[Fair Use for Education and Research Purpose Only] http://curly.cc.utexas.edu/~chaekm/dissonance.htm

Festinger, L.

Introduction: According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior. Two factors affect the strength of the dissonance: the number of dissonant beliefs, and the importance attached to each belief. There are three ways to eliminate dissonance:

(1) reduce the importance of the dissonant beliefs, (2) add more consonant beliefs that outweigh the dissonant beliefs, or (3) change the dissonant beliefs so that they are no longer inconsistent.

Dissonance occurs most often in situations where an individual must choose between two incompatible beliefs or actions. The greatest dissonance is created when the two alternatives are equally attractive. Furthermore, attitude change is more likely in the direction of less incentive since this results in lower dissonance. In this respect, dissonance theory is contradictory to most behavioral theories which would predict greater attitude change with increased incentive (i.e., reinforcement).

Application: Dissonance theory applies to all situations involving attitude formation and change. It is especially relevant to decision-making and problem-solving.

Example: Consider someone who buys an expensive car but discovers that it is not comfortable on long drives. Dissonance exists between their beliefs that they have bought a good car and that a good car should be comfortable. Dissonance could be eliminated by deciding that it does not matter since the car is mainly used for short trips (reducing the importance of the dissonant belief) or focusing on the cars strengths such as safety, appearance, handling (thereby adding more consonant beliefs). The dissonance could also be eliminated by getting rid of the car, but this behavior is a lot harder to achieve than changing beliefs.

Principles: Dissonance results when an individual must choose between attitudes and behaviors that are contradictory.

Dissonance can be eliminated by reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs, acquiring new beliefs that change the balance, or removing the conflicting attitude or behavior.

References Behm, J. and A. Cohen. Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance. New York: Wiley. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1957.

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 15, 2000

Answers

Just to get this onto the 'recent answers' page, case anyone missed it.

-- harl (harlanquin@aol.hell), January 15, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

This is actually not off topic. It's quite important. What it tells us is that it is imortant to get our loved ones to take one small step toward preparing, and to get them to do it without them perceiving themselves as having been heavily pressured.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 16, 2000.

It also explains something about abusive attitudes on the part of those who profess to believe that there is no possibility of significant disruptions resulting from Y2K problems. Realization of the potential for trouble does not square with the fact that they're not doing anything about it. Protecting oneself against some of the least attractive scenarios would involve considerable effort.

They may figure that if anyone truly believed the worst, then they should invest in bugout property and hole up there for a year or so. Doing any less would be rather pointless, and perhaps even counter productive if it tended to draw attention. The behavior required is just to big a step. Thus they have to rationalize their behavior by changing their beliefs.

So, they conclude that Y2K isn't really as big a deal as it is trumped up to be. If they really thought that, then they would go about their business, laughing to themselves about the silly doomers. But the problem is that they're still actually scared. How do they explain this to themselves? They have to conclude that their own fear is due to the unconscionable harping by fear mongers.

Because they still feel fear, they're drawn to investigate the situation. What they find continues to stoke the fires of fear. But, rather than take the huge step to protect themselves, it just makes them angrier and angrier at the messengers.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 16, 2000.

Dancr, Very well said.

Dee =)

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

Couldn't possibly be that doomers are grasping at straws to protect THEIR particular cult-meme, could it? Every milestone, every prediction, every warning of widespread failure has pretty much gone bust. People in here are slapping the "Y2K Failure" label on anything and everything they can find in some kind of attempt to convince themselves and others that they were right. Well, you're not. You were wrong.

You seem to be going to an awful lot of effort here to convince yourselves that THE PROBLEMS ARE STILL COMING. Heck, even most of your propheteers (North, Milne, Hyatt) are backing off and saying their mea culpas. Why not you? Must be cognitive dissonance.

Good try explaining pollies, but we're really just here for a good laugh. It's pretty funny to see some people who are deep, deep, deep in the throes of cognitive dissonance try to point the finger at others. The fact of the matter is that your predictions are falling by the wayside. But if it makes you feel better, knock yourselves out and say what you will.

Consider the following:

"reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs"

Try being a little more conciliatory. You might find that many pollies are interested in discussing the issues, but not in blindly accepting your analyses as truth. When you demand that we accept your analyses as truth, that's when we get nasty. No one likes to talk to an extremist, and many doomers represent the far extreme of this issue.

"acquiring new beliefs that change the balance"

One new belief might be "maybe Y2K wasn't as bad as I thought."

