There's Good News and Bad News

The bizarre debate that's emerged between the Pollys and the Doomers needs some analysis of its own. In particular, I'd like to look at the standards of evidence applied by the various opponents to the endless stream of information on Y2K, and where the burden of proof lies. My aim is to put the debate in its proper perspective in order to minimize the number of vitriolic exchanges that accomplish nothing. For the record, I would be most accurately characterized as a doomer, though I think that is a misnomer for most people.

You've certainly heard, over the years, the complaints made by fine upstanding members of our society that there is entirely too much bad news in the media. The nightly news should be rated R! I'm sick of watching nothing but murder and mayhem! Why don't they put on something happy once in a while? The obvious reason for this is that bad news sells. But why does it sell? It sells because of a very basic element of human behavior that can be illustrated by asking a simple question: What do you do with the news that you hear?

Good news (or at least 'neutral' news) doesn't require any action on our part, and is the norm. We may decide to hit the beach on the news that it's going to be a nice weekend, or buy stock because the market is going up, but we don't feel that we have to. Bad news, on the other hand, seems to demand action. We have to do something about this! Why aren't my leaders fixing this mess? Who the hell is responsible? It is because bad news requires action that we seek it out - we are defined by our actions and so look for motives in our environment. It was beautiful in Miami yesterday, but every newscast began with pictures of the twisted mess that used to be Oklahoma City. Isn't it always beautiful in Miami? Why would I care about that?

Not only is bad news far more salient, but it should be. We'd probably all be dead if we didn't look for the news on things that might threaten our lives. It's important to know that many once-rare microbes are becoming resistant to several of our best antibiotics. It doesn't matter one bit if a disease that's been gone for 100 years is still gone. Who cares? Good news is the norm.

Which brings us to the news about Y2K. There's good news and bad news about Y2K. Like always, the good news demands nothing of you. Everything is fine, you say? Great, back to the party we go. But the bad news demands action. TEOTWAWKI? Christ! Time to build the bunker and empty my bank account. These actions then become bad news themselves, especially to those who don't buy the bad news about Y2K itself. And I think this is where the debate has landed: between those who are acting on the bad news about Y2K, and those who are acting on the bad news about those who are acting on the bad news about Y2K. (Read it again, it makes sense).

Okay, fine, completely rational on both sides. Everyone is acting on bad news just like they should. But these differing perspectives yield very different interpretations of the news on Y2K itself, as well as the news on the preparations being made by those of us who consider it a threat. To us doomers, the good news is irrelevant because it's the norm. Everything is fine, you say? Who cares? I still have a pile of evidence to the contrary. To this the pollys respond with incredulity. How can you ignore all of this good news?! How? It's easy, everyone ignores good news. It's useless.

Here's the crux of the problem, and the source of the misunderstandings between pollys and doomers. The two groups are reacting to different bad news, and are therefore arguing according to different standards of evidence. Doomers have concluded that there is an unacceptably high risk of infrastructural failure, and believe the burden of proof is on those who would deny this. Such proof, in fairness to the pollys, is essentially impossible to provide, because it depends on proving a negative (i.e. the infrastructure won't fail). The best anyone can do is amass evidence that would tend to suggest it won't (PR releases, anecdotes, analogies, etc.). I submit to the pollys that such evidence will never be convincing, because it can't possibly measure up to the highly technical and scientific evidence to the contrary (Capers Jones, Gartner Group, expert Senate testimony, etc.). Moreover, doomers are in no way committed to the claim that the infrastructure will definitely fail. I believe there is less than a 30% chance of TEOTWAWKI, but I'm not willing to stake my life on those odds. This greatly complicates matters for the pollys, because it's not an all-or-nothing proposition for the doomers. We are prepared to be wrong (see Michael Hyatt's, Are You Prepared to be Wrong About Y2K?).

