This post contains my opinions and thoughts regarding Y2K expectations, perception vs. reality, and lessons learned. It is categorized in the MISC. section.

There are lessons all of us can learn from Y2K. My lesson was a reminder that as human beings our knowledge is imperfect and incomplete, regardless of how many pieces of evidence we consider in formulating our opinions. It will always be so. I find it interesting that just as there was little middle ground during the debates prior to rollover, so too it seems there is little middle ground now. It is rarer than common sense, which is rare indeed. For example, some perceive that every failure since rollover is due to Y2K, while others perceive the popular disclaimer not Y2K related is always accurate. Perception rules.

Reality remains though, as does the elusive middle ground. Perhaps they are together now, side by side, sandwiched by the extremes of perception. Perhaps they always were. Prior to rollover I posted that this period would be like the Fog of War in that there would be difficulties confirming what is actually happening. To some degree, even in the apparent absence of complicating factors such as cyber attacks, viruses, terrorism, etc., I think this has proven true, especially for those few in the middle. How much of what we are hearing is reality, and how much is perception? Lets look at the perceptions of J.Q.Public for some possible insight.

As far as J.Q.Publics perception goes, Y2K is over. For the vast majority there never really was much concern or interest in it anyway. It is already history for them, unlike for many that followed Y2K closely in the past and continue to take an interest in what continues to unfold. It is probable that regardless of what does or doesnt happen next, in the minds of the public Y2K will remain over. The government and press have loudly heralded this message, proclaimed Y2K a non-event, and some have renamed Y2K to Yawn 2K. To my mind, the reality is that there was always more risk present than the public ever perceived. Some would argue this is still the case. Others would disagree entirely.

Importantly, the lack of catastrophic problems at rollover confirmed public expectations which resulted largely from the official perception management policy and mainstream press reporting prior to rollover. The message was a three-day storm, and after Monday, 1/3/2000, victory was declared in keeping with J.Q. Publics expectations. Perception was ostensibly introduced to reality. It has been my experience that once most people make up their minds about something, then 'good luck' trying to change them. Even if the Death of a Thousand Cuts scenario plays out, how many will acknowledge it, other than historians? It is already over in the publics mind, regardless of if this is reality or not. It is perception that counts for J.Q. Public, unless and until reality asserts itself to force a change in that perception. FWIW I do not rule this out. Naturally, this is predicated on the opinion that there is a difference between the public's perception and reality to begin with.

The perception (and for some the reality) that all is well continues to be reinforced. From what I have seen, most failures that we are now aware of are passing largely unnoticed or going unreported at the National level. Not much is being reported as Y2K related. Is this reality? Perhaps, but I find it hard to swallow in terms of the increasing number and extent of failures. And I have always had a healthy skepticism and distrust for coincidences. I believe the truth is most likely towards the middle somewhere.

As far as reporting failures goes, ask how it could be otherwise, if you agree with my opinion that Y2K is over in most peoples minds, and that perception does not equate to reality. Why rock the boat built so carefully by perception management? I doubt if public perceptions would change even if there turns out to be some serious failures ahead. As far as the public is concerned, it was never a big problem to begin with and what hasnt happened confirmed this once and for all. No need for further thought. Now, pass the remote and chips please. I would suggest that even if serious failures DO happen AND are reported as being attributable to Y2K, it still wouldnt make that much difference in perception to any except those personally affected by the actual failures.

Regardless of if you feel you have been proven right or wrong so far, there are always lessons to be learned. Few things in Life are black or white. I thought that trying to draw a distinction between perception and reality seemed reasonable to attempt at this particular time. You may not agree with a word I have written, yet it is my hope that since you have read this far you will be inclined to ask some questions that perhaps werent being considered before. Many are questioning how and why they arrived at their conclusions. This is time well spent, for as I have posted so often, experience is an expensive teacher. As we look to the future, lessons that are learned today become ever more important tomorrow.