"removing the conflicting attitude or behavior"

IOW, forgetting about the predictions of widespread failures.

Just my $0.02. Delete if you please, flame if you like. Speak nicely to me, and I'll speak nicely in return.

-- Cousin Sluggo (sluggo@polly.com), January 19, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Mr Sluggo says: ...some people who are deep, deep, deep in the throes of cognitive dissonance try to point the finger at others.

Cognitive dissonance does not come into play for us, because our behavior has been entirely consistent with our beliefs and our beliefs are consistent with each other. When we believed that there was the possibility of disruptions, we prepared accordingly. The fact that nothing much has happened so far is not inconsistent with the possibility that things could have happened.

We don't even have to resort to saying that things may still happen to square those beliefs. Those who say that there is still a possibility of disruptions genuinely believe that there is such a continuing possibility. Saying "It ain't over!" is not a desparate attempt to keep from being wrong, for two reasons. First, we don't attach the same kind of shame to being wrong that pollies do. And second, even if we did, we weren't wrong in believing in the possibility of disruptions.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 19, 2000.

Dancr claims>> "Cognitive dissonance does not come into play for us, because our behavior has been entirely consistent with our beliefs and our beliefs are consistent with each other."

You are incorrect. Cognitive dissonance comes into play very handily for you. It comes into play because you (and I am using the impersonal group "you," rather than the specific, finger- pointing "you") tend to, as a doomer, reject hard, factual, provable and reproducible evidence that contradicts your beliefs while simultaneously accepting circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that supports them.

Dancr says>> "When we believed that there was the possibility of disruptions, we prepared accordingly. The fact that nothing much has happened so far is not inconsistent with the possibility that things could have happened."

That's true, but it IS inconsistent with the belief that things will STILL happen. Evidence and proofs have piled up against your position, yet you (impersonal you) still reject them. That's classic cognitive dissonance, Dancr.

Dancr says>> "We don't even have to resort to saying that things may still happen to square those beliefs. Those who say that there is still a possibility of disruptions genuinely believe that there is such a continuing possibility."

I know that. But the fact is, those that say that have little, if anything to buttress that position. Those people who take that position are defending an increasingly untenable set of beliefs, not evidence.

Dancr claims>> "Saying "It ain't over!" is not a desparate attempt to keep from being wrong,"

Oh, yes, it is. It is precisely an attempt to avoid accepting one's incorrect presumptions and non-fact-based actions.

Dancr says>> "for two reasons. First, we don't attach the same kind of shame to being wrong that pollies do."

Well, you're wrong there, Dancr. I've said "I was wrong" on other forums, and I don't have a problem with saying it again, if I should happen to find something that doesn't square with my outlook on events.

The problem you're running into here is that doomers attach a GREAT deal of shame to being wrong, while pollies don't. Doomers equate doomer incorrectness and its consequences to polly incorrectness and its consequences, which is completely inaccurate. If the pollies were wrong, then they'd be starving, and that's harsh. However, the doomers were wrong, and they refuse to admit it, because they equate THEM being wrong (and the consequences thereof) to pollies being wrong and the harsh consequences that would come of that.

Doomers attach a great deal of shame to being wrong. That's why they are having such a hard time admitting it, and that's evidentiary proof of doomer cognitive dissonance.

Dancr>> "And second, even if we did, we weren't wrong in believing in the possibility of disruptions."

Nobody's arguing that point, Dancr. However, you WERE wrong in believing in the CERTAINTY of disruptions. You can go on all you like about how you "hoped" nothing bad would happen, but that's a backhanded way to say "I believe something bad WILL happen."

Bad things didn't happen. You were largely wrong. You can't seem to admit it. You're suffering from cognitive dissonance. QED.

Not flaming you, just observations.

-- Cousin Sluggo (sluggo@polly.com), January 25, 2000.

Cousin Sluggo,

Excuse me, I must have missed something -- now where was it that Dancr said or implied that she believed in the certainty of disruptions?

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 25, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

You state that we "reject  evidence that contradicts [our] beliefs while simultaneously accepting circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that supports them." In other words, I guess you say we question acceptable data and we accept questionable data. The thing is, again, we're talking about the mere possibility of disruptions. There can exist no evidence that there is zero possibility of future disruption. Any evidence of possible disruption, no matter how flimsy, though, may be legitimately added to the pile of evidence that there is a possibility of disruption. To recognize this is not evidence of any psychological disorder. It is, in fact, highly adaptive.

