Are we someone's lab rats? : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Just spotted a thread on csy2k that indicates that forum is being monitored by phychologists for some sort of cultural stress study. Makes me wonder who is lurking here and taking notes for future scholarly articles -- and if any of them are being converted into GIs by what they read here. It's OK, Mr. Freud, just go back to sleep now.

-- Cash (, March 15, 1999


Boy!! I bet we are giving someone a lot of material for their dissertation. I hope we do make GI out of a lot of them. They have the money to prepare.....that way I won't have to turn them away.

-- Lobo (, March 15, 1999.


Good catch.

Be wary.

-- Suspect (, March 15, 1999.

Where else could they find such an interesting and diverse group of intelligent individualists who identify,research and verify realities?

Good post Cash. Thanks,

-- Watchful (, March 15, 1999.

Really? I think that's hilarious. If you want some cultural stress, try being locked in a room full of psychologists. And how does that make you feel?

Perhaps they're jealous of our diverse backgrounds, vigorous debates, range of knowledge and flashes of humor?

Naww. What was I thinking? I should know better than that by now. They think we'recrazy.

-- PNG (, March 15, 1999.

a room full of psychologists ROTFLMAO

PNG you are in rare form tonight :-)

-- Debbie (, March 15, 1999.

Thanks Debbie. But Watcher stole my thunder. We posted at the same time (way to go Watcher)

Actually it's 3 PM in Japan right now...

-- PNG (, March 15, 1999.

Common guys, I know just as many DI psychologists as I know DI programmers and technical people. Just as we don't want to be labeled as Y2K wackos for preparing, I'd suggest we avoid labeling any group by profession as DGI's or worse.

-- Shelia (, March 15, 1999.

PNG, the image cracked me up, of a roomful of psychologists (sort of a "psycho ward"?). The point you and Watchful both make (and Cash) is a serious one. I wonder how many folks come here with a preconceived agenda and end up doing some serious personal thinking?

Good afternoon!

-- Debbie (, March 15, 1999.

I guess your right. It was mean and insensitive of me. But you know Shelia, who's analyzing the psychologists? And why? [I'll stop now]

-- PNG (, March 15, 1999.

I would happily trade 2 lbs. of pintos and 3 cans of Spam for the final report if it included a (probable) profile on Dieter. The entertainment value of that part alone would be worth the trade.

--Greybear, who is pretty sure of their opinion of self (and still doesn't give a tinker dam)

- Got Rorschachs?

-- Greybear (, March 15, 1999.

Y2K Impact on Stock Market & Society

-- (watching@the.watchers), March 15, 1999.

I am here because I *do* get it. The fact that I am a member of the behavioral healthcare community is no more relevant to Y2k than if I were a postal worker, plumber, or programmer.

As to DiETer, he is a charming character whose humorous contributions add a much-needed bit of laughter to serious and sad times.

-- Wanda (, March 15, 1999.


Hmmm...I see from your link that someone is interested in monitoring this site, but I don't think they are studying cultural stress...

From Silicon Investor's Mission Statement

"Silicon Investor is a virtual company, a network of highly knowledgeable individuals from around the world who are dedicated to discovering the truth and uncovering the best investment opportunities. Financial nformation is no longer an exclusive privilege of Wall Street and its contingent of analysts and brokers. SI seeks to bring a new financial order to Wall Street... one that benefits individual investors."

-- Wanda (, March 15, 1999.

bold off

-- Click (, March 15, 1999.

Wanda dear,

I was not in any way being pejorative about Dieter. I believe I was the first to understand him and was certainlly the first to defend him.

We are in absolute agreement that he adds some of the best humor here.

Besides I'm 99.9% sure I know who it is and if I'm correct he is one or the more sane individuals around here. There does seem to be a broad spectrum represented here.

Dieter is, of course, welcome to deny sanity as graded by my scale, most would.

-- Greybear (, March 15, 1999.

Bold off

-- TooBold (Off!, March 15, 1999.

-- No Spam Please (, March 15, 1999.

Oh, If only I were a psycho-babbler...the papers I could write from this forum alone about millennial madness...

Ha hah hah heh heh heh...

"Where else could they find such an interesting and diverse group of intelligent individualists who identify,research and verify realities?" said the latecomer to y2k...who thinks that the ability to point and click qualifies as 'expertize'... are killin' me...OHHH AH AH HAH HAH ha ha...

That has got to be one of the funniest "GI" (Genuinely Ignorant) statements of the month...

Somebody...somewhere is gonna have a feild day with this place come 2000...


