I'm suggesting a whole new catagory of people - the CGI's who Can't Get It no matter what you say, what you read, what you plead. It's like their reasoning capabilities aren't Y2K compliant or something.

Shadow

-- Shadow (foo@foo.com), February 16, 1999

Answers

Or how about the HTD's (Having Trouble Deciding)

For every article I read that says prepare...I read another that says no need to prepare...

How do you eventually know who to believe.

I tell you people here that I pretty much think it is going to be a problem. I am in the 4-6 range on the 1-10 scale...However, I have trouble listening to a minister saying it is going to be TEOTWAWKI over a computer expert who says it is going to be a minor bump in the road...

COULD SOMEONE PLEASE....I BEG......LEAD ME IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.....I AM SO CONFUSED!!!

PMM

-- PMM (grute22@yahoo.com), February 16, 1999.

Yes ! ...Dr. Ed Yardeni classifies them as DGI's (don't get its)...I know many of them.......

-- ScaredyCat (KLT@DittosRush.com), February 16, 1999.

Bet the CGIs are having a better year than we are ;(
This stinks! Especially since it's looking more like no matter what preps one makes, what's the use? Those who have bugged way out into the boonies and are already completely self-reliant are very fortunate. They may have more time to savor freedom.

Hhmmm, wonder what technique a GI can use to turn into a CGI.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 16, 1999.

>Bet the CGIs are having a better year than we are ;(

Bet we have a better year next year that the CGIs ;(

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 16, 1999.

PMM - if you're on the fence, its because you can't read between the lines. Just take the positive statements and analyze their content - what are they really saying. Nothing. Show me a don't worry statement that has an ounce of content or fact. See, its simple. The naysayers have the content and the fact, the pollyannas have platitudes and empty reassurances. So are you still sitting on the fence (painful).

Shadow

-- Shadow (foo@foo.com), February 16, 1999.

Then of course there are the DAD's - DEAF and DUMB!

-- (@@@.@), February 16, 1999.

Why don't you just read what you want to read, get what you want to get, and don't get what you don't want to get, and be done with it. It's really not all that hard, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to sort through this stuff. I'm not a college graduate, barely made it through high school, and I understand the Y2K concept completely. Maybe your looking for something that is not as deep as you want it to be.

-- smartenoughtoseeit (Smartenoughtoseeit@gotit.com), February 16, 1999.

PMM,

See the list of articles I put together at this link...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000UdL

Also, articles that downplay Y2K concerns generally attack what they see as a lack of common sense, or attack the motives of those who take Y2K seriously. Rarely do articles that downplay Y2K discuss hard facts, like Y2K remediation deadlines being missed.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 17, 1999.

You are ultimatly resposible for your own decisions. Do not expect anyone to be able to tell you what to do. This is a decision you must make for yourself. Being over preapred opens you to a little laughter if your wrong. Being underprepared opens you up to death. You decide at what level to prepare. By the way for those of you who wanted a computer profesional. I am project manager for major telecom corporation. I have worked on the year 2000 project for 4 of the largest 5 long distance companies. I am expecting a disaster. Personally I am preparing for 10 years, you do what you want.

-- Steve Watson (swatson1@gte.net), February 17, 1999.

Steve, if you worked as PM for 4 companies then you must have worked a very short time with each, or did these companies start a long time ago? What makes you think we're headed for 10 years depression? Can you give us some detail?

-- Lucy (interested@myhome.com), February 17, 1999.

FWIT I have 21 years IT experience and think it will be a disaster too - I'm factoring in also the world view - i.e. in addition to our own serious problem in the USA we will suffer from lack of oil, imports, a general break down of world trade, ditto for communications, possibly for electricity (I hope to God not...)

There is a very good site at www.russkelly.com. A bunch of "experts" have voted on their take from 1 to 10. With Gary North being at a constant 10 (and he has a very good chance of buying on the money THIS time), and a totally pollyanna guy on a constant 1 no matter what information you give to him, the average score is in the 7's (7.3 I believe).

If you are genuinely confused then go by this figure - 7.3 and climbing slowly - I think you would have to be brain dead not to be able to figure out what to do from now on.

Good luck!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 17, 1999.

Steve, my problem with your statement: "You are ultimatly responsible for your own decisions....This is a decision you must make for yourself...Being underprepared opens you up to death" is that society, and many individually, are going to pay with our tax money and potentially our lives for those who were (comparatively) woefully unprepared. It is too much to hope that someone in a leadership role could make the message that it is our patriotic duty to each do *something*, even if there is no agreement about what that should be. Bless you for ensuring that you will not be part of the problem; I hope I will be able to say the same for myself come next year.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), February 17, 1999.

I'm intrigued by this idea of "Can't Get Its." There is something in the makeup of the human brain that allows some people to create complicated mental models of a complex scenario and "see" that model with their mind's eye and "Get It." Other people have great difficulty in doing this. You see, it's not a judgement thing, rather a capacity issue.

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), February 17, 1999.

Yesterday I went to my ministerium meeting. I am always greeted, "Here comes the y2k man." Usually that is as far as anyone goes with y2k. Yesterday a minister got serious and wanted to know why he felt no burden or concern about y2k. He said he has parishoners coming up and wanting to know what to do and what is the church going to do. Several others said they felt the same way.

One guy said that maybe I was the only one meant by God to have the burden. I quickly and gently disagreed.

My answer to them was that it takes regular reading on y2k to GI. I myself spent considerable time in 1997 on North's forum and especially his discussion forum before it clicked for me. I also find that if I stay away from a y2k discussion group or North's forum or Hamasaki too long I fall into old thought patterns or simple prograstination.