Meanwhile, the pollys think the major threat comes from the pressure the doomers' preparations will exert on the infrastructure, and the panic that it might arouse in others. From that perspective, the burden of proof rests on the doomers to prove that there is a high enough probability of TEOTWAWKI to justify putting everyone at risk to hedge their bets. PR releases and vague guarantees are not meaningless drivel under those standards of evidence, because pollys aren't committed to the claim that Y2K definitely won't happen, only that there is a greater risk associated with mass preparation than with doing nothing unusual.

So, what would constitute a meaningful exchange between the combatants in this matter? First, both parties must recognize what counts as evidence. To the doomers, only well documented and scientifically sound evidence will serve to undermine their concerns about infrastructural failure. The burden of proof is on the pollys, so our evidence doesn't have to be as good as yours to justify our preparations. Pollys who ignore this will be ignored themselves. The only rational avenue I can see for the pollys is to advance very strong arguments that demonstrate the risks to the infrastructure from excessive preparations. Notice, I did not say, risks from runs on banks, supermarkets, etc. The sheeple who find themselves caught in that mess are not the same ones who are preparing rationally. I think we can all agree that the runs will be a disaster regardless of Y2K. But most of us doomers will be kicking back with a beer and watching that chaos on CNN. I have yet to hear a good argument against rational and measured preparations during a strong economy. Remember, pollys, your arguments must meet the same rigorous standards of evidence that the doomers use to evaluate the computer and infrastructure problems AND they must show that the odds of Y2K disaster are lower than the odds of preparation disaster. Otherwise, they simply won't carry any weight.

On the other side, most of us doomers have discovered the virtual futility of convincing anyone to do anything about Y2K. I've managed to convince my best friend and girl friend, and no one else, despite a Herculean effort. With this in mind, it's hard to imagine the pollys' mission meeting with much success. My interest in the daily crush of information is related to the degree and rate of my preparations. I use it to gauge the likelihood of an imminent vs. more distant crash, not to convince myself one way or the other about the ultimate outcome.

In summary, doomers and pollys use different standards of evidence and place the burden of proof on different parties because they are reacting to different bad news. In order to have meaningful debate, these factors must be recognized, despite the fact that to do so greatly complicates matters for pollys. Doomers don't really care what the pollys think, and would prefer that they just go away - particularly because we don't regard Y2K as a psychological or social problem. But if they insist on hanging around, they should know that we place the burden of proof on them, and require much more than PR flak and happy talk to be swayed. Specifically, we need hard evidence that our (not the sheeple's) actions will be at least as, if not more, damaging to the infrastructure than Y2K itself. You won't likely find many doomers trying to convince you of anything, because we recognize the futility of doing so, and figure you're smart enough to make up your own minds.

-- Andrew Ryan (andrewryan67@yahoo.com), May 05, 1999

Answers

Polly rebuttal point #1

"...Doomers have concluded that there is an unacceptably high risk of infrastructural failure, and believe the burden of proof is on those who would deny this. Such proof, in fairness to the pollys, is essentially impossible to provide, because it depends on proving a negative (i.e. the infrastructure won't fail). The best anyone can do is amass evidence that would tend to suggest it won't (PR releases, anecdotes, analogies, etc.). I submit to the pollys that such evidence will never be convincing, because it can't possibly measure up to the highly technical and scientific evidence to the contrary (Capers Jones, Gartner Group, expert Senate testimony, etc.)."

You shot your own argument in the foot here. Gartner and the Senate have already said there will be no major infrastructure problems in the U.S.

-- #1 (member@pollyanna.association), May 05, 1999.

What the Senate and Gartner "conclude" versus what their evidence actually suggests, has been the subject of much debate. Putting a happy conclusion at the end of clearly disturbing evidence doesn't cut any mustard with most doomers. It's the evidence that's interesting.

-- Andrew Ryan (andrewryan67@yahoo.com), May 05, 1999.

Thanks for the articulated essay Andrew!

In a nutshell, Doomers wanted awareness to spurn reasonable preparations by the public-at-large to forestall the very panic and chaos the Pollyanna's think they need to prevent by putting a happy face on legitimate concerns.