You say that those that say [there is still a possibility of disruptions] have little, if anything to buttress that position. You've got to be kidding, right? Thousands of years of recorded history amply demonstrate that almost every generation experiences massive upheaval from any of a variety of causes. Certainly, if the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand could set off WWII, a Y2K glitch could easily provide the spark to set off any number of dark scenarios. And Y2K isn't all played out, either. There are plenty of reasons to not say "It's Over".

To apply Cognitive Dissonance Theory, you need to identify some inconsistent beliefs or beliefs that are inconsistent with behavior. You seem to believe that the fact that nothing much has happened so far is inconsistent with belief in a continuing possibility of disruptions. I just don't see that these are logically inconsistent beliefs.

You say "Doomers equate doomer incorrectness and its consequences to polly incorrectness and its consequences". Are you saying that we think there's any shame in hedging one's bets against something bad that doesn't happen? If many people think that's reasonable, then that would help to explain why so many did not prepare. That's crazy. We're so far from thinking that, that I can't believe you'd even say it. Here's a fresh new essay about why I think it's those who aren't prepared who attach such over-inflated meaning to "being wrong": Freudian Projection by the Unprepared.

You state that our claim to have been acting upon the mere possibility of disruptions is disingenuous, because, you believe, we claimed that it was a certainty that there would be disruptions. This is absolutely untrue for most of us, on this forum at least. There is documentation that most of us have long believed that the most likely outcome would be something on the order of a recession. For example, although my optimism fluctuated from one hour to the next, in most of the surveys I pegged the probability of a 10 level of disruptions at a mere 1% (ONE percent), and explicitly stated so.

Bad things can happen at any time. The year 2000 is not yet over, and its effects may be felt for many years to come. It's never wrong to prepare to take care of our selves and our families.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 26, 2000.

Good headline, boring text, what so i look like, a PHD?

Thouhg tpatterns are like the bookmarks on the net browser. You wear your patterns into a groove, very hard to get out. Scary to get out.

Try it though, it's fun...

-- INever (inevercheckmy@Onebox.com), January 26, 2000.

First, I'd like to say that I appreciate the moderate tone most of you are taking with me. It is always better to talk calmly than to flame. :)

Eve said>> "Cousin Sluggo, excuse me, I must have missed something -- now where was it that Dancr said or implied that she believed in the certainty of disruptions?"

As I indicated repeatedly, I was using the impersonal "you," rather than the specific "you" that would apply only to Dancr. I am trying to show how cognitive dissonance applies well to the doomer mindset, as opposed to applying to Dancr only.

Dancr said>> "You state that we "reject  evidence that contradicts [our] beliefs while simultaneously accepting circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that supports them." In other words, I guess you say we question acceptable data and we accept questionable data."

Yes, exactly. The history of this board and others like it is replete with examples of doomers accepting or rejecting data solely on the basis of what was said. Prior to rollover, we could readily see posters flip-flop on the trustworthiness of a source depending on whether they had good news or bad news. Obviously, bad news was "believable," while good news was "unbelievable." Why not consider the source, as well? This is, BTW, an excellent illustration of cognitive dissonance.

Dancr>> "The thing is, again, we're talking about the mere possibility of disruptions."

Dancr, that's all well and good, but as your cohorts have said time and time again, "it's not the odds, it's the stakes." The doomer mindset often IGNORES the likelihood of a given event or set of events (like Y2K) and focuses instead on the "stakes."

Disruptions and accidents are always possible, at any time. The day, date or year simply doesn't enter into that. The fact of the matter is that you (again, the impersonal "you") took an unbelievably unlikely event with admittedly dire consequences and blew it way, way out of proportion.

Here's an example -- I travel by air from time to time for my work. How likely is it that the plane I'm in will suddenly flip over on its side and dive into the ground? EXTREMELY unlikely, but it HAS happened. So what do I do? Prepare? Or not bother worrying about an incredibly unlikely series of events that could have fatal consequences for me?

Dennis Olson was taken to task on this board a few weeks ago for preparing for Y2K, but not for the loss of his job. While I think that's mighty poor behavior and awfully rude of my polly brethren, it is still an object lesson to doomers to pay more attention to the odds. Y2K was unlikely, so Olson's preparations were unlikely to be of any use. Olson's firing was more in the realm of possibility, so preparing for it would have made more sense.

Dancr>> "There can exist no evidence that there is zero possibility of future disruption."

No one's arguing against that point, Dancr. No one is arguing that there is no possibility of any disruptions. However, you would be well advised to start looking at probabilities, because this "it's not the odds, it's the stakes" mindset hasn't served the doomers very well lately.

