I "follow" this and other forums primarily because I am very interested in the psychological aspects of Y2k. Today I re-read an article written by Aaron Lynch which I found very interesting and which I would like to make available for discussion on this forum. (If this has been discussed here in the past, forgive me.)

Thought contagions

The article is a rather long read. Here are some excerpts which I found particularly thought provoking...

"The doomsday belief is also more vivid and emotionally gripping than the prosaic belief. When infected by a vivid, emotionally gripping meme, people have a hard time setting the thought aside. They keep thinking about what it means to them".

"Investing heavily in a meme makes the meme harder to shake off. People who have gone so far as to relocate, sell assets, stockpile food, and persuade friends find it hard to consider that it might have been unnecessary. Instead, they may feel fond of including themselves in the minority "smart enough" to prepare for TEOTWAWKI".

"Refutation resistance also comes from regarding the non-doomsayer as a "Pollyanna." Those who learn to apply this word to anyone doubting the apocalypse can easily reject challenges to their beliefs. So they retain belief and the sense of urgency longer".

"Once someone acquires the Y2K "hell on earth" belief, the meme serves itself by deterring dropouts. Like the religious threat of fire and brimstone for those who renounce faith, the secular belief threatens terrible things for those who "erroneously" change their minds. These include visions of starvation, violence, and death to oneself and loved ones. Such dropout prevention helps the belief not only persist, but also spread. When new listeners hear the "hell on earth" warnings, the meme can manipulate their thinking toward accepting it. Like religious hell memes, the Y2K hell memes imply vast suffering for misplaced skepticism but little penalty for misplaced credulity. So the memes of doomsday with hell on earth achieve the three ingredients of major thought contagion: high transmission rates, receptivity in potential converts, and persistent belief in existing converts".

I realize this post may be taken by some as an "attack". It is not. I am very interested in hearing your thoughts about this article.

Thanks in advance to anyone who responds.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 03, 1999

Answers

I assume your also researching the Y2K Debunking sites for an unbiased view, correct? After all for every doomer that shouts "Pollyanna" there is a pollyanna that is shouting "Doomer".

Maybe you can include in your psychological report about how "Utopia" memes are spread, making people think that everything is peachy keen regarding Y2K, Nuclear Weapons Proliferation, Social Unrest, and Economic Instability. If you ask me you'll find the "denial" thought processes in people alot more prevelant than the "delusional". Of course I'm not a pyschiatrist or psychologist so I can't be sure. But then again what is the first reaction to any stressful, life altering event?

Yep that's right, denial.

When my father died the first thing I did was shake my head and said "...no, no , NO!". But if your hypothesis is correct than the first I should have done is to say "...oh great now I'm going to die too".

Denial vs. Delusion, you be the judge.

-- (Nukes@ R. US), July 03, 1999.

Speaking for myself, I would love to entirely "drop" this "meme" if that is, indeed, what it amounts to!! Especially since it is my favorite summer holiday right now I would choose to have not read what I have read, to have not heard what I have heard, to know nothing about y2k so that I would not feel an obligation to at the very least learn more, including the possibility that there is a faction in society who would like to create a TEOTWAWKI atmosphere as well as the possibility that they are right and including everything in between. If somebody can tell me verifiably "Don't Worry, Be Happy" I would be "happy" to oblige. Happy 4th!

-- NSmith (nitnat3@aol.com), July 03, 1999.

Nukes-

Yes, I am definitely research other sites including Y2K "de-bunking" sites. As I said before, I am primarily interested in the psychological aspects of Y2k and that includes ALL views of the issue. Good point regarding the "Utopian memes". I'm sure the article could be extrapolated to explain that also. Regarding your comments about "denial"...[taken from the article]

"The more psychological term "denial" also works this way. Used ever since Freud's four defense mechanisms, the term describes how real people often do react to threatening thoughts. Yet doomsayers can allege "denial" far easier than non-doomsayers can ever disprove it. The non-doomsayers presumably have to explain all the details of why society will function just to clear that single term "denial" from the discussion. Besides, denying denial is still denial, making it perhaps the perfect source of refutation resistance. "Denial" thus becomes central to Y2K meme complexes that people have not dropped, and helps those meme sets survive and spread".

