I'd like this explained to me.

Please use little words so I'll understand.

Critt

-- Critt Jarvis (critt@critt.com), May 17, 1999

Answers

Critt,

1. It's shaped like an "m" 2. According to the curve, the "elite" will be able to fool the masses into thinking that nothing will happen, but then when it does happen, right around Jan 1 and just beyond, the masses will be very mad. So mad that the elite can't contain the anger, so whatever is on that vertical axis gets spiked again.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 17, 1999.

Critt, I'm not sure I understand it either. I think it's saying that the elite will exercise less control over the masses as the day draws near. That I understand.

What I don't understand is the second spike showing more elite control over the masses as time passes. Maybe that would make sense if there is no technical problem and only a perception problem. Otherwise, it would seem that news of actual hardship would overwhelm handwaving by the elite.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 17, 1999.

Critt-- The elite are issued special 'esoteric decoder rings.' If you don't have one, you couldn't possibly have the proper credentials to understand why you don't understand it. ;-)

-- PNG (png@gol.com), May 17, 1999.

PNG,

I stuck several hairpins and toothpicks into my daughters newest Beanie Baby. Ya think that will be enough for me to read the whole document?

Critt

-- Critt Jarvsi (middleground@critt.com), May 17, 1999.

It appears to be related to the level9s) of oublic awareness, public preparation, public fears, and actual "damage" to "their" institutions.

They can control hype, propaganda and awareness through their influence in the media - up to a certain point.

Then, after that point - the panic they fear reigns - and they know it.

Up until the event itself happens (Jan 2000) - at which time things will gradually recover back to today's conditions of Democratic rule over the media and public office - fueled by economic recovery, stock market regrowth, (hopefully for them) time to "rebuild" (with the media) the feeling that "Gore got us through this despite the evil republicans and the right-wing wacko conspiratist greedy profiteers rumormongers who stockpiled and hoarded everything and caused your suffering.....

Thus - the rising and falling Democratic (elitist) control and "happieness factors".....from now through January (now up, then down, then back up) and into March 2000.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 17, 1999.

Ok, my knees have quit jerking...

This is head and heart the best set of conversations I've run across in the last year.

I hope they continue.

Back to more reading...

Critt

-- Critt Jarvis (critt@critt.com), May 17, 1999.

Please excuse my ignorance. Is this a theory that a link can be provided to? Is it in the archives??

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 17, 1999.

I'm no good with links - so follow Pudding's guidelines:

This is a "M" shaped graph graph near the bottom of the "Navy War College" y2K review site - We're not sure it's legit - so assume things skeptically until proven good.

Anyway - it should be at this site:

http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/6926/y2kproj.htm

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 17, 1999.

Thanks Robert,

Still printing, didn't really analyze it yet. Did the other thread about elite wits, wasn't interested enough to search the site. I am now.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 18, 1999.

guys would you please refer them back to the entire simulation at:

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/dsd/y2ksited/y2ksite.htm

it really does put the idea in context a bit better than the partial presentation on the geocites page.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 18, 1999.

Funny, it looked like an awareness curve to me. Now I'm going to have to read the whole da*n thing from the beginning? OY VEY!

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 18, 1999.

Just a little observation:

This project, its related workshops, and all theories involved are, according to the introduction on the main page, related to trying to predict reactions to Y2K in NON-US COUNTRIES, and the DoD's reactions to these reactions in foreign countries. Therefore, Mr. Cook's "democratic happiness control" or whatever does not apply. Be sure to look at every page to see exactly what it is.

Just my take on it.

-- newlurker (no@no.com), May 18, 1999.

I think a glance at this list of telltale indicators clearly shows that these conferences are primarily addressing the situation in the United States. "Isolators" and "Cascaders" to Watch During Y2K Season/Event

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 18, 1999.

This is quite a site. Critt-- hope this helps.I run and hide when I see geocities mentioned. But this Navy site is clean and green.

These folks are war-gaming. It's a classic practice, and a sensible one. I've read that during WW2 we had plans drawn for an invasion of Britain should the island be captured by Germany. Think ahead, is the motto. You will always be surprised, anyway, but it won't be quite as much of a shock. Thinking through what may happen here is a prudent enterprise.

This is the index site. It seems confusing at first but eventually makes sense. The monster graphics are just hoopla. Year 2000 International Security Dimension Project

Links to summaries of three workshop conferences are given:

December, 1998, at the Naval War College, Newport, RI (Scenario-building)

January, 1999, at Salve Regina University, Newport, RI (Scenario Dynamics)

March, 1999, at the Center for Naval Analyses, Washington, D.C. (Consequence Management)

Note-- The CNA Corporation (CNAC) is a not-for-profit organization providing research, analysis, and technical services to the government and other organizations. CNAC's two operating divisions are the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) and the Institute for Public Research (IPR). CNA is a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) sponsored by the Department of the Navy. For more than 50 years, CNA has conducted research and analysis that have helped the Navy and Marine Corps become more effective and efficient. CNA conducts analyses for other Department of Defense and non-Defense clients whose needs fall within CNA's mission as an FFRDC. See http://www.cna.org/

Workshop participants for all three meetings are listed, with brief c.v.'s of each.