Dancr says>> "Any evidence of possible disruption, no matter how flimsy, though, may be legitimately added to the pile of evidence that there is a possibility of disruption."

No one is rejecting that, Dancr. What is being rejected is the automatic doomer pronunciation of any error, glitch or bump in the road as a Y2K error -- especially when there's no evidence for it.

Dancr says>> "To recognize this is not evidence of any psychological disorder. It is, in fact, highly adaptive."

No. There is nothing adaptive about it at all. It is, in fact, evidentary proof of cognitive dissonance.

Dancr says>> "You say that those that say [there is still a possibility of disruptions] have little, if anything to buttress that position. You've got to be kidding, right? Thousands of years of recorded history amply demonstrate that almost every generation experiences massive upheaval from any of a variety of causes."

Who's arguing against that? Just because upheaval can come from a variety of causes -- that doesn't mean that you can point at a cause and say "this will cause massive upheaval." What a ridiculous assertion! The fact of the matter is that doomers have precious little evidence of potential or actual disruptions that are PROVABLY due to Y2K. Provably due, Dancr -- not "assumed" to be due.

Dancr said>> "Certainly, if the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand could set off WWII,"

WWII was a social event that proceeded from social causes. Y2K was expected to be a technical event that proceeded from technical causes. So there's your first error. Your second error would be deciding what the trigger event WOULD BE prior to its occurrence. Do you honestly think the Serbian fellow who shot Ferdinand realized what he was setting into motion? Are you suggesting that programmers in 1969 realized how people would react to their work in 1999? Do you honestly think you can see the future? Fact is, Dancr, prophets don't have good track records. And the doomer Y2K prophets have a decidedly lousy track record.

Dancr said>> "a Y2K glitch could easily provide the spark to set off any number of dark scenarios. And Y2K isn't all played out, either. There are plenty of reasons to not say "It's Over".

Perhaps. But there are infinitely MORE reasons to say "it's done." But cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing them or accepting them.

Dancr said>> "To apply Cognitive Dissonance Theory, you need to identify some inconsistent beliefs or beliefs that are inconsistent with behavior."

Sure. How about . . . continuing to live normally while still anticipating disaster and/or disruptions? If you really think Y2K isn't over, then why not take more/additional protective measures?

Dancr said>> "You seem to believe that the fact that nothing much has happened so far is inconsistent with belief in a continuing possibility of disruptions. I just don't see that these are logically inconsistent beliefs."

Well, I don't see how you can pair that possibility (a possibility that no one ever questioned, by the way) with the assumption that any disruptions that DO happen are automatically Y2K-related. That is a VERY logically indefensible position.

Dancr said>> "You say "Doomers equate doomer incorrectness and its consequences to polly incorrectness and its consequences". Are you saying that we think there's any shame in hedging one's bets against something bad that doesn't happen?"

No, I didn't say that. But I DO think there is shame in not admitting that one was wrong in this case. From what I have seen, those doomers who apologize with good grace, get received with good grace by pollies. The fact of the matter is that the average doomer's preps were never an issue with pollies. Your overwhelming belief that Y2K WOULD be rough and your dogged dismissal of positive news were the issues. You can say "but I hoped and prayed that it wouldn't be bad," but that still implies that you EXPECTED lots of problems. More cognitive dissonance.

Dancr said>> "If many people think that's reasonable, then that would help to explain why so many did not prepare."

The fact of the matter is that people prepare for problems that they feel are LIKELY. Most people (correctly) divined that Y2K as predicted by North, Yourdon and others was a tremendously unlikly set of events, and therefore did not bother preparing. There's nothing wrong with hedging bets, but you and your doomer cohorts didn't even bother checking those pesky odds before placing your bets -- you just considered the "stakes." Further, many of you ridiculed people who did not agree with you. Some posters here expressed relief in their presumption that pollies would "all be dead soon." I think there's some shame in that, yes.

Dancr said>> "That's crazy. We're so far from thinking that, that I can't believe you'd even say it."

Actually, you misread my statement. You (doomers) know what being wrong could mean to pollies -- the dire consequences of starvation and freezing. Therefore, you (doomers) equate saying "I was wrong" with dire consequences. No wonder so few of you want to say it now, even with almost a month of largely normal life in 2000 behind us.

Dancr said>> "Here's a fresh new essay about why I think it's those who aren't prepared who attach such over-inflated meaning to "being wrong": Freudian Projection by the Unprepared."