-- Mutha Nachu (---@openupandsay"ahhh".com), March 15, 1999.

That's right! You people are nuts. You need to go to a real forum where we verify, verify, verify, and don't take any story at face value.

Yardini 70% down to 45%...

Yardeni story is "for real". Dunn was accurate.
Take it to the bank.



Just passin' along info... gained HERE at BIFFY. Again. The breaking news place I 'spose.

(those cultists give me da willy's...)

Mother Nacho


Yardeni Shift story now on Leading Real Estate News site
The leading REAL ESTATE NEWS SITE IS . Yardeni spoke at Brad Inman's Connect '98 late last year.


OK, let's be generous and grant the doomers the assumption that Yardeni is lying to save his ass. Why does he have to lie now, when he was able to keep his job for the last year or so when he was predicting a 70% chance of recession? What event caused him to say to himself "Gee, I better change my forcast to save my ass?" Did his boss walk into his office and say to him "Ed, your forcast isn't helping our industry. You better change your tune to save your ass! Reduce that 70% probability to 45% probability or hit the road!" Do you really think anyone would be stupid enough to make this threat and turn Ed into a marter? And if anyone were this stupid, do you think Ed would be so desperate to keep his job that he would knuckle under? I'm sure a bright guy like Ed would have plenty of other money making opportunities and he wouldn't be unemployed long. Besides, if y2k were as bad as the doomers say it will be, he would only be risking 9 months of employment at Deutchebank since everything will fold in the New Year. Can you believe that Yardeni is so hard up for money that he would sell his integrity for 9 months on a job because he feared he would be unable to find another job or source of income??? Good news for the clueless came today, as one of the most noted experts on the millenium computer problem backed off his earlier estimates that a global Y2K recession was likely to occur.

sEE? wE kNOw tHAt tHis WiLL bE nO biG dEAL, tHE kNEwspAPeR TolD uS sO

-- Mother Nacho (, March 15, 1999.

Here's an excerpt from Dr. Ed Yardeni's Web site:



As of March 1999, I still see a 70% chance of a severe global recession. I am the first to admit that there is nothing scientific about my assessment. It is not based on a rigorous global economic model. It is simply my own subjective evaluation of the situation, as documented in this netbook. I am assigning a probability to a Y2K recession scenario to communicate my level of conviction and concern.


Y2K Economic Scenarios Probability

Minor disruptions. Business as usual. Only a few problems, which will be fixed rapidly. Stock market unaffected 10%

Same impact as natural disaster. Business as usual within a few weeks. Stock market unaffected. 20%

Multiple problems will cause modest 6 month recession. Real GDP down 1%-2%. Stock market down 10%-15%, then soars. 25%

Major global recession lasting 12-24 months. Real GDP down 2%-5%. Stock market down 30%-40%. Flight to quality. Deflation. 40%

Depression lasting 2-5 years. Blackouts. Social and plicitical upheaval. Stock don't want to know. 5%


[25% + 40% + 5% = 70%]

-- Kevin (, March 15, 1999.

Also see the thread at this link...

"Yardeni responds to the LA Times article"

-- Kevin (, March 15, 1999.

Kevin, I think you missed "Mothers" point. The veracity of the LA Times story has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum, and needs no further clarification.

What I gather Mother is trying to point out, is that Mutha has the audacity to say in this statement

""Where else could they find such an interesting and diverse group of intelligent individualists who identify,research and verify realities?" said the latecomer to y2k...who thinks that the ability to point and click qualifies as 'expertize'... are killin' me...OHHH AH AH HAH HAH ha ha..."

implying that at this forum, we do not take the time, or have the "expertize" to know our butts from a hole in the ground. We blindly accept every doom story, and discount any good news as spin. But Mother does a good job of pointing out that the DGI's do exactly what they accuse us of doing, and the Yardeni story is a prime example.

-- Father Bean Dip (, March 15, 1999.

I think it clear enough here who's verifying vs. who likes the color of their own typing.

-- Kevin (, March 15, 1999.

Wow - too dumb for words. Kevin "I love to kill threads with long redundant posts" doesn't recognize parody. Mutha loves to mix colors and different sized fonts into his inane posts, hence the format of the poste.


-- anon (, March 15, 1999.

Well, it's pretty clear to me. IF we are someone's lab rats, IF a cultural study were to be conducted about people's attitudes about Y2K, it would be pretty clear that the folks who think it will be much more than "a bump in the road" will come out looking like the "sane" ones who share information and even have a sense of humor, while those who believe it won't be a problem resort to personal attacks and all those purty colors to make their points.

Thanks Mom...