As Yogi said, "the future aint what it used to be." May I add that it never is, and in the case of Y2K, thank God.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@my.take), January 07, 2000

Answers

You speak of perception and reality as though they were different things. Can you prove otherwise?

Please, skip the '60's arguments that "if we believe there is a portal in the pond, why is perception not reality then?". What i'm talking about is a person's perception of things being their reality.

For instance, if I percieve that the world is going to end, then for me, that is my reality. If I percieve that Jesus walks with me all day, that is also my reality. If I percieve that Y2K is over, then for me, it is over. That is my reality. If I percieve otherwise at a later date, that will also become reality to me.

How do you see perception and reality as different?

-- Grant Naylor (web@srfin.net), January 07, 2000.

Oops. Sorry about that. Usually I'm pretty good about closing the door when I'm done walking through. My apologies.

-- Grant Naylor (web@srfin.net), January 07, 2000.

Grant wrote:

You speak of perception and reality as though they were different things. Can you prove otherwise?

This is confusing. I thought you wanted to challenge Rob to prove that reality and perception are different, but this isn't what the question above seeks. Maybe you meant (sorry don't mean to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand):

You speak of perception and reality as though they were different things. Can you prove they are different ?

In any case, I think, all due respect to the ancient Greeks, it is a practical question. For example, if I'm a child drinking out of cups and using dishes that have a lead-based glaze which I'm unaware of, I perceive that everything's OK. However, a scientist might be able to demonstrate that my intelligence or health has been affected (no jokes please!). This is where perception and reality diverge, in a practical sense.

As for the academicians, let's respect Rob's practical focus.

Q: What is a philosopher?
A: Somebody who doesn't get upset no matter what happens to you.

-- ccb (ccb@anna.lit), January 07, 2000.

Did someone say that wonderful word, "philosophy?"

Glaucon: Yes, O Socrates, it was the Thomas Carey who asked for help in understanding this most difficult problem, "what is the difference between perception and reality?"

I answer, Glaucon, if a Big Mac tastes good at lunch but causes you to "repeat" later, was it "really" good or did it only "seem" good?

If Y2K being over makes you feel secure but we have a deep recession or depression that is said by the mighty PR machine to be caused by "consumer pullbacks in spending" and "corporate pullbacks in "investing" and "challenges to the reliability of our infrastructure that have been brewing for years," shall we insist that Y2K played a causal or trigger role or might we let it go and focus on saving our portfolios and eating our beans?

Glaucon: Could you, O Socrates, shorten the length of that sentence?"

I reply, Go buy a happy meal and think on it for a few hours.

-- Socrates (Gymnasium@Athens.Org), January 07, 2000.

CCB,

Good point about the original phrasing of my question. Upon review, I see how it might be easily misconstrued.

If I were a child eating off of lead-glazed cups and plates, my body and mind would perceive my illness as it grew inside me. Therefore, my reality of my ill health would also be my perception of it.

-- Grant Naylor (web@srfin.net), January 07, 2000.

Grant: Thanks for the post, and for starting what turned out to be some good follow up discussion. I see that others have answered the question that you posed already. Another 'example' is provided below.

Bok: Carbon copy? Sheesh! Please share with me whatever your analyst says to you, and I promise to do the same :) Regarding your remark about Phil, LOL.

Tom: It is always a pleasure to see your name on any of my threads. Hope all is well with you and yours. (Can I turn the italics back on now in the hopes you will return?)

Socrates: LOL. Maybe you'll get Tom back here instead! BTW, I have always wanted to have a nice long talk with you. Where ya been? Now, do I dare ask what I really need to know? Aw, what the heck. Here it is: What came first, the chicken or the egg? :) Ok, ok, I'm sorry!

CCB: Good example and clarification. Thanks.