Where is it?

Dancr said>> "You state that our claim to have been acting upon the mere possibility of disruptions is disingenuous, because, you believe, we claimed that it was a certainty that there would be disruptions. This is absolutely untrue for most of us, on this forum at least. There is documentation that most of us have long believed that the most likely outcome would be something on the order of a recession."

A recession due, explicitly and provably, to Y2K errors. And there's documentation of doomer predictions of THAT, too. When the economy charges happily into 2001, will you admit you were wrong then? Recessions happen with or without Y2K, Dancr. At what point do you say "okay, Y2K's a non-issue now?" Or do you seize on a recession three years down the road as "proof?"

Dancr said>> For example, although my optimism fluctuated from one hour to the next, in most of the surveys I pegged the probability of a 10 level of disruptions at a mere 1% (ONE percent), and explicitly stated so.

And that, Dancr, is why I use the impersonal "you."

Dancr said>> "Bad things can happen at any time."

That's RIGHT, Dancr. ANY TIME. Whether it is 2000 or not. Cognitive dissonance. Can you see it?

Dancr said>> "The year 2000 is not yet over, and its effects may be felt for many years to come."

Really? What effects? What's 2000 going to do to us?

Dancr said>> "It's never wrong to prepare to take care of our selves and our families."

Dancr, this is typical doomer bleating about how people were 'only trying to protect themselves.' No one's ARGUING about your preps. Can you please get past that?

-- Cousin Sluggo (sluggo@polly.com), January 26, 2000.

INever,

LOL

Good analogy, I have to hand it to you. And thanks for the keen insight into YOUR thought patterns. =)

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 26, 2000.

Cousin Sluggo,

Hopefully, when you use the term "doomer" in the derogatory way that you have, you're taking care to exclude those who researched and analyzed the issue, reached reasonable conclusions as to stakes and risk, and arrived at a rational decision to minimize the risk.

And of course, the costs of their preps were simply investment and insurance-related decisions -- just not the ones you're used to seeing.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 26, 2000.

This is an interesting discussion. I disagree with you Tracie, in the following statements: " It also explains something about abusive attitudes on the part of those who profess to believe that there is no possibility of significant disruptions resulting from Y2K problems. Realization of the potential for trouble does not square with the fact that they're not doing anything about it. Protecting oneself against some of the least attractive scenarios would involve considerable effort. They may figure that if anyone truly believed the worst, then they should invest in bugout property and hole up there for a year or so. Doing any less would be rather pointless, and perhaps even counter productive if it tended to draw attention. The behavior required is just to big a step. Thus they have to rationalize their behavior by changing their beliefs. So, they conclude that Y2K isn't really as big a deal as it is trumped up to be. If they really thought that, then they would go about their business, laughing to themselves about the silly doomers. But the problem is that they're still actually scared. How do they explain this to themselves? They have to conclude that their own fear is due to the unconscionable harping by fear mongers. Because they still feel fear, they're drawn to investigate the situation. What they find continues to stoke the fires of fear. But, rather than take the huge step to protect themselves, it just makes them angrier and angrier at the messengers.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 16, 2000. "

I think the abusive attitudes to which you refer comes/came from folks who were abused prior to rollover by those who didn't share their optimism. You must admit that many optimists were hearing "You'll be dead in three weeks.", etc. the first week in December. So abuse was given and some felt that some form of retaliation abuse was gratifying. This type of "You'll be wrong/No I won't" behavior begins in childhood.

I also disagree that Y2k optimists are drawn to investigate the situation due to fear. I'm still very optimistic regarding the unfolding of Y2k, yet I'm drawn to the topic that I've spent two years investigating. It's probably habit more than anything else. I've never been angry at those who felt that Y2k would be very serious. Many of us read the same things and drew different conclusions. I did/do object to others forcing THEIR conclusions down MY throat, as I'm sure you would object if the tables were turned. This would be consistent with what the "Cousin" poster said here:

"You might find that many pollies are interested in discussing the issues, but not in blindly accepting your analyses as truth."