Thanks for the response Nukes. Appreciated

-- CD (not@here.com), July 03, 1999.

NSmith- Amen to that! I couldn't agree with you more.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 03, 1999.

CD,

I applaud your efforts at introducing a perfectly logical position into a forum presumably dedicated to debate. I also admire your courage. Your first response will likely be the more typical - though there are exceptions. Throughout these forums you will find the thinkers who merely lean towards the Y2K worst-imagined scenarios, and calmly urge preparation while discouraging chaotic responses with intellectual integrity. I find they serve two major purposes: 1) They provide a welcome respite of intelligent discourse in an otherwise emotional, "Springer-like" atmoshpere; and 2) they provide the logical responses used by most of the maniacs and fanatics; viz. "I really hope it doesn't happen the way I believe it will..." and all such similar fabrications.

People embrace what they want to believe is true - regardless of the facts. Yourdon himself predicted noticable interruptions on 990101. What happened? Nothing. The other dates have come and gone in like fashion. Yourdon also predicted that by 990701 there would be no doubt about the import of the global Y2K phenomena - about which, I am happy to report, I agree fully with Yourdon.

I doubt most of the zealots will awaken on 000101, either. There will be some excuse why catastrpohy awaits us around the next bend, or some reason why the "truth" is still being controlled and denied by a governement/media coalition that travels the globe (and space) in special silent black helicopters.... They are to be pitied, in a sense. Their leader has seen the light and abandoned them to intellectual leachery by a public that will, no doubt, turn on them with a wrathful scorn usually reserved for worse offenders.

In response, I have begun helping local concerned citizens erect their "Y2K fences" which they will use to protect themselves from the starving hoardes. I have received a few complaints regarding the angle of the constantine wire at the top of these fences though....

Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 03, 1999.

I, for one, wish that the potential for Y2K problems were not present. Since they are present, I am forced to take precautions because I have learned that I can not expect any help from charities or government. For years I have been told that I and those like me are the cause of all of our woes. I am a married white, male, conservative, with 6 children and a wife who does not work outside the home. I have been told that I have too many children and world overpopulation is my fault. I am told that I am "mean spirited" because I am conservative. I am told that I would never qualify for any help from the governement of any kind because of my income level. (No I have not asked for help) Finally, even though I pay 60% of my income in federal, state and local taxes I am told I am "not doing my fair share." Bottom line, I prepare for possible problems because I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WELL BEING FOR MYSELF AND MY FAMILY. I am a fool if I look to the boys in Washington DC for my help in such a situation. I am reminded daily that they only want to hear from me on April 15. It sucks, but its the truth and its reality. I wish it were not so as I have other things I would rather do. What if all preps are for naught? Simple. Use it for myself and donate the rrest to the local food bank for the homeless. Its the least I can do as "I never do my fair share."

-- Doc (smfdoc@aol.com), July 03, 1999.

I am also a student of psychology. Certainly it is well known that mass energies and emotions influence a person. It is always important to be rational, to understand the implications of one's choices and to not panic. It is important to reevaluate understandings when faced with new information. I think it is also important to not adopt the position that "it can't happen" when faced with possibilities that seem horrendous. The people of Pompei may have thought that any people who fled their city were alarmists. The people who were in danger in the holocaust could have chosen to ignore the signs that they needed to flee, thinking that "it couldn't happen to them." History is filled with the ends of civilizations - most of whom, I'm sure, thought that it couldn't happen to them. It's an interesting balancing act, to be sure. What's true? and what isn't? What is relevant? and what isn't? Interestingly enough, a person is not absolutely sure until he is looking in retrospect.

-- Jean (jmacmanu@bellsouth.net), July 03, 1999.

