Y2K dust settles? http://www.yourdon.com/books/y2k2020/25.iknow.html

Perhaps, when the Y2K dust settles, we will discover that the largest and most severe of the unknown-unknown problems was the human, sociological reaction to Y2K technological problems. Bank runs and food hoarding fall into the category of "known-unknown" problems -- i.e., we know that there is a potential for such problems to occur, but the extent and timing of such problems is unknown. Beyond this, though, what if ... Y2K causes an enraged population to march on Washington, burn the city to the ground, and lynch every politician in sight? What if Y2K leads an enraged population to burn every computer programmer at the stake, thereby making it impossible fix any of the technological problems? What if a new religious messiah emerges from a Y2K crisis and convinces his followers to launch a religious jihad on the rest of the human race? What if ... the list is endless, and is indeed limited entirely by our own imagination at this point.

But in that case, one question will remain: would the unknown-unknown human reaction have been less severe and less unpredictable if the governments of the world had made more of an effort to tell their citizens the truth about Y2K, rather than dismissing it as the proverbial "bump in the road"? Or, to put it another way: will the unknown-unknown human reaction -- e.g., combinations of panic, terror, frustration, rage, and betrayal -- be worse if the technologically-oriented Y2K problems turn out to be more severe, widespread, and long-lasting than the governments of the world have led us to believe? Hopefully, we'll be able to look back upon all of this at some point in the future, and make an objective judgment about whether our leaders and our governments did the right thing with Y2K. As for me -- an individual citizen, responsible only for myself and my family -- I can only say that I wish I had been told the truth. I know enough about Y2K to be strongly convinced that I have not been told the truth -- and I know enough about the philosophy of government to know that, common practice notwithstanding, the ideal standard is one of truthfulness.

-- Anon (anon@anon.anon), May 29, 2000

Answers

[But in that case, one question will remain: would the unknown- unknown human reaction have been less severe and less unpredictable if the governments of the world had made more of an effort to tell their citizens the truth about Y2K, rather than dismissing it as the proverbial "bump in the road"?]

But there WERE unknowns. Granted, the government's description turned out to be considerably more pessimistic than actual experience warranted, but I still insist that there were enough informational black holes and isolated sources of genuine concern (though it turned out they all muddled through without serious incident) that the government's mild pessimism was warranted. OK, we didn't *have* even a bump in the road. But I don't believe such a bump could ever be entirely ruled out. The government was exercising reasonable caution, which I can't complain about.

As for the government telling the truth, apply a little more hindsight. Why not? They DID tell the truth, as well as they knew it. Why is this so hard to accept?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 29, 2000.

Really Flint? Then why is that so hard a concept to accept about others? Others like Stan maybe or even Yourdon. I'm very sorry if you feel betrayed but I dont. Good people making their best judgements aint a problem for me. Carping afterward sucks though.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 29, 2000.

Carlos just pulled his finger outta the dike.

---Got slickers?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 29, 2000.

Carlos:

I have no problem with faulty analysis when available information is hopelessly equivocal and incomplete. I made mistakes myself for that very reason. As the information fills in and becomes consistent (which it did the last half of last year), I have a bit more problem with those who, instead of adjusting to changes as they happen, become even more entrenched and intransigent in their attitudes. Do you seriously claim to admire those who become more adamant the more their prior (and no longer justified) foundation erodes?

Finally, it's very difficult to respect those who, when proven resoundingly and unambiguously wrong, either run away and hide (like Stan) or act to silence those who were correct (like Yourdon). OK, let's give Yourdon the benefit of the doubt and concede that he doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to computer systems, and was totally and completely fooled by the reality. Lets EVEN assume that his efforts to make money from peddling fear were irrelevant, and didn't influence his position in any way.

So NOW, how do you explain his continued efforts to exaggerate y2k impacts (not an easy task), and his continued lockout of opposing opinion? Just WHO isn't letting go of their delusions anyway?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 29, 2000.

Admire, respect? Hmmm, don't remember using those words Flint. Not for them, not for you. Do you really think anyone left on this forum who wasn't of the polly persuasion has learned nothing? Them maybe but not us.

BTW to all: I missread Chris' manliness post. Clean fresh hair smells good on girls only. Straight here.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 29, 2000.

My town had GOOD news to tell, and they REFUSED to do so. My town had information on its general emergency plan (like number of shelters, whether they were heated, etc.) and they REFUSED to do so. One of our selectmen was also the state y2k coordinator, and he was determined to treat us all as children. The only article published in our newspaper about how one might prepare for a three day storm came out the evening of December 30th. To me, all of this was even worse than their lying. (Although they did lie - they told me they would get the information out and they never did.) I wanted to be able to make plans that would dovetail with what was available locally. That information was intentionally withheld, so I had to go for a more comprehensive approach than necessary. They have lost their credibility and are not to be trusted or forgiven for it.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 29, 2000.

Brooks:

These are serious charges, and if true someone in your town should be answerable for it. What town is this? Who is the responsible person? Would you like me to make a few phone calls and report what I find? Since I presume you DID make these calls and got stonewalled, can you tell us the name of the irresponsible individuals you talked to? Can you vote them out of office? Who are they? In cases like this, the details (and people) are what counts. Got any?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 29, 2000.

Now that's the kind of accountability that makes sense to me. Sic 'em girl and goooooood luck.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 29, 2000.

Flint,

Stan has been repeatedly accused of 'running away' after y2k. I know for a fact that he did not. Stan isn't in a position to come to this board. He may not even be aware that it exits. I know you like to verify things, and I can't verify this for you without Stan's permission.

-- helen (staying@the.edge), May 29, 2000.

Flint, the selectman who was the state y2k coordinator is Val Asbedian. He still works for the state as Director of Strategic Information. Near as I can tell, he taught Koskinen everything Koskinen knew about denial.

The then chairman of the selectmen who twice promised to get the information out is Joseph Piantedosi.

A third (of five) selectmen who saw no reason to broadcast any information about the town's status (although he finally promised NOT to BLOCK such an effort) is Gordon Feltman.

I was serving in town government on a volunteer commission at the time. This crap was one of the reasons I quit last year.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 30, 2000.

...the town is Bedford, Massachusetts.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 30, 2000.