Proof that the latest Yardeni survey is a scam

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

Proof? Almost 20% of the survey sample believe y2k is a "hoax":

27) Personally, indicate how you rate the Y2K problem.   (Total Votes: 891)
1. It's a nonevent, a hoax, and I'm ignoring the hype: 106
  11.9%
2. It's a hoax, but I'll have extra cash and food: 69
  7.7%
3. It will be like a natural disaster lasting a few days, but I have yet to prepare: 175
  19.6%
4. It will be like a natural disaster lasting a few days, and I'm preparing for it: 368
  41.3%
5. It will be a major problem lasting weeks, but I have yet to prepare: 27
  3.0%
6. It will be a major problem lasting weeks, and I am preparing for it: 84
  9.4%
7. It's a disaster lasting months, but I have yet to prepare: 3
  0.3%
8. It's a disaster lasting months, and I am preparing for it: 19
  2.1%
9. It's a catastrophe, but I have yet to prepare: 1
  0.1%
10. It's a catastrophe, and I am taking drastic measures to prepare for it: 7
  0.8%
11. Not sure: 32
  3.6%

Even the polly's aren't that stupid...or conniving.

Yardeni survey

-- a (a@a.a), June 18, 1999

Answers

a, why would almost 20%(11.9+7.7 right?) of the people believing that y2k is a hoax constitute proof that the Yardeni survey was a scam? I really don't understand in all honesty and would like to understand the logic in this if you would be so kind? Thanks.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), June 18, 1999.

Barb: Those polled were IT managers - the same ones we've suspected all along of stacking SEC disclosures, spinning progress reports, and being "irrationally exuberant" about the whole y2k mess. What did you expect them to say? Even Flint agrees:

And yes, this survey is just as meaningless as all the rest.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 18, 1999.

The reason I call it a scam is because of the fact that these are supposedly y2k literate professionals, and 1 in 5 thinks y2k is a HOAX. $1,000,000,000,000.00's of dollars in repairs, litigation and losses, and 1 in 5 of these LYING ASSHOLES says y2k is a "hoax". ?Comprende?

-- a (a@a.a), June 18, 1999.


That is the most pitiful, pathetic example of denial yet. You think Milne's post about California was depressing? Notice the majority are in the banking sectors. They can't even read their own stats and form a conclusion. I don't have enough food.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 18, 1999.

a, so if 1 out of 5 thinks y2k is a hoax but the other 4(80%) don't think it's a hoax, this survey is a scam? I'm really trying and I'm not being a smart aleck but I just don't get the logic.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), June 19, 1999.

Barb, just go to his link and look at the results for yourself. It's pretty self explainitory, and depressing. These are the people in charge.....gulp.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 19, 1999.


Will, Went to site once today but that's good advice, will go and re-read and see if I missed something. Maybe it's my math, always had a problem there...

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), June 19, 1999.

Barb: Last hint: A shill is untruthful.

-- a (a@a.a), June 19, 1999.

a,

Perhaps it depends, as always the case with surveys, on the wording and the surveyees' interpretation thereof.

"Personally, indicate how you rate the Y2K problem."

Okay, what, precisely, is the definition of "the Y2K problem"? Computer glitches triggered at the 99=>00 rollover? Business consequences of those clitches? Economic consequences of those business consequences? Potential disruptions of basic services? Turn-of-the-millenium fears? Apocalyptic predictions?

And how did Yardeni guarantee that all surveyees would answer that one soberly?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 19, 1999.


Barb: I think what -a- is referring to is the plausible probability of the tech people to throw a spin on their answers; misinforming while they save the reputations of the company(ies) they are working on. I generally consider a survey truthful. You would have to NOT tell them it is a survey and ask how they are coming along and THEN turn it into a survey. That would change the psychology of it and get it to fit the profile of the way _a_ is applying the logic of the above hypothesis. Now you have me wondering how Yardini went about his fact finding mission.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 19, 1999.

Sorry Spam. They had very explicit and detailed "multiple choice". There just IS no excuse for the higher-up-big-brain-stupidity displayed in this survey. Period. We can rationalize this anyway we want....it doesn't change the fact that this problem is being overseen by large salary, small IQ, nit-wits. I may not have enough fruit cocktail either....better hit Sam's tomarrow.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 19, 1999.


Just notice the answers to "legal issues" alone. Are they a problem? YES. Are law suits likely? NO. Have these legal considerations affected ability to disclose? NOT AT ALL. Hello? Then why are they even a concern? How did you verify your supplier's readiness? BY PHONE AND FORMAL LETTER. Hello? Look, we could spin this from several different directions here. Why bother? It's clear they either don't understand the problem or they're lying through their teeth. I'm open to hear the middle ground. Personally, I think it's a combination of both. Pathetic anyway it's spun.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 19, 1999.

someone explain' if y2k isNOT serious then why do senators'moynihan'bennett'horn'armey'&the one from ariz.oh-mcain; say the things they say? if it can be fixed before 2000'why would they be sweating lawsuits?? im,not a college person'but i didn,t fall-off the turnip-truck on my head....if it,s a no-big dealer'WHERES THE PROOF. I MEAN WHY ARN,T THE i.t guys working on GOVT.- stuff making public positive-PROVABLE statements???please excuse my un-educated questions.