Nukes,

I haven't read Aaron's thesis in quite a while, but I remember well my first real experience with death. I was in college at the time, and my brother-in-law (my age) just fell over dead in the shower one day from a cerebral aneurysm. I missed a good two weeks of school over that one. My own mortality was presented to me in the blink of an eye. My grandparents were already dead, but they were old, and we "expect" old people to die....not people our own age. A good friend of mine at school shared my grief with my favorite professor, who'd queried her regarding my absence. When I returned to school, he was a great help to me in coming to grips with the whole thing. I haven't much blinked an eye at death ever since. GEEZ...you brought back a weird memory.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 03, 1999.

I have had so much difficulties with computers during my life, that I'm certain that anything that can go wrong will go wrong. I truly hope it will be a blip, and frankly I don't spend much time thinking about it. But with my basic distrust of computers and systems and management and government and bull shit, I've prepared to a comfortable degree.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), July 03, 1999.

CD

It is my opinion that Y2K is a computer problem not the return of Christ. Religion and Y2K are not the same.

As for preparing for the computer error, it will be hard enough to get most to prepare for a week. Not unreasonable in my mind.

This meme thing is rediculous if there is valid reason to expect something is going to happen. There is real risk, if not the government and businesses that prepare have a meme. STUPID

Shit can you imagine trying to explian why GM is infected by memes?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 03, 1999.

CD,

I also appreciate your interest in the subject but I fear your taking an unusually one sided approach to the matter. Your giving me quotes proving how the doomsday meme is affecting people but your not giving fair play to how the spreading doomsday meme is affecting those opposed to the idea of "doomsday" or "the apocalypse".

(i.e.- the Federal agents who stormed the compound in Waco. Their actions (and Janet Reno's) were based largely in part on how they felt about people who thought the end of the world was near, or as they put it, a "threat to society". Now I don't know how much of a threat they really were but I know David Koresh could have been arrested at any time as he walked through the streets of Waco as he often did, alone and unarmed. In my opinion, their prejudice caused them to overreact to the people who they claimed were overreacting)

Unbiased means you don't take sides, no matter how the evidence is stacked. I shudder to think about how many innocent men and women are in jail because juries jumped to conclusions because they thought that the accused was a "doombrooder", or a title equivilant.

All I'm asking is that if you want to report on the Y2K meme in an unbiased way you include how people react to people who overreact.I think you'll find it's a self perpetuating movement.

(I myself am personally biased one way. I've studied nuclear physics and atomic warfare for many years on an amateur level and I've grown somewhat pessimistic to the future of Earth. But I'm not the one doing a psychological research study.)

Sincerest Regards,

-- (Nukes @ R. US), July 03, 1999.

Jean:

You said: "It's an interesting balancing act, to be sure. What's true? and what isn't? What is relevant? and what isn't? Interestingly enough, a person is not absolutely sure until he is looking in retrospect."

I agree with you 100% on this one. I've always looked back on my life and felt that I couldn't have done it any other way. Every mistake made served a purpose. I refer to this as "Hindsite is always 20/20." Once my 3 kids became of sufficient age, my approach to child-rearing became less one of protecting them from danger than listening to their experiences. If one can perfect a poker face, it's quite amazing to just listen, rather than TELL.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 03, 1999.

If you'd like to e-mail me sometime regarding the subject my real address is listed below:

-- Nukes-R-US (Jack Gordon) (TrnityTest@aol.com), July 03, 1999.

CD,

I notice that your "question" essentially allowed for only 2 possible outcomes: disaster or nothing.

So, you use the terminology associated with a digital world -- doomers and pollys.

Approaching things in this way makes for good mental masturbation, e.g., "the psychological aspects of Y2k," but it doesn't address the broad spectrum of real feelings about how bad things will be.

There are some here who think things will be very bad. There are some who think it's all overblown, and most people expect problems of some sort. What kind? Unfortunately, we -- and that includes the troll brigade as well as everyone else on this forum -- really don't know exactly what will go wrong. Moreover we recognize that what might be screwed up in my neighborhood may be perfectly OK where you live. So, in order to prepare for that, we should be able to withstand the most likely disruptions in our lives without too much misery.

