We got the posting of Russ Kelly's survey of "experts" on Y2K. Looks like the average is about an 8, right?

Okay, let me set up the situation and then ask the question.

With only 21 or so weeks, it would seem to me that in the position of those who will be quoted for time immemorial that I'd error on the side of caution. I'd be thinking about what everyone will think of me in 22 weeks.

After all, that would be the safe move. If I say it's no big deal and it is, in fact, no big deal, I'm a sound, down-to-earth guy who did'n't fall for all the hype. If I'm wrong and TSHTF, who's gonna care, since 80% of the world is dead?

Now the opposite position explored:

I go overboad with my doom & gloom predictions. I get crucified for the next 22 weeks by all the "press" and if I'm wrong, it only gets worse, I'm a complete jerk - if I'm right, who will care and why would I care as to their opinion of me?

We've got some pretty hard hitters here, Yourdon a well known and here-to-for respected computer whiz. Yardini, the stock market guru. Olmsted, another well respected computer geek (who can articulate his bug-out position and writes well too).

See, we have to measure the applicable reliability of peoples opinions based on past experience: Have they been right before, do they have integrity, do they have a reason to outright lie and do they have something to gain personally from a particular position? Money is a factor, but I sure wouldn't give up a 20-year career in software development for a few months of "big bucks" selling Y2K stuff. See, if I knew it was a sham, I'd also know that next year I'd have to find a new job.

Secondly, we examine the knowledge level of our experts. Personally, I think that whole argument against respecting one's opinion because they make a living off of giving it is silly. Using that logic, we wouldn't listen to stock brokers, doctors, lawyers, farmers, plumbers and instead we'd ask the 7-Eleven clerk's opinion regarding our cancer, not the oncologist, since he just want to make a quick buck off of us.

On the other hand, one thing we know about the government. They will always lie if it suits them. Laos, Radiation testing, Pearl Harbor, Monica...You could make money betting against whatever they told you.

So here's the question:

How do we handicap the positions of the experts?

-- Randers (coyotecanyon@hotmail.com), August 03, 1999

Answers

Error on the side of caution with out a doubt. On the other hand an 8 will be a disaster.

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), August 03, 1999.

When I read that Gary North wants TEOTWAWKI, I can't help but wonder if that is true, then why has he gone out of his way to bring all the attention to y2k? He sends out a newsletter for free, most of his books are online for free and he has a terrific web site that he does devote a lot of time, more time than most of us have. His one newsletter that is for paid subscribers has been around before y2k became popular. I listened to Gary North, and read his suggestions. Thanks to him, I found the way to pay off my mortgage and not use any of my money! If you had paid attention to his suggestions then you know how I did it. I am dept free and I for one thank Gary North and all the others who have stood up and spoken out. I feel like I have matured over the last year. I am more aware of world situations and just how much all of the world is inter connected. I will never take things for granted like I did before. My head is out of the sand to see the good or the bad.

-- Carol (glear@usa.net), August 03, 1999.

Point well taken!

We have a whole lot of techies saying CYA.

We have a whole lot of Media saying NoProblemo

Who is making more money in this equation? Techies or Media?

I think I'll put the bigger handycap on the Media.

One man's opinon FWIW.

-- helium (heliumavid@yahoo.com), August 03, 1999.

Helium gives media too much credit. He forgets that they are basically the Charlie McCarthy's of the world, acting as the dummies for the power-mongers (governmental, corporate elite) in control. His question would be better suited to asking who sees y2k as opportunity to make money? Upon answering that question, we''ll all know who hides the truth, as well.

Whether it is reporting the goodie-goodie side or the doom and gloom side, the media is doing its best zombie imitation, blindly following the leader and uncovering no new ground.

Carol, you have made great strides in uncovering just one agenda behind a, cough, hack, snort, 'expert'. Here's a newsflash: there are a lot more agendas to go around. Just keep reading....and make up your own mind. Following a camp mentality means basically being a drone.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), August 03, 1999.

Bad Company, You are right about different agendas, but I never said I believed that Gary North was dead right. I received very good information from him that helped me a lot. I don't need to follow Mr. North, I was in Arkansas before him.

-- Carol (glear@usa.net), August 03, 1999.

Carol, all "experts" are not created equal. Gary North for example does a great job at pointing many Y2K pitfalls and debunking pollys, as well as working enormously hard on this issue, and I myself have used his site to get at raw Y2K links, but his background and motives are quite different from someone like Yourdon and Yardeni. Gary North can certainly be viewed as a smart GI, but he is a Reconstructionist, and his motive in the end is to convert people to his religious views. He does indeed hope for TEOTWAWKI, has been hoping for it even before he was aware of the Y2K bug. His "preaching" on Y2K is invariably gloomy and negative, sometimes stretching reality with fancy writing so as to support the most gloomy results. I think he truely believes his own..um...exagerations? lies?