-- pshannon (, March 15, 1999.

We ARE someone's stock market lab rats

-- (watching@the.watchers), March 15, 1999.

Just some insider comments. Though I'm not a psychologist I've worked with many psych doctoral students at a prestigious psych graduate program. The various areas within pschology that they can study are as varied as the number programming languages you might be familiar with. The stereotype of psychologists is that they all do counseling or psychiatry, but many do research on learning, social psychology, biopsychology, developmental psychology, and man-machine interactions, and other areas. It would probably be difficult (though not impossible) to get approval to do a dissertation collecting data from this NG. The main reason being that it would be difficult to develop meaningful hypotheses that can be tested with anything remotely resembling data from this or any other NG. Though it seems quite likely that the site is being monitored it's probably not done so by pscyh grads who, by the way, probably are NOT in a very good position to do much of any preparing because they really don't have that much money or time, and who really are as DGI as any other group in a university or elsewhere. That being said I'd like to ask all of you to fill out the Stress Management questionnaire below and send it to me. I will have you fill it out again at the end of December so as to make a comparison. My hypothese are: (1) GIs who have prepared will have lower stress than GIs who didn't prepare. (2) DGIs or Pollyannas, regardless of any preparation, will have higher stress than GIs that prepared and lower stress than DGIs that haven't prepared.

Are you a 1. GI ____ 2. DGI ____ 3. Polyanna _____

Are you 1. Male ____ 2. Female ____ 3. Other ____

On a scale of 1 (no preparation) to 6 (high preparation) for y2k you would rate yourself a ______.

Please answer on a scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree). Stress Management Questionnaire

1. ____ I use effective time-management methods such as keeping track of my time, making to-do lists, and priortizing tasks. 2. ____ I maintain a program of regular exercise for fitness. 3. ____ I maintain an open, trusting relationship with someone with whom I can share my frustrations. 4. ____ I know and practice several temporary relaxation techniques such as deep breathing and muscle relaxation. 5. ____ I frequently affirm my priorities so that less important things don't drive out more important things. 6. ____ I maintain balance in my life by pursuing a variety of interests outside of work. 7. ____ I have a close relationship with someone who serves as my mentor or advisor. 8. ____ I effectively utilize others in accomplishing work assignments. 9. ____ I encourage others to generate recommended soulutions, not just questions, when they come to me with problems or issues. 10. ____ I strive to redefine problems as opporturnities for improvement. 11. ____ I have become more worried about y2k since joining this newsgroup. 12. ____ I don't expect y2k to be anything more than a "bump in the road". 13. ____ I expect TEOTWAWKI ("The End Of The World As We Know It"), or TWIT ("The World is Toast"). 14. ____ I am greatly worried about the effects of the y2k bug. 14. ____ I am not paranoid, and don't look at me like that!

Thank you for your cooperation. You may look for a copy of the results of this study in the Journal of Y2K Doomsday Studies sometime in the year 2001, assuming we get that far.

-- bdb (, March 15, 1999.

Rats in the TimeBomb 2000 cage!

-- (watching@the.watchers), March 15, 1999.

Where else could they find such an interesting and diverse group of intelligent individualists who identify,research and verify realities?

From a group which embraces EVERY piece of bad news without comment and dismisses EVERY piece of good news by invoking conspiracy 101, the above comment may be the funniest posted here in some time. Funny, if it weren't so sad...

-- Y2K Pro (, March 15, 1999.

"Y2K Pro",

Those who argue using absolute terms such as "EVERY", usually only display their own inaccurate reporting and fallacious reasoning. Absolutes are seldom appropriate in describing human beings and their doings. They frequently serve the purpose of exageration or distraction in an otherwise questionable argument with questionable motives.

BTW, just what is it that you're a "Pro" at?

-- Hardliner (, March 15, 1999.

this forum is being monitored by all kinds of folks, including business, wall street types, politicians, pollsters, con artists, intelligence, etc. big deal. this is just a big party line, and it's no different from the telephone party line i grew up with--i just assume my aunt is listening all the time, and will gossip about anything i say that may have some mild news value.

-- jocelyne slough (, March 15, 1999.

My apologies Hardliner, you are correct, I should not have used the word EVERY. In reading this forum, there are a very few GIs who are pragmatic and are not hoping for the apocalypse. Unfortunately, they are in the minority. The rest of you are so convinced of your own self-righteous place in history, that VIRTUALLY EVERY view that diverges from your own is immediately attacked and dismissed.

-- Y2K Pro (, March 15, 1999.