Pollyannas, steeped into the culture war we find ourself in, once again are fighting for the status quo by demoguoging those that believe prudent measures are needed to prepare for the possibility (real or imagined) of disaster or disruption. If you read their posts, what they are most afraid of is people returning to self- reliant modes of living, existing and thinking, as that ideology threatens the power of the State (community) wherein they believe all benefits we enjoy as a nation are derrived.

What purpose does it serve for a Pollyanna to discourage anyone from taking Y2K seriously? Simple, it prevents them from relying on themselves, and reliant on the State if there's an emergency.

For the PollyTroll, It's all about power. For the average clueless pollyanna, as you so aptly put it....it's about aloof selfishness, because good news is actionless and requires no attention from other pursuits.

Doomers, if they were successful - would benefit by having a nation making themselves ready for whatever adverse situation arises (whether nuclear, natural or Y2K), thus preventing the kind of chaos and insanity that makes iself manifest when the need for sustenance is great, and the usual depots are not available.

But prudence, self-reliance, independence from the System is a threat to the status quo. You cannot have large segments apart from centrallized control without losing control, and that's what the Pollytrolls fear most.

A well-armed home, with larders and root cellars packed with stores, with livestock and seed for the garden and a local water source is anathema to them.

Maybe because they're afraid the self-reliant won't share?

Remember, Socialism is misery spread equally. Meaning NO ONE should have an advantage over anyone else . Unless of course they're a liberal Elitist because then they will know what's best for the rest of us and therefore should get more, because their intentions are better than ours.

Like you said Andrew, futility.

Convincing a polly is like attempting to stimulate the braindead.

-Got Alpha Waves?

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), May 05, 1999.

Andrew -- you can't lay it out much plainer that that. Your statement here could serve as a boilerplate response to all subsequent unsupported "polly" claims.

You close by telling the typical polly,

"You won't likely find many doomers trying to convince you of anything, because we recognize the futility of doing so, and figure you're smart enough to make up your own minds."

'Nuff said.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

I have another explanation: I believe it is the well known "Boston Commons" problem often discussed by economists and sociologists. In the early days of Boston the commons area could be grazed by anyone's sheep or cows or whatever. Guess what, all the grass disappeared. What was best for the individual was worst for society at large. I suspect the same is true for y2k and the Polly/Doomer debate. The Doomers are acting in their own best interests, the Pollys fear that this very act will result in TEOTWAWKI. Dr. Gary North has repeatedly pointed out two salient facts: 1) the vast majority will do nada till the panic hits, and 2) regardless of any evidence not enough will convert to GI in time do do any real good. So Dr. North points out that an individual can prepare, but the society cannot (there are not enough goods available for everyone to stockpile). This is the essence of what is essentially a moral debate between the Pollys and the Doomers. I do not believe it is over the evidence per se. I believe it arises from a moral issue: is it morally correct for me to stockpile if everyone cannot? But at the end, this is a totally academic question. Now for a real question for all you fellow doomers: what % of friends and family have YOU convinced to prepare? End of discussion...

-- Tennessean (holladayl@aol.com), May 05, 1999.

The Boston Commons problem is a good point.

I suggest a third point of view. What if (for the sake of argument) the US gets far enough along that there is not a major problem? Does anyone suggest the rest of the world will? What will happen to companies that do business in or with foreign countries. Will they gradually go downhill and eventually out of business?

I say there will be no infrastructure collapse, but a long and gradual decline into a serious major depression. The egg won't hit the fan in January, but 6 to 48 months later. We won't suffer from material shortages as much as unemployment and genuine depression.

Would this change your preparations? Would you stockpile the same items? (Like water?) Will you keep them until 2003? I think those who prepare for Jan 2000 only are in the same boat as those who do not prepare. Think about genuine 1930's style depression or worse in 2003-2005

-- walt (walt@lcs.k12.ne.us), May 05, 1999.

I believe it arises from a moral issue: is it morally correct for me to stockpile if everyone cannot? But at the end, this is a totally academic question. Now for a real question for all you fellow doomers: what % of friends and family have YOU convinced to prepare? End of discussion...