What's most likely? The blatant polly crowd would have you believe that "nothing" is most likely, and in some places that may be true for a while. This, of course, is the same attitude that insists that the stock market always goes up -- ignoring the fact that history shows that large declines are perfectly normal. Therefore, "nothing" consists of being fully invested in internet stocks. Others realize that such have been grossly overpriced and look for contingency plans.

The recent drop in many internet stocks makes those who chose contingency planning over being fully invested in internet high flyers look very wise, doesn't it. Will they still be as wise at the end of this year -- or next? Stay tuned and see.

You can also, if you're so inclined, go onto forums populated by gold buffs, and discuss why the price of gold really has to climb above $500 and ounce. It probably will -- but I expect it to drop well under $200 first.

Now, both of the examples I've used call for "market timing." You have to know when to hold up and when to fold up, to buy, and to sell. The person who enlists a "buy and hold" philosophy at the peak of the next market crash is the one who will enter the poor house wearing a barrel. The person who is enamored by gold and buys in at $300 will probable sell at $185 -- just as the metal bottoms.

There are a million good reasons for buying gold, and there are a million good reasons for speculating in stocks. None is so pervasive as the reasons for preparing ourselves, our families, and our neighbors for what looks as if it might be a rough few years.

If that's being a "doomer," then I wear the label proudly -- and with more than a little scorn for those who ignore the signs -- and whos only contribution is taunting and disruption.

I suggest your study of "the psychological aspects of Y2k" include the entire spectrum of opinions, rather than simply concentrating on what one person calls "doomer." If you're serious about such study then you realize that building bins -- especially when these bins correspond to extreme positions -- and forcing people into them is not a good academic approach. But, it's the one taken by the author of this article.

-- de (delewis@inetone.net), July 03, 1999.

Nukes- I could take an "easy out" here by simply stating that I merely happened on the article again today and wanted to hear feedback on it from this forum. However, you have asked some fair questions and you have raised some valid points (many with which I agree by the way).

You wrote: "I also appreciate your interest in the subject but I fear your taking an unusually one sided approach to the matter. Your giving me quotes proving how the doomsday meme is affecting people but your not giving fair play to how the spreading doomsday meme is affecting those opposed to the idea of "doomsday" or "the apocalypse"." -snip- "All I'm asking is that if you want to report on the Y2K meme in an unbiased way you include how people react to people who overreact. I think you'll find it's a self perpetuating movement."

Frankly Nuke, I would very much enjoy reading a thesis devoted to the meme as it applies to those opposed to the idea of "Y2k doomsday" or "how people react to people who overreact". If you or anybody else can point me in the direction of where I might find such, I would appreciate it. I assure you, if I find one I will be happy to post it for you and others to critique. Personally, I believe such an article would necessarily have to focus on "denial". As has been pointed out earlier, the use of the word denial when applied to Y2k is rather hard to prove or disprove.

Regards,

-- CD (not@here.com), July 03, 1999.

Brian wrote: "Religion and Y2K are not the same".

Brian- Did you take the time to read the entire thesis or are you just basing your comment on what I had pasted?

-- CD (not@here.com), July 03, 1999.

de-

Thanks for the well thought out response. You too have raised some valid points.

Just for the record here; some comments in this thread seem to have been mistakenly attributed to me. Please keep in mind that the contents of the thesis belongs to Aaron Lynch.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 03, 1999.

Senate testimony about Y2K:

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/030599/gershwin.html

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 03, 1999.

Re: Memes. I would be interested in your research into the meme that Y2K is hype. Or the meme that Y2K has been solved. For it seems that those memes have spread to a much larger percentage of the population (in spite of there being little to no evidence to support them) than has the idea that there is a significant risk to our Just-In-Time way of life which may be caused by breakdowns in the technology that makes JIT possible. I would be interested in your research into the meme that the NERC has done extensive testing of the electric utilities and found that they are all fixed. Or perhaps your research into the opposite of a meme (if there is such a thing) - that the FAA is totally compliant - which only Jane Garvey seems to believe.