"Y2K Pro",

You still haven't answered the question as to what it is that you're a "Pro" at, but it's starting to look like it's propaganda.

Your addition of the word "virtually" hardly changes your argument and simply constitutes playing with words. Your attempt to paint an image of a disparate group as homogenous and then label them (regardless of what the label actually might be) is illustrative of techniques which attempt to implant conclusions without intervening reasoning.

I would suggest that if you wish to demonstrate a lack of pragmatism and the near universal presence of "self righteousness" on this forum, that you begin with a few concrete examples and progress to categorizing like postings and see how far you get.

All that you've done so far is to libel (or slander, depending on how you perceive cyberspace) this forum with unsupported assertion.

I would think that if you're truly a "Pro" (even at disinformation science) that you could do better than that.

-- Hardliner (, March 15, 1999.

We're missing the point here folks. The money managers at Silicon Investor do see us as 'an interesting and diverse group of intelligent individualists who identify, research and verify realities.'

Meanwhile we're still arguing about the already discredited LA Times story on Yardeni.

-- Paul Johnson (, March 15, 1999.

Hey all you pessimistic paronoid right-wing survivalist wacko religious millenarian kooks! Here's your bowl of y2k bad news. Just kidding...(a GI)

-- pavlov (, March 15, 1999.

Yardeni: << Depression lasting 2-5 years. Blackouts. Social and political upheaval. Stock don't want to know. 5% >>

To Mother, CPR, Deano, Troll Maria, whomever. All most of the GIs are saying is that 5% chance of the events described above is more than enough reason to get out of the city and into the country.

If Yardeni actually believes there's a 5% chance of that stuff happening and he doesn't have a "bug out" plan then he's an idiot. 5% chance is more than enough to take serious action.

It's not about certainty; none of us have that. It's not about "wanting" the world to end; watch me dance a jig and crack the champagne if I turn out to be a fool.

It's about possibilities (even in single digit percentiles) of really bad stuff happening. It's about taking prudent evasive action. Why does that bother you so much?

-- Franklin Journier (, March 15, 1999.

A possible future academese-couched study of y2k madness has been satirized about long ago (y2k refracted time) on this board ...

Game Time !: The Bug That Failed - A History of the Y2K Apocalyptic Movement" by Prof. Jeeves Rene Bulsh (Boston: Beddanaylz University Press, to appear, April 2043)

-- Count Vronsky (, March 15, 1999.

It's funny you'd mention this, Cash. I've been thinking lately about this board as an archival resource. Remember the way it is designed: each post is a new "web page" and can capture some useful user info (static IP address, environment variables, etc.). Mr. Greenspun is not currently issuing cookies in this forum (though he can read ours), however if you go read his online book about how this forum is designed, you will see tracking an individual's posts regardless of how they sign their name, is quite feasilble.

This makes it possible to view all of an individual's posts, see where they intersect with other's, and watch ideas or "memes" as they propagate through the group.

I can see some some post-doc in 2012 mining Mr. Greenspun's data warehouse for a paper on "The Group Dynamics of the Yourdoneers"

--Got Cheese?

-- Lewis (, March 15, 1999.

Asimov's "psychomathematics" and "psychohistory". Supposedly, if enough people do the same thing at the same time, they change the course of everyone else. Bank runs, etc.

-- Helen (, March 15, 1999.


Do you know what I would have liked to have seen more people do at the same time? Start their Y2K repairs in 1996 or 1997.

Whatever happens with the banks late this year or early next year is a fait accompli...a fait accompli based on Y2K repairs that were or were not done in 1996 or 1997.

It's March 1999, now. We shouldn't have to be having this discussion. The vast majority of Y2K remediation should now be finished. Unfortunately, it isn't.

If large numbers of people go to their banks late this year or early next year, it'll be because they heard more and more in the media about Y2K as 1999 progressed, instead of less and less. The public wouldn't be going to the banks because of what I say here--they'd go because they would hear on TV about the slow progress of their local utilities.

Or because they'd hear on TV this summer about stock market concern that large businesses are dumping vendors that still aren't compliant. What we need now is an H.G. Wells style time machine set for 1996 to assure this scenario could never happen.

-- Kevin (, March 15, 1999.

The whole forum will end up as a chapter in the 2nd edition of Alex Heard's (1999) book: Apocalypse Pretty Soon: Travels in End Time America But what'll be our chapter name ? How can Alex ever top (chapter 3)"EARTH IS A MOTHER (and She's Sending You to Your Room) " ...

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), March 15, 1999.