No kidding. I think you have to become a doomer on your own. Of all my relatives, only one sister-in-law actually showed some concern...and then she intentionally got pregnant last month.

I think the moral issue is: how many of my friends and relatives who scoffed at me am I obligated to assist next year?

-- Doug (Doug@work.now), May 05, 1999.

[INVAR has gone to a lot of trouble here, and deserves a reply in the same spirit. I think he's wandering a bit afield here.]

In a nutshell, Doomers wanted awareness to spurn reasonable preparations by the public-at-large to forestall the very panic and chaos the Pollyanna's think they need to prevent by putting a happy face on legitimate concerns.

[I haven't seen anyone ever tell anyone else not to prepare. Not once. I have often seen a line of thought that goes -- I think this article is bad news. Since you disagree with me about this article, you must disagree with me about everything. Since I believe in preparation, you must not. Therefore, you are against preparation. Yes, some people question the legitimacy of each specific concern. Often, these concerns turn out to be guesses, hearsay, and unsupportable. Sometimes later evidence shows they were flat wrong, and those who questioned their legitimacy are vindicated.]

Pollyannas, steeped into the culture war we find ourself in, once again are fighting for the status quo by demoguoging those that believe prudent measures are needed to prepare for the possibility (real or imagined) of disaster or disruption.

[What an amazing slant. Now I admit that I enjoy the life I've chosen, and do not wish to be forced by circumstances into a lifestyle other than what I want. But that doesn't mean anyone is denying y2k is a serious concern in the vain hopes that their lifestyle will be preserved. Quite the opposite, the status quo is best preserved by recognizing the danger and attacking it early, persistently and hard. You don't preserve the status quo by ignoring threats to that status quo. You can make a *much* stronger case that the doomers' actions are more likely to preserve the status quo.]

If you read their posts, what they are most afraid of is people returning to self- reliant modes of living, existing and thinking, as that ideology threatens the power of the State (community) wherein they believe all benefits we enjoy as a nation are derrived.

[Utter nonsense. What pollys object to is firm convictions based on unwarrented assumptions, supported by insufficient data. The line of thought the pollys object to is like: I don't know how remediation is coming, therefore it isn't happening. Nobody can prove that y2k effects will be mild, therefore they will be severe. Because nothing is being done and severe consequences are guaranteed, we're doomed. And the proof is that the overwhelming tide of good news coming in is lies told by shills!

If anything, self-reliance requires skill, competence, clear thinking, and the ability to learn from our mistakes. The total lack of logic demonstrated by the doomers, combined with their inability to learn, works strongly against this self-reliance. Those who view the world realistically, recognize that the danger is real but not guaranteed, and adapt to changing circumstances are the most self- reliant of all.

The ability to think logically and clearly, to read what's there, is (I think) a worthy goal. Those who read the same things between all the lines no matter what those lines actually say are troubled people. Doomers worship the ideology of doom. By and large, the pollys have conceded that the dangers are real, but shouldn't be fabricated or distorted or exaggerated. If there's any ideology there, is a belief in the basic value of thoughtful intelligence that education is supposed to bring us.]

What purpose does it serve for a Pollyanna to discourage anyone from taking Y2K seriously? Simple, it prevents them from relying on themselves, and reliant on the State if there's an emergency.

[Backwards again. Words spoken twice do not double in meaning. Can you point to a single post here, by anyone at all, and say "Here is a person who demonstrates a lack of self-reliance"? You have begun to project a fantasy onto reality, and then you are looking and seeing your fantasy. The issue here isn't a matter of faith in the State. The issue here is bugs in computer code.]

For the PollyTroll, It's all about power.

[HAW HAW. Sorry, but this is getting absurd. For the optimist and pessimist alike, it's about evidence, and logic, and trends, and progress, and results. It's about assessment, and remediation, and replacement, and testing. Where does this "power" stuff come from, other than your own imagination?]

For the average clueless pollyanna, as you so aptly put it....it's about aloof selfishness, because good news is actionless and requires no attention from other pursuits.

