Don't Get Its - Is one of them someone you know?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
This post was written to try and show that there are more than just 'Get its' and 'Don't get its', and as a result we can have some hope for people we care about that are not preparing or who we think don't seem to get it now.
We have get its - GIs. They believe.
We have Don't get its - DGIs. They deny.
We also have Forget its - FGIs. They consider.
FGIs: These are the folks that we talk to about Y2K who listen, forget it, and some time later you find out that they get it after all. Some event triggers the change. In the last week alone, several people who I thought of as DGIs are now GIs.
I was wrong to begin with. They were not DGIs. They were FGIs. I thought that they just shrugged it off and forgot it. They either really did forget it for a while OR they were considering things. Perhaps they were too busy with all the 'stuff of life' at first. But like a seed that is planted, for some, the ideas took root. Jim Lord has talked about these people being like green tomatoes, not ripe yet.
Some very general observations can be made, given the assumption that the person has at least heard of Y2K:
1. By default we start as DGI's and either stay DGI (in denial), become a FGI (start considering), OR are a GI almost immediately (rare - most common among folks that lived through the Great Depression from what I've seen so far).
2. The FGIs either remain FGIs (still considering) OR the FGI becomes a GI (after a trigger event). It is also possible that in the absence of a trigger event the FGI will revert to DGI (stop considering and deny), though it is more likely they will become a GI.
3. Once you are a GI, you do not revert to FGI or DGI. You continue considering but have made up your mind and begin taking actions to prepare. These actions will be dictated by what the GIs expectations of the impact on them are, as well as their ability and means to take those actions.
It is entirely possible that this situation will continue for a while yet unless there is a panic first. If there is one then all bets are off. Then we will see Instant GIs, and lots of them too. They will try to do what GIs are supposed to do: take action, and they will be trying to do this all at the same time. Patience is needed if you are trying to convince people and feel like you are getting nowhere. It's hard to be patient with so much at stake, and with the real threat of looming panic and what that will mean. I know it is a small hope, but I have living proof that FGIs exist. Think about the folks you have tried to convince. Some of them may be true DGIs, but others, perhaps even most, are FGIs. With the clear increase in awareness lately, more and more FGIs will be turning into GIs. Don't automatically mistake them for DGIs as I did. Take heart and don't give up. Help them to take the action to prepare when they are ready. We may all be scared, and rightfully so, but we are not alone. There are lots of FGIs out there right now. Is one of them someone you know?
-- Rob Michaels (email@example.com), November 29, 1998
It's strange. I am the only GI that I know. Everyone else I've talked with about Y2K is a DGI. Friends, family, business associates, etc. The younger guys at my office are only concerned that their cars may not start Jan. 1.
-- Nancy E. Smith (Taurus91@webtv.net), November 29, 1998.
>It's strange. I am the only GI that I know.
You're ahead of the curve in your circle of acquaintances. :-)
>Everyone else I've talked with about Y2K is a DGI. Friends, family, business associates, etc.
Keep talking to 'em! As Rob points out, some may well be FGIs rather than DGIs.
_You_ can be the one who, using your knowledge of each of them, finds ways of presenting them with the Y2K facts that will suddenly dawn in their minds.
-- No Spam Please (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 29, 1998.
Maybe the real word that yuz all is confused about is the word "is." Clinton was confused with that word too.
-- not confused at all (email@example.com), November 29, 1998.
That IS to say: Is it or isn't it going to happen? If it is (III) then it isn't (II). If it isn't going to happen (III), then I is going to be happy.
-- not confused at all (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 29, 1998.
Dont forget, there will be several trigger event opportunities to become GI-compatible coming up in 1999 and EVEN if one event causes a panic, the electricity stays on during 1999. With that still on, people will calm down and some DGIers will re-consider, become FGIers for awhile, until they too climb the Y2K evolutionary GI scale. My major concern is still the emotional energy repercussions for Y2K. Those are what needs to be re-directed into positive preparation for everyone and within their respective communities, to the best of their abilities and personal circumstances.
-- Diane J. Squire (email@example.com), November 29, 1998.
I think there's an important fourth category:
DWGI - Don't WANNA Get It.