-- al-d. (catt@zianet.com), June 19, 1999.

al-d: quite the can of worms you got there. Each and every one of those squirmy things represent the history of threads on this forum. If you go back and look at the bottom of this forum, you'll see alot of individual worms that you might be able to identify. Go look! See?

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 19, 1999.

What about the 8% who said, "It's a hoax, but I'll have extra cash and food" ??? i.e., I'm always prepared, even for hoaxes... :-)

A business person can NOT think Y2k is a hoax unless they're in total fantasyland. Even "rabid Pollyannas" know Y2k is not a hoax. Yet there it is, 20% of company officers say it's a hoax?

Maybe it's just a badly phrased question. Another possibility: if someone actually did think Y2k was a hoax, which against all evidence is an *extreme* view, they might leap at the chance to fill out a questionnaire. Such individuals might make up a large %age of the 3% who answered. Well, maybe, maybe not. With self-selection you cannot know.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 19, 1999.


Dear a, will,feller and all others who have tried to help me understand about the Yardeni survey, thank you for your patience. I just have not made any assumptions about anyone scamming info or being a shill. I try to think as clearly as I can. However, I do see the points about the disconnects,#21,22,23 about the legal concerns:yeas62.9% and nays29.9% but then the no-problems-with- legalities-in-disclosing-info-about-y2k-publicly, whistling while they look away type of response, which gets to me a little, too. I also noticed that the #4,job category of the respondents were 30.7% accts/ auditors as opposed to the 32.6%+10.4%=43%IT or MIS types. Perhaps because they weren't all IT managers made a difference in the 1 out of 5 percentage who responded to the #27 question, i.e. rate-y2k-hoax-or catastrophe query. Hey, if these people were lying, why would 33.4% admit they were behind schedule in their y2k projects in #6??? Anyway, just keep wondering about it all and do take most things with a grain or two of salt. Thanks for your time and brainpower.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), June 19, 1999.


The hoax question is very poorly worded..."It's a nonevent, a hoax, and I'm ignoring the hype." This should really be three questions:

1. Do you think Y2K is a hoax?
2. Do you think Y2K will be a nonevent?
3. Do you think Y2K is being hyped?

I can see where, if Y2K was a 1 or 2 on my radar screen, I would have a hard time figuring out how to answer that question the way it was asked. It's possible that a lot of the respondents who answered positively to this might rather have said, "No, I do not think Y2K is a hoax, but I do think it will be a nonevent", or "No, I do not think Y2K is a hoax, but I do think it has been overhyped", or even "No, I do not think Y2K will be a nonevent, but I do think it's being overhyped."

This does cause me to be suspicious of those who designed the question.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), June 19, 1999.


Close the BOLD tags, durnit!

-- mil (motoro@hotmail.com), June 19, 1999.

Yeesh.

-- mil (motoro@hotmail.com), June 19, 1999.

I do not want to frighten anyone, but this may be a little concerning.

My take on those survey responses is that some of the respondents know that enough of the the final events will be controlled enough or as an excuse to create shortages or problems.(as a means for more control or financial gain)

The modified or hidden definition of the term "HOAX" being is Y2K itself going to cause all the problems or will Y2K be used as a "HOAX" to set things in place. (Y2K is real, but will be used in various ways and the hoax part will be to make it appear worse in a controlled way)

-- living in (the@real.world), June 19, 1999.


Bold OFF!!! (did it work? I HATE HTML sometimes....)

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), June 19, 1999.

ONE MORE TRY....

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), June 19, 1999.

Will continue,

>They had very explicit and detailed "multiple choice".

My comments were about the wording of the *question*, not the wording of the answers.

Let's categorize the meanings of "Y2K" in the context of each question. Of course, your categorization may differ.

#1,2,3,4,11,31 - not applicable (In #4, used in a job title in an answer)

#5,6,19,20 - Business consequences (no mention of computers or software)

#7 - Computer glitches or business consequences ("testing" can refer to business procedures as well as software)

#8 - Computer glitches, probably (though could mean business consequences)

#9,10 - Computer glitches (in #10, "problems" is clearly Y2K by context)

#12,13,14,15,18,21,22,23 - business consequences or economic consequences (#12-15,18 - vendors' or customers' operations; vendors' or customers' staying in business. #21-23 - "legal", "lawsuits")

#16,17 - Business consequences or potential disruptions of basic services

#24 - Business consequences or economic consequences or potential disruptions of basic services

#25,26,27 - ??

