Were the Pollies aware of the "4 outcomes" theory?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

4 outcomes theory.

(1) prepare and there are no y2k problems = you eat and live. (2) prepare and there are severe y2k problems = you eat and live. (3) don't prepare and there are no y2k problems = you eat and live. (4) don't prepare and there are severe y2k problems = chances of survival are poor.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), January 07, 2000


Pollies are not aware of very much at all.

-- (brett@miklos.org), January 07, 2000.

Since 1,2, and 3 all had the same result, and I'm not forced to eat noodles, spam and rice for the next twenty years, I'll choose door number three.

-- liu (lookitup@dictionary.com), January 07, 2000.

1. Be rational 2. Be inquisitive 3. Research 4. Analyze 5. Laugh at all these "sky is gonna fall" doomers.

I am, have been, and will continue to laugh. See you in 6 months and I will still be laughing.

-- Chris Karcher (ckarcher@hotmail.com), January 07, 2000.

Some theory!

Perhaps you should add a fifth category, into which, practically every polly, including myself, fell.

(5) Make reasonable preparations for sporadic and fully manageable y2k problems = you eat and you live and you still have most of your money left.

Just because we didn't cash in our 401(k)s and buy a cabin in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean that we didn't prepare. Most did, just not at the level that a few raving lunatics would have liked.

-- zzzzz (zzz@zzz.zzz), January 07, 2000.

what zzzzz said

-- walt (walt@lcs.k12.ne.us), January 07, 2000.

People tend to exaggerate to suit their own rationalizations. This forum was not ever operated or regulated by lunatics, however, lunatics frequented this forum. You have to realize the difference to understand the purpose of this forum. The hard core leaders: Diane J. Squire, Old Git, Big Dog, Stan Faryna, Chuck The night driver ..etc. never mentioned to the tune the rationalizing Pollies are suggesting. They had responsible links and YES, even Y2k experts were baffled. It amazes me how many uninsightful gloaters there are. If you fell into the (3) or (4) category, you need to count your blessings and realize your arrogant hindsight would have left you incredibly humbled and depressed if things turned out differently. Some people have a caring and considerate lifeforce not to mention selfless qualities dedicating their precious spare time helping others to see the possibilities in the dangerous game of blind mans bluff. Most all the leaders of Govt. and businesses stated the same thing: they did not know what the outcome would be. This society we live in is highly narcissistic and certainly blends in with the (me) generation of kids today. Certainly nothing to be proud of. Any "older generation" person can relate to this point. Prepare for the unknown. Insurance policies are only for inanimate objects according to the polly's philosophical mantra.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), January 07, 2000.


Your matrix raises binary thinking to hew heights of absurdity. So, you either prepare or you don't. There are no problems or there are severe problems. Nothing in between either one!

Where in your matrix do you fit in someone who thinks the probability of problems affecting him personally doesn't exceed 5%? 10%? 25%? Where do you fit in someone who thinks the risk of unemployment exceeds the risk of a food shortage by 100 to 1? Does someone who bought an extra $50 worth of food belong in the same category as someone who spent over $20,000 on preparations? They both prepared, are they the same?

The goals all along have been (1) to make your level of preparations appropriate for the severity of problems; (2) to direct your preparations appropriate for the *type* of problems; and (3) Not to burn bridges if you overestimate severity or misunderstand type of problems.

Given the vast ranges of both severity and type into which problems might (or might not) fall, and given the very large number of choices open to you in selecting preparations, breaking this down into a simpleminded 2x2 matrix is simply silly. Pascal's wager, applied to real life, is a trillion-variable problem. And yes, even optimists are aware of this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 07, 2000.

Flint: Did you know what was going to happen after midnight? Who said anything about 20,000$. It really irks me that pollies on this forum consistently use arbitrary numbers to make other people look like nutcases. If you spent 1,000-2,000$, it would cover the extremes of the 4 outcomes theory and/or give the individual(s) enough time to grow food or kill game to can. Do I need a freakin lawyer to word this in such a way to appease your sensibilities?

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), January 07, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