I deal with lots of these folks. You can have a conversation with them and they appear to get it and say all the right things. They can quickly extrapolate to the WCS (worst case scenario) but then the next time it's brought up they'll say "oh, shut up already" or "i don't really want to hear anymore about it" or "I just want to live my life" or they bust your chops about it and maybe call you names. I think the difference between FGI and DWGI is subtle but important. So, Rob, if I can update your fine idea, it would look like this:
Get It - GI - Are capable of seeing a wide range of possiblities and are willing to act to protect themselves.
Don't Wanna Get It - DWGI - Are capable of seeing a fairly wide range of possibilities but cannot take action to protect themselves. They are frozen by fear and/or the delusion that somehow they will be able to continue living unaffected.
Forget It - FI - They are capable of seeing a narrower range of possibilites and don't believe they need to do anything to protect themselves. As "trigger events" occur, their range widens and they will be willing to take action.
Don't Get It - DGI - They do not have the capacity to see all but the narrowest range of possibilites. (MY Macintosh will work, what's the big deal?) This isn't necessarily a decision making process thing, more a matter of limited imagination, education, and experience.
Just my two sense worth...
-- pshannon (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 29, 1998.
Diane: Thank you for your post and especially for giving the idea a name: " Y2K Evolutionary Scale " (YES) fits what I was trying to describe very well. Now we can refer to it that way if we want. It sounds positive too. LOL.
Pshannon: You are most welcome to update the idea, that is one of the best things about this forum. I gave some thought to your suggestion and agree about the DWGIs; their mind tells them one thing but the emotions aren't ready to go along yet. I also agree with your placement of the DWGIs on the YES. Thanks.
No Spam Please: As you told Nancy, all of us, if we choose, can play an important part in being a trigger ourselves.
not confused at all: HUH? You have me very well comfused. May I suggest that the next time you are confused please try the post again. Since you will be confused and I am already confused we may have a basis for understanding one another.
-- Rob Michaels (email@example.com), November 29, 1998.
I like the Don't Wanna Get It category - very true, very common.
Most common among those who embrace government the closest perhaps.
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 29, 1998.
The YES consists of:
DGIs, FGIs (or should it just be FIs?,) DWGIs, and GIs.
-- Rob Michaels (email@example.com), November 30, 1998.
It occurs to me that, except probably for one's closest friends and family, it is not worth it to spend energy trying to be the loudest predictor of the miserable future. 1/ If we (GIs) are wrong, we do not have the right to mislead others. 2/ If we are right to be apprehensive about this matter, but it turns out to be OK or merely tolerable aggravations, then we look like fools and help no one. 3/ If we are right, we may perhaps convince a few, but most who have "ears to hear" probably have already heard. 4/ Very few will give us credit for being right; many will punish us for being wrong and, especially, for being right and loud, cf. the cliches of Jeremiah and Cassandra. 5/ Time spent persuading others (as opposed to minimal brief education of others) is probably much better spent with other GIs in info trading, gathering supplies, earning money, planning routes of departure for those who make the particular choice to relocate, etc.
This is a sort of "game theory" exercize which I have not done completely; what do y'all think?
-- Bruce Godfrey (Cmpn4Hmnty@aol.com), December 03, 1998.
Bruce: I started this thread because I know a lot of folks have had their share of trouble convincing others that Y2K is real, and that if they have been trying to convince folks, then they can take some heart from the fact that it isn't just DGIs and GIs. Remarkably, the thread has not 'wandered' very far for which I'm thankful in this case. It was also started with those who are trying to warn people in mind.
Now, regarding your comments, you are discussing a related issue I think... that of should we even bother (other than family or close friends) warning others. This has been discussed frequently. Some say yes, others no. Some are emphatic, others gentle.
I am not familiar with Game Theory, but I am more than familiar with Y2K. We are talking about the possible end of Western Civilization, and many lost lives. Some folks will read this post that have been trying to help others get it, and think about if I am right in my assertion that we have more than GIs and DGIs. Some, I hope, will agree and take heart.
-- Rob Michaels (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 03, 1998.
Since there have been several questions recently about what FI or DWGI mean, I thought you would like to see how this came about and the actual context for each. This thread contains that stuff. Enjoy.
-- Rob Michaels (email@example.com), December 08, 1998.