Tracie, you go on to say:

"First, we don't attach the same kind of shame to being wrong that pollies do. And second, even if we did, we weren't wrong in believing in the possibility of disruptions.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 19, 2000. "

This is QUITE a generalization. May I ask what led you to this conclusion? You then went on to say:

"Bad things can happen at any time. The year 2000 is not yet over, and its effects may be felt for many years to come. It's never wrong to prepare to take care of our selves and our families.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 26, 2000. "

I would agree with Cousin's response to this one, Tracie. It's been a widely-held belief that Y2k optimists objected to prudent [or even imprudent] preparations for ANY emergency situation. Lisa B at one time last year came onto Debunking Y2k asking folks about how prepared they were. As I recall, she eventually departed commenting on how the pollies were more prepared than the doomers. The significant difference between the two camps was that the pollies were prepared for ANY disaster as a a normal way of life. If Y2k was YOUR impetus for ensuring that you were in a position to weather any storm that came along, you benefited from the experience. I ALSO agree with what Cousin said in the following:

"Dennis Olson was taken to task on this board a few weeks ago for preparing for Y2K, but not for the loss of his job."

Dennis and I are quite familiar with each other from another Y2k forum, and we discussed Y2k freezes and how they've resulted in massive unemployment for programmers in 1999, combined with programmers being laid off immediately after Y2k success was in place. He KNEW there was a flat line out there on job possibilities and SHOULD have known that his position as a contractor was subject to any type of layoff, from a budget not being approved at the last minute to his hair not being parted on the right side of his head. It's just the way things work in contracting. Decisions needed to be made regarding spending money on guns, ammo, and night goggles for a remotely possible event versus saving that money for a layoff that could occur at any time. BTW, Hi, Dennis. Good to hear you've found a new contract.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), January 26, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Sluggo, sorry, you're correct, my links duplicated. The correct link for Freudian Projection by the Unprepared is http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002OgK# dancr

I'm not sure yet, at this point, whether I'll respond to the long posts by you and Anita from this morning. Maybe I'll give it a few days to sink in. My impression is that it wouldn't do any good. We're all talking AT each other and not really listening.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 26, 2000.

All -- I greatly appreciate the positive tone the discussion seems to be taking. We've apparently got a good exchange going, and no one seems to be getting upset on either side of the discussion. I think that is a Capital-G "Good" Thing, and I hope you all agree. Thank you for your considered responses. :)

Eve said>> "Hopefully, when you use the term "doomer" in the derogatory way that you have, you're taking care to exclude those who researched and analyzed the issue, reached reasonable conclusions as to stakes and risk, and arrived at a rational decision to minimize the risk."

Well, I actually don't believe that "doomer" is accurately used when it refers to someone solely on the basis of their preps. I think that "doomer" is a more accurate label when it is used to refer to someone who rejects or accepts Y2K-related information solely on the basis of whether or not it appears to be bad news. I'm not going to call someone a doomer just because they have water, propane and extra food stored in the basement.

I do take exception to your suggestion (though it may be unintentional) that "research" and "analysis" lead automatically to "reasonable conclusions as to stakes and risk," especially if you're ignoring factual, provable information that directly contradicts your "conclusions." You can make all the decisions to minimize risk that you like, whether they're rational or not. Doesn't matter to me. But I do think you need to recognize that there is a lot of valuable information that many doomers overlook, miss, reject or just plain refuse to accept. Like it or not, the pollies have had far more correct predictions about Y2K than the doomers have. It might not be a bad idea to look more closely at where the pollies are coming from.

Eve said>> "And of course, the costs of their preps were simply investment and insurance-related decisions -- just not the ones you're used to seeing."

Again, Eve, it doesn't matter to me if you or anyone else want to prepare. As I've said, that's not my beef with doomers.

Anita, thanks for the votes of confidence. I do think it is telling how pollies do sometimes get taken to task for attacking people's preps -- even though most pollies don't really care about them one way or another.

Dancr, thanks for the refreshed link. I'll check it out later. I look forward to your next post in this thread. :)

-- Cousin Sluggo (sluggo@polly.com), January 26, 2000.

More food for thought...

[Fair Use: For Education and Research Purpose Only] http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/CIP.CHAP4.HTM

EXPECTATIONS If we expect aggression, we will behave aggressively; if we expect violence, we will act violently; if we expect war, we will wage war. This is the belief of some who feel that the base psychological cause of violent conflict is the expectation of such conflict. For if we prepare for it, try to anticipate it, and see others in the light of its possibility, we will create the satisfaction of our own expectations. In sum, the cause of violence is believed to be the expectation of violence.

Expectations are the counterpart of perception. Perception is present oriented. It is what we "see" now of others. Expectation is future oriented. It is what we predict of others based on our perceptions, beliefs, experience, reason, and hopes. It is how we think others will react to our behavior. And if we expect opposition, aggression, or violence to be forthcoming, regardless of whether there is a basis in actuality, we will contribute to bringing about the anticipated condition. What is crucial is what each of us believes. For belief creates the reality toward which we behave. In this lies the truth of the argument.