Ed on the other hand is not a religious fanatic trying to convert anyone, simply a smart and experienced programmer who is concerned for humankind and dedicated himself to warn people when the full implication of Y2K hit him.

I'm all for the "don't shoot the messenger for the message" view, but as they say, paper doesn't refuse ink and one must still do some independant thinking and research, and knowing the author's background is an important part of extrapolating what the message really is or means.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 03, 1999.

Chris, your last paragraph needs to be tattooed on the inside of everyone's glasses, contacts or eyes. WELL PUT!

Chuck

And welcome back

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 04, 1999.

Q. How do we handicap the positions of the experts?

I think this has to be done within the framework of those 'in the trenches' rather than those who are disconnected from the problem itself.

Those 'further up the food chain' have less reason / motive to be honest about the true situation than those at the bottom. I have fought, internally and externally, with many companies over the years about such issues as health & safety, disaster recovery, risk managment, customer care & support and the argument is always 'The bottom line'. Y2K is an amplification of this cultural anomoly, those who "control" the development and maintenance of "technology" (the purse strings) have the least knowledge or understanding of the positive or negative effects. Call it 'Executive disconnect'.

Where the problem occues with the technical experts is the TEOTWAWKI scenarios. Logically, this is the end result of massive Y2K failures, if extrapolated to the Nth degree. I don't think that the majority of people are emotionally robust enough to take this on board as you are then entering the realms of ethics, religion and world view. Gary North, as an example, has a higher alternative agenda, but as a man of integrity he does not make any attempt to hide this. He can vividly illustrate the TEOTWAWKI scenario firm in his personal convictions - AND sleep at night.

At the end of the day, no-one can predict what will happen. My best comment on the whole issue is "It is not a question of weither we have a crisis or not, but the scale of the crisis to come". And I'm still an 8 !!!

-- Rob Somerville (merville@globalnet.co.uk), August 04, 1999.

Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

I've been thinking about this credibility issue a bit while daydreaming about the fantasy public service announcement described at Calling All Opinion Leaders (the one with all the pop culture celebrities). Some portion of the listening audience would believe just because their pop heros say to, without investigating for themselves. Some would be moved to investigate. Some will harden their DGI positions when they rightly conclude that the opinions of such people should not matter in the least. The fact of the matter is that THERE ARE NO Y2K AUTHORITIES when it comes to knowing what will happen. There are only educated guesses and vested interests. Yes, look at how any prognosticators make their livings, and how they have lived their lives. In the final analysis, though, we are each utterly and completely alone in having to rely upon our own intellect to decide what claims are trust worthy and which are not. We are all our own experts.

Independently wealthy celebrities could come off as people who are not beholden to anyone, and who can speak their minds freely. The fact that they do have to be concerned about their own public image would only add to their credibility. What they lack in perceived Y2K knowledge level could be overcome by including sound and video bites or just quotes from more recognized Y2K authorities.

I am absolutely amazed that there are as few people preparing as there are. Polls show that approximately half of the adult population thinks that there will be some problems, whether big or small. But nobody actually does anything about that. I think the real problem is not that people need more data in the form of votes by experts, but that they are socially paralyzed. To the average person, it matters not one bit what an Alan Greenspan or a Robert Bennett thinks. The only people who matter are the Jonses next door. Excessive schooling has trained us all to be very afraid of being "different". A monolithic media campaign painting those who are hedging their bets as foolish easily prevents folks from exercising their own brain muscles. Y2K-Adaptive people well may be 'fraidy-cats, and I admit that I am afraid of possible social chaos. How dishonorable is that, though, compared to the person who knows that there could be problems, yet decides to not protect their loved ones, just because people might snicker if they're found out? Now that's fear!

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 04, 1999.

Dancr, that's an excellent post. I believe that you've hit the nail on the head. When I realize that there will be many, many people unprepared for this reason, I could almost growl in frustration, or cry in pity. Yet the persistent question surfaces again and again: is this what is meant by survival of the fittest? Not necessarily those who are physically near-perfect or intellectually superior, but those who can admit their humanity, are willing to put their reputations on the line in order to survive and try to awaken others to do so, and who then are willing to muster the incredible energy and expend the enormous effort to actually prepare...not only via supplies, but trying to cram a world of new knowledge about survival techniques into so short a time?

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), August 04, 1999.