I really don't think I would get it or even keep getting it without the internet. The media's optimism is powerful. Most of the ministers and people who are DGI or CGI are not on the internet. How many GI do you know who are not on the internet? How many GI you know, who are not on the internet, are making serious preparations?

At least this was my answer to my ministerium friends. Their response: Keep us updated. I told them they have six weeks before a new small wave get it and four months until July 1 when a bigger wave will get it. The time to GI is running out as is the time to prepare.

-- BBrown (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), February 17, 1999.

Its true that spending time here or elsewhere cements the issue. Before I heard Gary North on the radio, I was wondering to myself what Y2K really meant. Surely it meant disruption. But the sheer catastrophic aspect to it was made clear until Gary painted his picture. Then, like I said in an earlier posting, it took 5 long seconds to agree with him. So in a sense, we intuitively feel as though something bad is going to happen, but we need to hear from someone else before we accept it.

Shadow

-- shadow (foo@foo.com), February 17, 1999.

Shadow, I think that you have hit the nail on the head, here. I too have been thinking about this.

Some years ago, I was reading an article about autistic people. In attempting to describe the condition, the article mentioned the following test, which was administered in the form of a cartoon. As best as I can recall, it went something like this:

Frame 1 Person in a room observes two boxes and a ball.

Frame 2 Person observes the ball being put into one of the boxes.

Frame 3 Person leaves the room.

Frame 4 Someone else takes the ball out of the box that it is in, and puts it in the other box.

Frame 5 The original person comes back into the room.

QUESTION: Which box does the person believe that the ball is in?

"Normal" people will say the original box, since clearly the person does not know that the ball was moved to the other box. Mildly retarded people will also answer likewise. Austistic people will say that the person believes that the ball is in the box that it has been moved to (i.e., not the original box).

The idea that there can be such a thing as a Can't Get It when it comes to Y2K is starting to get more and more real to me. The evidence only seems, to me, to get more and more obvious that Y2K is going to be a worldwide global disaster. And yet, otherwise intelligent people continue maintain that its no big deal, will be no worse than a temporary bad storm, etc. And I am convinced that the CGIs will continue to not get it until the very end.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), February 17, 1999.

Pshannon wrote "I'm intrigued by this idea of "Can't Get Its." There is something in the makeup of the human brain that allows some people to create complicated mental models of a complex scenario and "see" that model with their mind's eye and "Get It." Other people have great difficulty in doing this. You see, it's not a judgement thing, rather a capacity issue" I can assure you I can "see" lots of models. Many people on this forum can't fathom the complexity of a circle let alone any networks, architectures and their dependencies. There you go again pumping up your own intellect with no substance.

"It simply takes less time and effort to explain the worst case Y2K situation than it does to explain why the worst case often does not apply. So we can accidentally mislead readers and listeners to think that everything digital will fail at the stroke of midnight. " Quote taken from www.mcs.net/~aaron/tmc.htm

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 17, 1999.

"However, I have trouble listening to a minister saying it is going to be TEOTWAWKI over a computer expert who says it is going to be a minor bump in the road... "--PPM

PPM, then switch around and try listening to a computer expert who says it's going to be TEOTWAWKI over a Polyanna bump-in-the-road type.

In my experience, the geeks predicting TEOTWAWKI are consistently logical, make more sense, and support their statements with facts greatly more so then the-bump-in-the-road types who, as Kevin mentioned, focuse on the messenger instead of the message and use ridicule tactics instead of focusing on facts. You don't have to buy into TEOTWAWKI, but you'll certainly get a better feal for reality.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 17, 1999.

And you'll get a better feel too.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 17, 1999.

It has to do with WHICH sources of information you are willing to credit. People who don't surf the Net, or who surf only very narrowly, tend to think that most of the stuff here is either porno, white supremist/religious fanaticism, or some other variety of crap. "Don't believe everything you read on the Net" is something I commonly hear when I mention Y2K. Like I haven't learned to sift through the garbage after almost 4 years of surfing. I tell them "Don't believe everything you hear on the standard media," but it still surprises me that they DO. They want to hear it from Dan Rather or that Canadian guy. Go figure.

-- they don't (take@it.seriously), February 17, 1999.

I think there is a factor pre-existing in people that causes a *strong* tendency to GI or not. The simplistic word is experience.

While the Bear does not use the terms Liberal and Conservative in normal conversations (they have become meaningless) he will depart to recall the old addage: "A Conservative is a Liberal who has been physically assulted".

Are the GIs those who has been "had" in one way or another. (Boy, will the psyco-babblers have fun with that.)

Now that's not the whole answer. Obviously, we (the GIs here) come from a broad variety of backgrounds and experiences. But there seems to be a general trend in the CGIs (what little we can glean from their real personal reasons for not geiiting it).

They mostly seem to 1) trust "them" to take care of essential services, 2) have never been seriously without something essential, and 3) have had the blessing of a relatively comfortable life. Yes, there are shining examples of exceptions to these generalities. That's just what they are generalities.

The other big factor that seems germain is the ability to see the interconnectedness of everything and the attendant fragility of the connetions.

It is an interisting intellectual question. But more importantly it is a vital question that bears (no pun intended) on the survival of our culture and civilizaton. It is imcumbet on each GI to propagate knowledge and understanding to others (both othe GIs and D/C/W GIs) to help them help themselves.

The ol Bear has resorted to addressing DGI co-workers (all computer geeks) with only the store-food aspects of the future with the logic that whatever happens you're gonna eat every day anyway. Several co-workers absolutely DGI and DWGI but have something inside that twist and squirms and causes them to ask questions any way. Using the you're-gonna-eat-anyway-response only seems to work.

-- Greybear

- Got It? then share It.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 17, 1999.