But again, conflict is not a singular event, to die without a trace after the explosion. It is a process within which expectations operate by contributing to conflict inception. Yet expectations do not create opposing interests, and although they have a role in perception (we often perceive that which we anticipate), they are not identical with it. Nor are assessments of another's capabilities and will identical with expectations of conflict.

Consequently, these other aspects discipline and limit expectations of conflict. No matter how pessimistic our outlook on humankind, how much we believe that war and violence characterize human society, or how confidently we expect any nation to make war on another for gain or glory, we will not expect Nepal to invade India or Yemen to declare war on the Soviet Union.

Expectations are formed and re-formed in the process of conflict. If they are out of kilter with social reality, the resulting conflict with that reality will adjust them sufficiently to create a balance with others, and to ease cooperative behavior. Nor need the expected violent conflict occur. Social powers come in many forms, and the balancing entailing overt conflict can involve attempts at exchange, persuasion, manipulation, and so on. The social learning process of conflict can move one's expectations of violence toward nonviolent alternatives and adjustment. Such are the lessons of learning theory research (Bandura, 1973) and the consequences of the conflict helix.

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 26, 2000.

Cousin Sluggo,

Yes -- a very civil thread -- and an interesting discussion as well.

First off, I agree with you regarding the issue of preps. None of us should be focusing on preps -- that's just the outward manifestation of the mental processes culminating in decisions which lead either to the actions of prepping or inaction. Our focus has to be on the mental processes -- otherwise our quest to understand each other is pointless.

And I don't see this as an issue of "Polly" versus "Doomer". I'm sure this is a false dichotomy, except that I'm not yet even sure what they mean. The crucial alternative here, instead, is that of who used his or her mind in thinking through the issue and coming to conclusions about what to do or not to do regarding the Y2K matter (or really any matter).

Using our mind includes, but is certainly not limited to, all of the following:

Relentless, scrupulous finding of, and assimilating, the facts. This is done through obtaining information from all possible sources, questioning those sources, continually checking and rechecking our premises, using logic, being objective, always being ready to change our perspective if new information comes to our attention, not evading facts, verifying that our conclusions are logically tied to all of the prior operations, etc. etc.

In other words: approaching it rationally. In still other words: thinking. Of course we can err at any step in our thinking process -- as human beings we're fallible. But to the extent someone arrives at an errant conclusion using the above methods, how can you possibly fault them? You should be praising them that they tried to think it through -- that they used that which sets us apart from all other creatures -- our faculty of reason.

Further, to the extent that the individual's decision contemplates, say, a 10% chance of things going wrong, and things turn out ok, how could anyone even conclude that the individual was in error? Based on how things turned out, it would be more likely that the individual was actually correct. He/she simply saw a risk and came to the conclusion that, using the above methods, the most reasonable course was to minimize it in a specific way -- through prepping.

Finally, all "doomers" as well as "pollies" who chose sloth, indifference, and evasion, instead of the above methods, are the real ones to be pitied in this issue.

Cousin Sluggo, If this doesn't more fully explain my prior post, please let me know and I'll be glad to elaborate further.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 27, 2000.

Dee:

Thanks for providing the two sources. [I think we all forgot to give credit where credit was due for introducing the subject.]

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), January 27, 2000.

Anita,

I appreciate your wake up call to thank Dee.

Dee,

Thank you for initiating a really interesting thread, and your second article as well (although I haven't studied it yet). I had gotten so involved with the topic, I'd forgotten who'd started it all.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 27, 2000.

Hey, Dee, even though it took a well-deserved elbow-in-the-ribs from Anita, I hope you see my appreciation as genuine. It really is.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 27, 2000.

Anita and Eve,

Thank you for your kind post. =)

Interesting quote: "The origin of conflict can be frequently traced to false perception". ---- Burton, 1968:67

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 27, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

we could readily see posters flip-flop on the trustworthiness of a source depending on whether they had good news or bad news.

I do remember plenty of accusations of this throughout last year, but never actually saw someone point to a specific example of this. It would be helpful to see a specific example of this to be able to comment.

I can easily think of circumstances where this would be reasonable. For example, when Koskinen said there were no plans to enact martial law, this was good news. However, the fact that there were official executive orders in place caused many to dismiss this "good news". He was dismissed as an unreliable source because it was his job to lie to us.