It seems to me that the meme that Y2K is hype (or has already been solved) would be particularly interesting to research, since the results of that meme are keeping people, companies and communities from taking actions that would increase their chances of survival. Thousands or millions of years of instinct or culture have supported making preprations in the face of risk, so this "Y2K is hype" meme must be one whopper of a meme. The Mother of all Memes if you will. [except that I am SURE that that puts the wrong gender spin on it - vbg - ]

Happy researching.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), July 03, 1999.

rich responses!

Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 03, 1999.

CD, I'm certain that thoughts are contagious and that one seeks out those who will confirm his/her own beliefs, and so on. I am constantly examining my Y2K stance with an eye to my psychological makeup and susceptibility.

That said, I will also explain that I have completely sold out of the stock market and am spending a lot of my savings to relocate to a less urban environment and to buy and store food. My sister, a clinical social worker who has treated people's psychological woes for about 30 years, is renting the property this weekend. I'm an author with two fiction books out--one featuring a psychiatrist.

I don't think my sister and I are Y2K cultists. We would simply like to optimize our possibilities of not-too-wretched survival, having examined the information available.

Why don't we trust the majority who are saying, "Don't worry. It's fixed."? Their information seems self-serving and lacking in frankness. Certainly, this event calls for making a judgment that can go down either way, and mine is on the seemingly pessimistic and mistrustful side. However, I'm basiclly an optimist, happy, and satisfied with the basics of life and would like to get through what might be a couple of bad years and go on to a brighter future, thereafter.

There has not been an openness regarding the topic of Y2K and what I see behind the scenes (like a rather dismal scenario from the US Naval WAr College), makes me want to avoid being ground under the wheels of a grand public deception. I'm not one of those who mistrusts the "government" per se.

I mistrust the direction all of our inssitutions have taken--toward cynicism, power-brokering, and a shrugging off of the situation of the public at large. Trust your gut and not your head. Best wishes to all.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWAyne@aol.com), July 03, 1999.

Mara wrote:

"My sister, a clinical social worker who has treated people's psychological woes for about 30 years, is renting the property this weekend. I'm an author with two fiction books out--one featuring a psychiatrist".

First, thanks for your response and congratulations on being published Mara. May I ask the titles of your books? (Good opportunity for you to "plug em" ;-) Secondly, being that your sister actually works in the field, it would be interesting to hear her "take" on the thesis. By chance has she seen/commented about it to you?

-- CD (not@here.com), July 03, 1999.

CD,

I am not on here to promote my novels, but to share information. We all want to know the extent to which this thing will get out of hand and are evaluating. Also, we want ideas as to good ways to prep. Thought contagion is not a new idea. This person has just applied it to Y2K. The child psychologist Jean Piaget noted many years ago that a baby will begin to cry when he hears another baby crying--just because. There is also a book out about mind "viruses"--like tunes you can't get out of your head. We are susceptible, for sure. There are forces behind many of these "ideas" such as Naziism--forces that take control of the susceptible.

One thing I have to say about this woman's material is that she is operating from a distinctly subjective stance. She believes that Y2K is nothing. That remains to be seen. However, she has already decided on that--oddly. And has pegged Y2K doomers to a religious motivation that they don't espouse. This is not a Christian Millenium thing. It's a real, concrete technology problem that can be solved in time. The question is whether there is sufficient time to solve it before we roll over. There is much evidence that we do not have the time to remediate 40 years of programming. There are no clear answers and some of the players are not even trying to be forthright. Sure there is contagion and alignment with ideas, but that is not the basis for our preparations and worries. Best wishes, CD, but don't be too "entranced"--that is, in a trance--over this woman's statements. Stand a little apart from what she has to say, which is not at all objective.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), July 05, 1999.

That was very interesting Mara. Thank you.

Best wishes to you also,

-- CD (not@here.com), July 05, 1999.