Here is an example that I think relates to Y2K very well (due to some parallels). It is the stock market crash of 1929 and ensuing Great Depression. At the time, people generally perceived it to be over in early 1930, when it in reality it had only just begun! Folks were expecting a quick return to prosperity. Consider the following quote from stock market historian John Brooks: "It came with a surrealistic kind of slowness... so gradually that, on the one hand, it was possible to live through a good part of it without realizing that it was happening, and, on the other hand, it was possible to believe one had experienced and survived it when in fact it had no more than begun." (emphasis mine)

See what I mean?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@my.take), January 07, 2000.

O Robert, young one, I have been summoned to this board to resolve all doubts about Y2K, though, as you may know, I know only that I myself do not know. Or is it, I do not know what it is that I myself know? Or, I know not what I know ... not.

And herein lies the key to Y2K and its long-term effects. We think we know that Y2K is over yet it has only begun. And if it turns out that we experience unpredictable effects that are Y2K-caused but described as anything-other-than-Y2K, will it really effect what-is? Truth?

Anyway, where were we ....

Ah, chickens and eggs. Don't ask me, ask Yogi. Now, THERE is a philosopher.

-- Socrates (Gymnasium@Athens.Org), January 07, 2000.

If I were a child eating off of lead-glazed cups and plates, my body and mind would perceive my illness as it grew inside me.

Interesting. But we have to be careful that our definition of "perceive" doesn't get so broad and slippery that the claim:
perception = reality becomes a tautology that can no longer be argued. I would say that the kind of unconcious perception of 'system slow down' in your version of the child's health/mental effects is radically different from rational conscious perception (such as a child's perception of a new toy under a Christmas tree upon sighting it), which latter type I might presume to infer was Rob's target...

-- ccb (ccb@anna.lit), January 07, 2000.

CCB :)

Socrates: "Young one", huh? I like ya Soc! I was once told that fifty isn't old, if you're a tree :( And lest we forget, it was in fact Yogi that said "It ain't over til its over." ROTFL. Perhaps he is your modern equivalent - a veritable treasure trove of crushing erudition, don't you think? Don't know if he ever addressed the chicken/egg question. I hear he did write a book though. Hmmm. Might be time for some serious research.

I have seen it argued that truth is immutable (as in the context of physical laws for example). Others believe it depends on what the definition of 'truth' is - that truth is subjective. (Geez, maybe we should 'e' the Prez this thread.) One things for sure though, and that is people's emotions and reactions come into play regarding 'effects'. These are almost always a wildcard. Just ask Koskinen. It is no accident that he publicly stated early last year that "Perception management is Job #1."

When problems occur folks generally won't care immediately about 'why' or 'truth'. They won't stop to sit down and analyze things until later, if ever. Most people would rather be entertained than think, especially about something unpleasant. They will only know they are being affected and react - sometimes irrationally. They will have more expedient matters on their minds. The exception may be those that were thoughtful (and lucky) enough to have not been totally surprised. Which brings us back to perception again. Sitting down to work things out and think - the "rational conscious perception" which CCB just mentioned, is one way that we can help minimize effects of problems that we visualize and possibly take action about before they become reality. A little thought ahead of time can save a lot of gnashing of teeth later.

(This feels like 'old times' gang. Thanks!)

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@my.take), January 07, 2000.

Thanks for the thread pointing, Rob. You were right, I had missed this one (it didn't make the 15 rule - quite).

About perception vs reality - surely both come into play? I think this is another area for the middle ground. (I think the same is true for Nature vs Nurture.) As far as perception and reality, each affects the other, doesn't it? If I percieve myself to be cold in -30 weather and put on multiple layers of clothing, I may well soon be warm. Of course if I don't percieve myself to be cold, I may well soon be dead. Having a perception that is far off of reality is often self-limiting, one way or another (insane asylums abound with those who insist on discovering this for themselves). On the other hand, the ability to maintain a sense of humour in the face of tribulation can be very 'sane making'. And a sense of humour is very often based on perception - usually warped perception ;-)

Just a few quick thoughts from the top of my head. Maybe over the next few days, I'll find more lurking near the bottom. :-)

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), January 31, 2000.