Later, when he said something close to "Oh, my Goddd! The embedded chip problem is way worse than we thought!" this would be considered bad news. The fact that this message from him did not support his admitted mission of minimizing panic above all else, lent the message all the more credibility.

Now, if he then had said that he had discussed things further with appropriate experts and he was encouraged to tell us not to worry, this would not be credible. We would have discounted good news even though it was coming from the nation's highest official Y2K authority, and one we had just believed when he brought us bad news.

Would you like to take this hypothetical example and explain how our behavior would have been wrong in this case, or would you prefer to come up with an example of something that actually happened, for us to work with. To be fair, you would need to show the same analyst making inconsistent statements about the same source of information (eg. North about Koskinen), and furthermore that there was no good reason to accept one statement and not the other. Then, you'd have to show that a sizable proportion of us agreed with that particular assessment. Then, you'd have to consider whether your single example was enough to justify saying anything close to "you people on this board usually unquestioningly accept bad news and reject good news."

The chorus of voices criticizing doomer objectivity seemed to me to reach a crescendo shortly after Steven Poole's caper as an anonymous whistle-blower. His claim was (and continues to be) that the Internet is an unworthy source of information as compared to traditional media because non-professional reporters cannot be counted upon to tell the truth. Let's leave for another day the question of whether mainstream media have reasonable standards concerning what news is fit for them to feature.

To set out to prove his point, he posed as an insider at a power company where he claimed they were relying upon a discredited method of checking for problems with embedded chips. As I explained in my commentary on the incident (scroll down the page about half way to my post or view it out of context here), the actual results of the test were that the readers at TimeBomb2000 immediately sniffed out the rat. Amazingly, he considered the so-called "experiment" a rousing success, and still does. One has to wonder, how could his little "experiment" have failed?

I don't agree that the participants at TimeBomb2000 ignored the odds and focused entirely upon the stakes. In my own information gathering process I have kept links to threads in which I have participated. I categorized them separately according to whether I considered my contribution to that thread to be primarily in "stakes" or "odds." The piles are about equal size. I only personally started a few of the threads in each category. Granted, a lot of times I had to flip a coin to decide which pile something should go in, but this was all done at the time each essay was written before knowing that you were going to make this comment.

The great thing about preparing for Y2K is that the things you buy and learn are almost always things you should have been buying and learning anyway. It doesn't hurt anything to increase the inventory level of our pantries. These things will all be eaten eventually. Our Birkie tabletop gravity fed filters may not be used while we have access to city water, but they could still come in handy for all kinds of potential future catastrophes such as natural disaster, war, pandemic, or insurrection. The food would be handy in any of these disasters, plus in case of widespread famine or something as even mundane as getting sick or the example you give of being fired.

What is the likelihood of any one of these calamities happening this year? Admittedly slim. However, it is worthwhile to take pause and consider that until recently, no generation has escaped widespread calamity.

Who cares if the reason for trouble can be conclusively pinned on Y2K or not? We may never know why some bad things happen to us. In the case of the firing example you chose to discuss, weren't there some telephone calls made to this man's employer by certain sociopaths who disapproved of how he chose to share his preparations with others in need? I would call his a Y2K problem. It's one of the scenarios that have been occasionally discussed, here, with many ideas of how to avoid being a victim.

You seem to think we're hypocritical if we continue to live normally while still concerned about the possibility of disruptions, and that this somehow proves that we don't really think anything bad will happen. As long as I can still fill up my gas tank I will keep using my car. I believe that lots of those who remain actually are continuing to prepare. I'm continuing to work toward getting my ham license, installing the solar energy system I purchased last year, putting things away so I can actually find them when I need them... I have a long list of things I still plan to do, too. It wouldn't surprise me if sometime during the coming months or years my family buys some acreage.

I'm not going to address everything you said, because generally it would merely take me back to ground already covered in my earlier posts on this thread. Also, I decided to focus only on those points that seemed to me to relate to the topic question of this thread. Is the construct of cognitive dissonance useful in explaining the post rollover behavior of those who are preparing for the possibility of significant disruptions triggered by Y2K problems? I think not.

The participants on this board are examining evidence from a wide variety of sources. We pick apart all news, both good and bad, considering possible motivation of the source, and how well the information fits in with what we already know.

You seem to think that we should only prepare for bad things that have a high probability of happening. What I can't figure is what business it is of yours what we set as our own comfort level. If your parents tried to show you the importance of setting some things aside for a rainy day, did you ridicule them every day the sun shone?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 30, 2000.