptions together to paint yourself into a corner. This effort could have been spent being rational, you know. As for not being comfortable fitting in, why are you here? You're preaching to the choir here, a card-carrying member of the Church of Hysteria. You fit right in. Feels good to fit in, doesn't it? Around here, even the dumbest fantasies are accepted at face value if they're doomy enough. In here, you're sure to find fellow inmates to support you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 14, 1999.


Well Flint, at least you prepared to help a few *others* survive. Hopefully, for the sake of the gene pool......at least one of *them* will possess the needed skills to go on, my man. --shaking my "dome" in pity--

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 14, 1999.

My wife used to be a DGI. Now, thanks to a 60 minutes transcript which I obtained here, she is a GI. Now that some figure of authority has suggested that things might not all work out for the best, she is starting to point this out to other people as well. If it wasn't a serious issue, I'd be laughing myself silly. I'm sure the Pollys already are.

She's now at about a 4-5 based on the fact that there may not be any water available for people to drink. She hasn't yet put 2 and 2 together to realize what the 300,000 thirsty and hungry people are going to do in our city. It may take her a couple of weeks to cobble the picture together in her mind, but at least we don't have to start at square one. I don't have the heart to tell her how long this forum has been here, or how long some of you folks have been preparing.

I just got my allergic mother who cooks all of her own food to start canning this past weekend. If she cans from now until the end of the year, she just might be able to make it through a prolonged supply interruption. I didn't tell her she needed it for Y2K yet, just for traveling.

The nice thing about canning is that you get to sit around and discuss other things while you're waiting for everything to cook.

-- nothere nothere (nothere@nothere.com), June 14, 1999.


ON A SULTRY SUNDAY AFTERNOON IN JUNE

While this VERY interesting thread was developing yesterday afternoon Flint and I were having a very decent discussion, sitting under the trees of my Alabama homestead. 'Decent' to me (and I think Flint) means that 1) we both knew deeply that we were far apart in many ways (I think Flint would like to use the word 'philosophically.' I'd go along with that word.); and 2) we both knew deeply that we respected Truth and were trying to help each other get to it.

Flint and I have, have had, and will always have, 'eccentric' personalities -- that put us on the edges of the Bell Curve. So we qualify. But we remain civil. Not ONCE did we 'get personal.' Did we change each other's points of view? Well, if we did, it wasn't at all dramatic or obvious. Yet I feel clearer about my y2k-mindset than I did before our talk. (I hope Flint does too, but I haven't ck'd with him.)

This thread was not only very interesting, but until it got to about 66 per cent down my scrollbar -- it was positively AMAZING!! Amazing because it was wonderful thinking, post after post, each enriching the previous ...... AND THERE WAS NO FLAMING FOR THE FIRST 33 PER CENT!. Then in no time the level of interchange dropped like a runaway Otis elevator. Flint was personally attacked, and like any healthy organism, attacked back. And so it went after that.

And once again I'm sad --- not bec of what I believe y2k will bring to our western world -- but because the forum once again LOST IT. I don't post much -- too busy with preps. But if I weren't busy --- I'd probably nurse my wounds again & even more rarely venture out into the crossfire. (If I had the time I'd sure like to start up some wonderful email conversations with the early posters on this thread. And maybe talk to the guy who posted the Bob Ornstein excerpt. Over the past 3 decades or so Bob has been one of a group which has taken a close look at a singular group of people, called Sufis, who have been involved with upgrading human consciousness since before recorded time. Sufis have carefully studied The Fool in history, among many other projects. No lack of subject matter in the tail end of this thread.)

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), June 14, 1999.


Great thread, everybody, excepting only Flint's wasting perfectly good electrons. Sand M., if your preps budget is tight, perhaps you may find some useful information for increasing it in the "Finding Y2K Prep Time" (and money) article on my website. As far as the thread topic itself goes, I think DGIs can be accounted for pretty much by the following phenomena: 1) Too short attention spans to find out enough about Y2K to be convinced about its reality (Y2K does not condense to a sound-bite, after all) and them blaming not being convinced about it on the subject rather than their own mental deficiencies. 2) General laziness; preparation would take effort, so that kills it right there as a possible course of action, no matter how obviously desirable, in the same way that most Americans do not control diets/exercise to reduce cardiac disease risk. 3) They do not access sources of information that have much of any GI-content material (Internet, the better books). They only use the idiot box, popular magazines, and once in a while a regular newspaper. 4) The topic is simply too complex for them, involving abstract concepts leading to a change in behavior. Remember how many people do not even have triple-digit IQs, to say nothing about how few ever take even one science-major college science course, which would really help them learn how to think. Remember how long it took doctors to accept germ theory?

my site: www.y2ksafeminnesota.com (I will have some new articles on my site in a few days).

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), June 14, 1999.


I agree with most of the observations that have already been expressed about personality & lifestyle differences between doomsayers and others. Something I find interesting, though, is how much we are all alike. Both groups view the other camp with the same negative adjectives: gullible, selfish, ill informed, frivolous, irrational, and narrow minded. Both camps believe that the other camp will have been to blame for any social problems relating to Y2K, because their current behavior leads to eventual disaster, and because of their propensity for criminal violence. Both sides claim that people from their own camp are the ones who are doing the majority of work to remedy the situation. People on each side believe that they themselves are listing to relevant experts, and that the other side is listening to parties who are being dishonest or are taking people for a ride. So, we are a lot alike. The main difference is what only WE are right! hehehe

-- Dancr (minddancr@aol.com), June 16, 1999.

Flint, Flint, Flint: You're not the solution. Whatever you offer is only a tidbit, a bait, a smidgen of a smidgen. People cannot live thinking the way you do if everything does wrong. Yes, of course you have your preps and will be paddling downstream while other who are non-prepared, will be paddling upstream. Of course you'll tip your hat out of politeness and disguised guilt for being an unraveller. What in the hell are you doing here? What is your point? Are you a an American hating foreigner in disguise? Why would you wish the masses to accost you? You are either one uninsightful idiot or suicidal. Maybe you have hate within and need an opportunity to nail as many as you can pull your trigger on when they come knockin' We all know how well prepared you are and we know of the hydroelectric plant that will supply you. Since you have all the resources at your avail, why do you play like the rich kid who taunts others who do not have your resources. We all know for a fact that if ones sells their stock and holds onto cash will smell like a rose if they are wrong. We all know if someone does not sell and holds onto their stock will not smell like a rose if they are wrong. That is a very contrasting hypothesis. Conservative = success. Unconservative = success or failure. When you promote the choice that has two outcomes instead of one, it is blatantly obvious what you are doing. Your smelling your own farts and are intoxicated by them. Do some statistics. Statistics will make your theory a very unrewarding one. Your "do as I say but don't prepare as I do" mentality is a disservice. If you keep this up, I will hope the wolves get you first. I mean it mr. Time tick and you intentionally send others upstream without a paddle. We all don't know, but if you are wrong, kharma will deal with you.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 16, 1999.

Flint: There is some substance to the Meyers-Briggs typing. What are you?

--just a curious INTP

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), June 16, 1999.


Vic: INTP here as well....I'm sure Flint has a "J" in his.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 16, 1999.

Ahah!

-- Wiihelm Reich (expansion@contraction.orgon), November 20, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