#28,29 - Potential disruptions of basic services

#30 - Economic consequences

Seeing that they're surrounded by a variety of Y2k meanings in other questions, the meanings of "Y2K" in questions #25-27 are not at all clear-cut IMO.

>Just notice the answers to "legal issues" alone. Are they a problem? YES. Are law suits likely? NO. Have these legal considerations affected ability to disclose? NOT AT ALL. Hello? Then why are they even a concern?

Not every legal problem has to be resolved in a lawsuit, despite the American tendency to think so. An organization could be concerned about its product warranty obligations or its contracts with vendors and customers but not see lawsuits as likely because it expects to be able to work out those problems without going to court.

>How did you verify your supplier's readiness? BY PHONE AND FORMAL LETTER. Hello?

Just what is your gripe here? That "Formal questionnaires with telephone follow-up" is too little, or that it is too much?

If too little, tell me how an on-site inspection of your office supply company's warehouse verifies that they will be able to supply you tissues, legal pads and ballpoint pens next year.

>Look, we could spin this from several different directions here. Why bother? It's clear they either don't understand the problem or they're lying through their teeth.

It looks to me like you're reading your own preconceptions into the survey responses.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 19, 1999.


Perhaps there should have been an answer along the lines of "It would have been really bad, but we've spent billions fixing it. Those who continue to claim it will be really bad are uninformed."

I'm not saying this is what I believe, but I think such a question would have deflected some of the "hoax" replies.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 19, 1999.


Could you knock it of with the bold I mean really.No seriously, what were all the post about the bold print, before?

-- I didn't see no bold (Bold@eagle.new), June 19, 1999.

The unclosed tag was <strong> rather than <b>. Some browsers, some settings, and/or some fonts picked this up; others didn't.

-- - (-@-.-), June 19, 1999.

No Spam Please: All of your points well taken. The relying on phone and formal questionaires is in my opinion the basis for concern about Y2K in general. There has been NO third party verification in this problem. The results of that one "result" alone, makes my flesh crawl. It tells me that everyone is taking everyones "word" for it. Anyone who would bet their lives on self-verification....is a fool. Is there any possible way to happy-face this aspect? I'm quite certain there will be. Will people fall for this level of stupidity? I'm certain they will. Will deaths result? Absolutely. Nothing more to say on that. Anyone "in charge" of fixing this problem, who would rely on self-verification, factoring in the number of reasons why it would be in a company's or utilitie's best interest to lie, does not have a "handle" on the reality of this problem. Apparently, they may not have a handle on alot of the other necessities needed to win their war with Y2K. However, I'm no expert. I'm *just* a mother.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 19, 1999.

I have to agree with a on this one. Even though I am not currently managing an IT project, I was given the opportunity to answer Yardeni's survey because I'm on his mailing list. I'll bet that a lot of people in the same situation received the opportunity to fill out the survey (I did not), skewing the results. It wouldn't take many "shills" on Yardeni's mailing list to make the results of the survey meaningless.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), June 19, 1999.

I mentioned that 86.6% of the respondents are in the U.S. and Canada. There are three respondents from the Middle East, two from Japan, and one from Russia/Eastern Europe. Don't those places matter? Even if there was agreement about what this survey meant, it doesn't reveal much about the rest of the world.

-- Paul DiMaria (p_dimaria@hotmail.com), June 19, 1999.

Actually, Paul, there's not much news left TO reveal about these other countries, is there? It seems pretty clear to me where the rest of the World stands in the process of tackling the Y2K quarterback. Just look at what "those who are way ahead of the game" have to say. Got Ace bandages?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 19, 1999.

Thank you, RUOK. Those 2 "I think Y2k is a hoax" items together really got my ire up, because the questionnaire author was obviously asleep at the switch. Questionnaires have to start by making distinctions that are meaningful to the people answering.

"It's over-hyped, but I'll have cash and food on hand anyway" could have made the distinction quite well.

Or they could just leave the "hoax" questions out altogether, since the answers speak for themselves on the "do you think it's being hyped?" issue.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 19, 1999.


To Will continue:

Yes, I already knew how those countries were doing. Okay, so maybe we could write-off Russia. But Japan? Saudi Arabia? I don't know what kind of evidence I'm looking for anymore. I try to talk to my ex-wife about this, for the sake of our kids, but she says I'm in the grip of a "superstition." A lot of the media is still talking about Jar Jar Blinks. Somebody is having delusions. There is a line from a Dire Straits song, "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong."

-- Paul DiMaria (p_dimaria@hotmail.com), June 19, 1999.


Paul: Write off Russia? This is the same defective logic used by pollys like Maria. We cannot "write off" a country with 8000 nukes that supplies 40% of Europe's energy.

-- a (a@a.a), June 19, 1999.

I was being facetious. What I was trying to show was how the world has lost its bearings on this issue.

-- Paul DiMaria (p_dimaria@hotmail.com), June 20, 1999.

20% think it's a scam...just proves that there are a bunch of head in the sand pollys out there...as we know from here.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), June 20, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