The "M" curve is an estimate of the capacity of the "elite" to "shape perceptions of the masses" as 1999 progesses and passes on into 2000. Since the workshops are only listed, not published, who knows how this estimate was derived. The mindset inherent in classifying the population into "the elite" as compared to "the masses" is usually not so flagrantly displayed. Don't miss the Y2K Scenario-Dynamics Workshop

Interesting that the January meeting was held at Salve Regina University in Newport, R.I., near the Naval War College. In the Catholic tradition, salve regina is usually translated as Hail, Holy Queen, and in this context I can't help thinking of the last-ditch play in football called the Hail Mary.) Attendeees are given directions from the airport in Providence. (Providence needs no translation, but has connotations of Divine guidance.)

from the January summary:

"Run of the 'Mille'" refers to the Best Case Scenario in which Y2K turns out to be nothing more than a lengthy (i.e., stretching over most of 1999 and deep into 2000) series of discrete and episodic network failures, whereas the "systems" in the notional country prove themselves to be relatively robust. By systems, we mean not only network systems, but also economic, political, and social systems. Although this is the null hypothesis regarding Y2K, we call it "Run of the 'Mille'" (referring to millennium) because the baseline case will therefore become the combination of whatever "millennial mania" occurs in conjunction with the date change and the inevitable hype and hoopla surrounding even a non-existent Y2K event.

"Humans 1, Computers 0" refers to the Next Best Case Scenario is which Y2K turns out to be both widespread and sustained (meaning a broad, interrelated pattern of network failures whose onset is centered on or about 1 January 2000), but systems within any notional country nonetheless prove themselves to be relatively robust. The scenario name derives from the Nietzschean notion that "that which does not kill us, makes us stronger," here meaning that humanity comes out on the far ide of this experience with a renewed confidence regarding its ability to weather periods of significant instability caused by information technology.

"Houston, We Have a Problem" refers to the Next Worst Case Scenario in which Y2K turns out to be a lengthy series of discrete and episodic network failures that nonetheless create numerous cascading failures throughout a notional country's systems which turn out to be far less robust than expected. The scenario name derives from the famous statement offered by a NASA astronaut commander on the Apollo 13 mission to the moon regarding what at first appeared to be a rather small and isolated glitch in the ship's power system, but which later created a cascading set of failures that ultimately derailed the mission and almost caused a catastrophic loss of life.

"Y2 KO!" refers to the Worst Case Scenario in which Y2K turns out to be both widespread and sustained and any notional country's systems turn out to be more vulnerable than realized. The scenario name derives from the boxing term, "knockout," or "KO," here meaning that the country is damaged or discombobulated to the extent that it loses the capacity for normal functioning. This dire situation could be considered akin to what some define as a "failed state," such as Somalia or Haiti in the early 1990s, when US and/or UN military forces intervened in what were described as Complex Humanitarian Emergency missions.

Table: Y2K Scenario Phases Summarized by Subject across six successive phases:

(I) Y2K Mania (Mania phase that runs from probably sometime around late summer until early December of 1999) (II) Y2K Countdown (Countdown phase that stretches from early December until New Year's Eve 1999) (III) Y2K Onset (Onset phase that encompasses the first several days of January 2000) (IV) Y2K Unfolding ( Unfolding phase that extends from early January to some point a few weeks beyond that) (V) Y2K Peak ( Peak phase that occurs sometime in the first or second quarter of 2000) (VI) Y2K Exit Point (Exit Point phase that occurs sometime later in the first or second quarter of 2000.)

Subjects listed are:

Transportation Networks, Communications Networks, Power Networks, Financial Business Sector, Manufacturing Business Sector, Retail Business Sector, Mass Media Communications, Rumor-based Communications (including Internet), Religious-based Social Response, Essential Government Services, E/R Medical Services, Police Services and Military Security.

This is quite an interesting slide

Much to consider here. They have covered the ground. (I wonder if Koskinen was invited.)

Let me be among the first to suggest that this indicates that concern for Y2K is not exclusively the province of fools.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 18, 1999.

I'd like to chime in here with something that may help interpret the data...

There is a product called GroupSystems (developed by IBM, but spun off to a company called Vanture (sp??) out of Arizona (??))that is used to facilitate group discussions. There are hints that this is the tool that was used to generate this data.

The way it works is that several PC's are hooked into a network running this "collaboration" software. There are many tools availble, such as ranking, prioritizing, polling, and plain old discussion. The facilitator decides the question and the tool. The participants provide the details. It's kind of like an organized chat room.