[Most people have what they consider better things to do with their lives then fret over a future they can't control. The day-to-day business of living is a genuine challenge for most of us. We cannot take up all the various causes some people take so seriously, and live our daily lives while actively participating in all these causes. Yet there is a subgroup of people actively pursuing each cause, and it consumes their lives. Why is this y2k cause more important than, say, abortion? Or global warming? Or the dying ocean?]

Doomers, if they were successful - would benefit by having a nation making themselves ready for whatever adverse situation arises (whether nuclear, natural or Y2K), thus preventing the kind of chaos and insanity that makes iself manifest when the need for sustenance is great, and the usual depots are not available.

[This is true of anyone. But read what you just wrote very carefully! You are saying doomers, through their actions, are *preventing* great problems. In other words, they are working to preserve as much of the status quo as possible, and arranging to recreate the rest as quickly as possible. And I agree. But above, you said that's what the pollys were doing! You need a little bit of internal consistency here. Logic is helpful.]

But prudence, self-reliance, independence from the System is a threat to the status quo. You cannot have large segments apart from centrallized control without losing control, and that's what the Pollytrolls fear most.

[Not at all. Let's summarize here:

1) Preparation helps preserve the status quo.

2) Pollyannas attack bad thinking. This is not fear.

3) The issue is computer bugs, not centralized control. Earth to INVAR!]

A well-armed home, with larders and root cellars packed with stores, with livestock and seed for the garden and a local water source is anathema to them.

[I must ask who is "them"? Numerous people the nutballs have called pollys have detailed their experiences, their preparations, their backgrounds. They have guns. They grew up on farms. They have stockpiles. They have local water sources. We *know* this. Now you say that this is anathema to them? Have you been reading what's been said, or ignoring every single bit of it because you are convinced you know better? A better illustration of denial you could hardly have provided here.

And this is exactly the kind of blind ignore-all-evidence conviction that pollys find anathema. Remember that thought-process I outlined above? You are saying: You disagree with me in one way, therefore you are disagreeable, therefore you disagree with me in all ways. Every iota of evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Sheesh.]

Maybe because they're afraid the self-reliant won't share?

[I have publicly offered to share on this forum. So have others. The only people who have take then I-got-mine-buddy, scram-or-be-shot attitude have been the really hardcore doomers. They talk of hiding their food. They talk of buying gold and silver in other peoples' names. They talk of moving to rural locations where strangers will be shot. They rant about imaginary conspiracies. They reek with fear.

And here you are, projecting this fear onto those who ask for real evidence and reject woolly speculations as unverified. Sad.]

Remember, Socialism is misery spread equally. Meaning NO ONE should have an advantage over anyone else . Unless of course they're a liberal Elitist because then they will know what's best for the rest of us and therefore should get more, because their intentions are better than ours.

[Where is *this* going? It has nothing to do with tracking the progress of remediation and testing, and everything to do with your own theories of government and human nature. You've lost your train of thought, you're no longer addressing the thrust of the original post. Come baaaack!]

Like you said Andrew, futility.

[Whatever]

Convincing a polly is like attempting to stimulate the braindead.

[Convincing a polly of what? Most of your (and Andy's) efforts have been to deny all good y2k news as lies, and accept all y2k speculations as facts, and then wander off into lunatic fringe political theory.

If you return to the subject, and post a few verifiable sources telling of hopeless projects, you might get some converts. Off-topic ranting might make you feel good, but it doesn't help anyone make more informed choices about their preparations.]

-Got Alpha Waves?

[Good question. You demonstrate ample reason for such introspection.]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

Andrew, thank you! Your post is a classic and a keeper. Although I do look at the situation with doom colored glasses I am constantly searching for hopeful signs.

One thing I've never understood is the argument that preparation would hurt or damge the infrastructure. The demand because of Y2k preps has increased at a gradual pace and it would seem to me that the additional demand would only make a supplier ramp up production thus increasing the supply. This cycle would seem to be able to increase at a steady pace without hurting anything. Also, that additional demand would mean consumer spending would be up and that's great for profits, etc. thus helping the economy. For me, I see the sudden rush of people to purchase what is a limited supply as being the major problem.