Someone noted that they'd be interested in the psychologists' view of Dieter and his role in this forum. I wonder if Dieter isn't one of them. A stalking horse created in an attempt to get closer to and interact with, what some must believe is a bunch of stressed-out, borderline psycotic, Y2K-wackos. An interesting ploy if it's so.

I just hope it's indeed the case, that researcher "A" doesn't see researcher "B's" fictional Dieter and then conclude that Y2K stress has fried people's brains. They'd immediately declare it's time to shut down the web sites in the name of public health. Of course given real-life events that have occurred before in this country, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Surgeon General's warning replace the forum's home page any day now.


-- Wildweasel (, March 15, 1999.

Kevin --- Simple. Correct. Everything in 1999 (apart from personal focus on preparation) is just amusement. Waiting for Godot. This should never be taking place. There should be no Yourdon forum about Y2K.

I told a good friend, studying for his PhD in sociology (still is, natch) in 1997 that Y2K would/will be the greatest dissertation topic in sociology in history and would/will make his career. He is now a GI but never took me up on it. You see, sometimes my predictions do come true :-)

"It's Y2K, stupid."

-- BigDog (, March 15, 1999.

SILEnCE JACKaLS!!!!! siLENce i sAY!!!!! wHY DO You inFidELS Try to DISECt dieTer'S miNd????? haVe yOu insANe APeS NOthING BETTER TO do????? diEter knOws TOO weLL The insidIOUS PokINg anD PROdING Of tHE GRey maTTer!!!!!! heLLo????? diETER IS NoT an INcoGniTO SHrINKEnSTIEn, CAn yoU not seE THat?????? How doEs iT maKE YOu fEel?????? foOlish?????? IDIOtS!!!!! do Not spEAk furTHER OF ThIS fOoLISHNESs YOu RAbID rodEnTS!!!!! GOoD MORnING!!!!!

-- Dieter (, March 15, 1999.

actually, if we're not someones lab rats, we should be. This (the Y2K crisis) is the PERFECT example of several sociological/psychological phenomena (sp). At least in my humble opinion. For instance, did we (the GI's) all wake up one day and just GET IT? no- I doubt that very much. In fact, it's more likely that most of us, especially those that are not computer types, followed a pattern more along the lines of- hearing about the Y2K problem- reading about it, hearing from someone else, etc, and saying "huh"? We looked at it and thought, "no way" , "this can't happen", "they" won't let it, etc, etc. Then we thought some more, read some more, talked about it and all of a suddden, "oh shit", this COULD happen- the lightbulb goes off in the brain and we get into action. We peruse the contents of our fridge- ketshup, out of date mayo, mystery science experiment in the cottage cheese container, the contents of our bank account(sigh), the state of our dependence on the powers that be, and we run to the store and grab $100 worth of Spam, Dinty Moore Stew and Frijoles Negros whatever the heck they are.And we don't even like Spam or Dinty Moore and beans give us gas, but we're preparing. And at some point,we start reading more and thinking more and we begin to calm down and think about it and we formulate a plan. Yes, we can get through this. We have a plan of action. If it comes, we'll be alright, and we go on from there.

This, I believe, is very similar in process to something called the Stages of Grief or something like that- it's been too many years for me to remember exactly who wrote it and what it's called. But it's a process that we go through in response to a serious situation- death of a loved one, our serious illness, loss of a job, etc. The first stage, as I recall is denial. This is followed by anger. This is then followed by acceptance. I think that is what we are all doing here. It's just that we are all at different stages in the process, it takes some of us longer to get through each stage and it takes WORK. So- yes- we are a fascinating example of sociology/psychology in action en masse- quite the mateial for a disertation(and I did mine on soybeans(sigh))....

-- anita (, March 16, 1999.

They must have their hands {or Notepads} full with Mr. Green Crayon.

-- BF Skinner (out@your.mind), November 20, 1999.


ROFLMAO! Thanks for the blast from the past.

-- (, November 20, 1999.

Ditto! ROFL!

Thanks BF, I had missed that thread. Was interesting to read to say the least.

Anita's post just before yours said "The first stage, as I recall is denial. This is followed by anger. This is then followed by acceptance. I think that is what we are all doing here. It's just that we are all at different stages in the process, it takes some of us longer to get through each stage..."

Actually as I recall the 5 stages are Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, then Acceptance.

Very good observation from Anita. I'd like to add that according to the psychology 101 books, some people never make it past the stage of Denial in the Grieving Process, and according to those same books, such people lead a dysfunctional life.

Some old threads are really relevant still. Shame to keep them burried ;-)

-- Chris (#$%^&, November 20, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