What this means is that each of the paragraphs may have come from a different individual (obviously, there is some repetition). Part of the reason that the work appears a little disjointed is that it wasn't done by a single author. These are almost stream of conciousness writings that just happen to be organized by the comment.

A couple of interesting points about this interpretation...

The models, questions, and format were most likely decided by the facilitator **in advance**. That is the part that is most likely the work of a single individual (or at least cohesive, edited few). The results are the indivdual reactions of the participants. It gives the impression that whoever was the main facilitator is serious about this, even if all the participants are not.

Now if we could only use this software on the Yourdon forum!

-- Jim Smith (JDSmith1@hotmail.com), May 18, 1999.

Jim Smith's notions concerning GroupSystems and my overall control of the project are dead on the mark.

Your guys' stuff is so fun for me to read! The way you so quickly figure things out (despite the occasional paranoia about it being a hoax) is really impressive.

I've learned much from reading your threads. I've participated in several others in recent days after Jack Anderson ran article identifying me as secret leader of government effort to train military to put down Y2K rebellions in US. I showed it to my wife and she retorted, "If you can pull off a coup d'etat from your PC, then why in the hell can't you take out the garbage on Tuesdays like you're supposed to!"

Alas . . . there's a Hollywood screenplay in here somewhere . . .

I am open to coversations with anyone on this stuff. Email directly to my NWC eddress if you like. I travel a lot, giving my monster electronic brief on the project (great musical sequences using Mission Impossible theme, 2001 main theme, and of course, REM's TEOTWAWKI song), but will respond whenever possible.

Was introduced to your threads by Critt.

Again, appreciate your interest and serious thought. I always feel like I am drinking at the firehose when I bump into these threads, but they really are fascinating.

Tom Barnett

-- Thomas Barnett (barnettt@nwc.navy.mil), May 20, 1999.

One more thing before I fly off to my parents' 50th: M Curve is not about fooling anyone. M Curve describes three realities for decision- makers who have some control over institutitions (broadly defined):

1) do as much as you can to shape the social response prior to onset of Y2K--meaning educate public, set up safety nets, drill whomever needs to be drilled, establish tiger teams to deal with failures (i.e, all the stuff you do to prep for natural disaster)--doesn't mean it's gotta happen, just that you think it's prudent to prepare, but big thing is, you gotta do in advance!

2) elite ability to influence mass events during the actual onset of Y2K will plummet, due to millennial mania, world's largest party, Y2K hysteria + whatever actual Y2K failures there are; so our advice to leaders is, don't try to control too much at that point because it can be counterproductive

3) real ability to influence events come once Y2K hits and unfolds and you've got something real to respond to (i.e., problems to solve).

In sum, M Curve is not about fooling public, but about leaders not fooling themselves about when and when not to exert leadership.

Later,

Tom Barnett

-- Thomas Barnett (barnettt@nwc.navy.mil), May 20, 1999.

Growing up in MInnesota in the 30's may have skewed my political development somewhat toward the egalitarian side -- but I still challenge the use of the terms elite and masses in these important colloquies.

There are leaders, and there are those in charge. These are not equivalent terms. There are followers, and there are those who aren't in charge. These also are not equivalent.

It seems to me a fundamental error to frame a discourse among those in charge of various governmental activities, in such a way as to exacerbate their sense of separation from the people directly affected by these same governmental activities.

A disproportionate sense of elitism among those in charge is very likely to result in skewing their decisions away from the national interest toward the perceived interests of a specific cultural or economic moiety. For example, one need only review the pattern of decision-making before and during the Vietnam war.

Another consequence is likely to be the deepening of mistrust by the governed of all government . I should think this outcome is one which all concerned would want to avoid, if only for practical reasons.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 21, 1999.

Tom, WADR you need to STOP thinking in North American and start thinking in f'rlong. The term elite, as defined above (or wherever the Doc defined it) is terribly accurate in many, many other countries. The middle class tends to not get involved in much and can be lead easily, the lower classes tend to be MUCH more populous than in this country, and the inteligentsia/econ. upper class tend to be the societal leaders.

C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 21, 1999.

"WADR"? "f'rlong"? wazzat?

I must've missed this back in school --

Meanwhile, back at the ranch --

Isn't it a little frivolous, for the Naval War College, and all the substantial minds gathered there in council, to put so much effort into wargaming scenarios detailing how we might manage events and outcomes in other countries? Or should I say, irrelevant? Every single day events abroad make it clear to us that the United States is unable to manage affairs in foreign countries to its liking. Y2K can only make that effort more difficult.

These dialogues may be framed in terms of nations other than our own. Since the U.S.A. is the only place American forces can even conceivably implement any of these solutions, and certainly these conferences were not called for fun, it's not credible that Y2K effects in this country were not the primary consideration.

I'm not complaining about this! Thank God some responsible attention is at last being directed to Y2K's potential consequences here.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 22, 1999.