Am I missing something?

Mike ==========================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 05, 1999.

What a thoughtful piece, Andrew! What it all boils down to, though, is this, and it's been repeated ad infinitum:

If we do as doomers recommend and Y2K is a non-event, nothing is lost and we have plenty of stuff if an emergency like a natural disaster arises. If we do as pollyannas recommend and Y2K presents some serious problems, then we're all up the proverbial. There is no shame in being prepared.

I haven't the financial means to provide for anyone other than the elderly couple across the street; I CANNOT provide for anyone else, therefore morality doesn't enter into my partricular equation. If it did? My family comes first. Period, no discussion. There has now been enough information disseminated by sources other than the Internet to negate the limited access argument, and people can read between the lines IF THEY CHOOSE.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 05, 1999.

Old Git:

If you could point to a single post where anyone has recommended *not* preparing, your argument might start to hold a little water. I admit I don't have time to read all the posts, but I have never once seen such a recommendation in all the time I've been here. I haven't even seen one on the debunking board.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

"I believe it arises from a moral issue: is it morally correct for me to stockpile if everyone cannot? But at the end, this is a totally academic question. Now for a real question for all you fellow doomers: what % of friends and family have YOU convinced to prepare? End of discussion..."

The moral issue isn't whether I should stockpile while others "cannot" but "willnot". Those who "cannot" prepare (the poor, disabled, etc.) present a completely different dilemma, one for which I have no answer other than to stockpile enough to help those who cannot help themselves.

-- brett (brett45@bigfoot.com), May 05, 1999.

Flint uttered:

Most people have what they consider better things to do with their lives then fret over a future they can't control.

This is sad, this means that the person has already decided that they cannot affect events, present or future. They've given up. :-(

Many years ago someone taught me that such words as can't, impossible, etc don't actually exist. People can change the future and they can change events if they are willing enough to do so. You can control things.

Regards, Simon Richards

-- Simon Richards (simon@wair.com.au), May 05, 1999.

Simon:

I'm glad to hear this. Why don't you dot out and fix this y2k thing. You have almost 8 months, should be a piece of cake, yes?

Or don't you have any control over that?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

Flint said

"Doomers worship the ideology of doom."

ROTFLMAO

I read most of your posts even though I disagree with them. You write well but seem to be a bit myopic in comprehending the problem as systemic. Your logic is flawed because the premise upon which you base your arguments is flawed. In addition to which, if I dare disagree with you I am little better than a Doom Worshipper. If you cannot guarentee the safety of my family, then please do not mock or insult me with your generalities.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), May 05, 1999.

Flint you're not a bad guy, but you have diarrhea of the mouth.

-- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (Please@makeSHORTER.posts), May 05, 1999.

Then Flint muttered:

I'm glad to hear this. Why don't you dot out and fix this y2k thing. You have almost 8 months, should be a piece of cake, yes?

Or don't you have any control over that?

I remember an Advert in the movie Starship Troopers about signing up with the Mobile Infantry:

I'm doing my part, are you?

The likes of Gary North, Ed Yourdon and Ed Yardeni didn't say that they couldn't control things. They jumped up and down, ensuring they controlled the direction that people should be heading in.

I can control my corner of the universe and working with other people to control their part. Working together we can control the whole damn lot.

Every little bit counts.

Regards, Simon Richards

-- Simon Richards (simon@wair.com.au), May 06, 1999.

Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.

I believe something is going to happen as we begin to see the effects of 'anticipation' by people, applications and markets. I'll pick a number out of a hat and say that we'll see a six- month period of technical failures - Oct, 1999 through Mar, 2000. The reaction and adaptability of organizations (people) to deal with the reality of the conditions they are presented with will be more important than any technical failure itself.

The organization with creative and open-minded staff (including IT people) will fare better than those with people who have their heads set in cement. Ingenuity is free...but it requires an 'untrapped mind.'

-- PNG (png@gol.com), May 06, 1999.