In an earlier post, I used the example of "The Seven Blind Men and the Elephant." For those who do not recall the story:

"An ancient parable tells us that once seven blind men encountered an elephant. As they tried to move past each one encountered a different part of the beast. The first one grasping the trunk declared, "An elephant is like a snake!" The second encountering his tusk decided, "An elephant is like a spear." The next bumping into the animal's side observed, "No! It's like a wall!" Another taking hold of a leg countered, "In fact, the elephant is like a tree." Yet another gripping an ear said, "It's like a sail." The last grasping the tail shouted, "You're all wrong; an elephant is like a rope!" Finally a great fight ensued with each insisting that his concept of the elephant was the only true one. Of course, all were wrong and yet all were partially right."

There are many variables in the final outcome of Y2K... and no one has acess to all the information. The data we have (and our own personal perspective) influence our analysis. Given the different perspectives, the complexity of the problem and the incomplete data... divergent conclusions are rather inevitable (and not the sign of mental deficiencies in any particular group).

Some people may respond to this with a resounding, "Duh!" While I agree this is an obvious point, it seems lost when the Y2K debate becomes acrimonious. In particular, there is a recurrent theme where the forum pessimists wonder out loud about why the optimists "don't get it."

Personally, I think there are bright, capable people on both sides of the debate, though both sides have their embarassments. The challenge for the reasonable people is to remain intellectually honest... to hold information from both "camps" to the same level of scrutiny. It is also a challenge NOT to filter information through conclusions. On many occasions, I've seen posters on both sides succumb to the temptation of making the data fit the hypothesis.

Finally, it is also important not to tar every optimist (or pessimist) with the same broad brush. (My favorite out is to use the word "some.") As in every debate, we have our resident extremists. I've jousted with many. Even so, I think the gross characterizations of "Doomer" or "Polly," "GI" or "DGI," are patently unfair.

We each may know or understand part of the Y2K elephant. To categorically reject anyone who does not share our opinion is rather foolish. At its best, the Y2K debate is an exchange of information where we have a chance to experience other views on the elephant... accurate or not. To that end, the Y2K chat area has proven more helpful than here... at least of late.

Ultimately, the decision about Y2K (and preparation) is personal and mostly subjective. To stave off the inevitable accusation that I am "anti-preparation" let me provide a link to my post on moderate preps.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001xrq

Will these "preps" apply to everyone? Of course not. My preps depend on one's perception and personal situation. And in 17 days we'll begin to see the elephant. The final challenge for all of us will be to see the elephant for what it is... not what we thought it might be.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 14, 1999

Answers

Kenny when are you bugging out to the ranch?

-- Ted Turner (time@cnn.fonda), December 14, 1999.

Say Ken, did you read about the Prez's statement that 99.9% of the governments mission critical systems are remediated? Do you remember the 4 billion dollars of tax payer money that went down the drain on that 12 year IRS computer upgrade bondogle.

Whata ya think Ken, has the Federal government discovered the secret to successfully bringing computer projects in on time? What next, a government without taxation!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), December 14, 1999.

Ken In looking at the water/wastewater topic in the last couple of days it is a wonder that they can use this info at all as a basis of understanding that leg of the elephant. Even at this late date there is still an element of doubt.

Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies August 1999 Follow Up Survey

Alot of the panic and uncertainty surounding Y2K wouldn't be happening if we had accurate data. The data that we have is inconclusive bordering on alarming on this very important topic.

Now with water you can store some, but with sewers it is a whole nother ballgame. There is nothing that can be done by the individual to deal with the possible effects of failure. And this is just one aspect of Y2K.

I think that this is where the level of worry increases in folks. Where you have the unknown and no way to prepare against it.

Got to hope koskies right. This is something that concerns me in Canada also.

Oh and Ken you should learn how to hotlink :o)

Ken Deckers link

 On Moderate Preparation (edited repeat long)

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 14, 1999.

That would require him to look at a different part of the elephant Brian.

-- (elephant@ear.hear), December 14, 1999.

I agree that no one has sufficient information to describe the outcome of Y2K in advance. People who come here to find authoritative predictions by certified experts soon learn that no such thing exists -- even though TB2000 certainly has its share of contributors who have expertisse, and others who speak as if they were granted an absolute knowledge of the future.

Soon a newcomer grasps that they, too, are one of the blind men in the parable and its not getting any better than that. Yet, they must still make their own evaluation and develop their own decisions. They must decide: is Y2K a credible threat to myself and my family? If so, what should I do?

The debate that goes on here between the various factions over "the truth" of Y2K is really just a small sideshow compared to the personal debate that each of us went through privately in arriving at our own decision about Y2K -- deciding what to *do*. That is the central question, and not: who is right?

>> And in 17 days we'll begin to see the elephant. <<

Er. I hope you didn't mean that as a double entendre. In USA military circles "seeing the elephant" was once used as slang for going into battle. ;-)

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 14, 1999.

Ken:

You have been correct (in my opinion) many times lately. What's curious about this whole Y2K "thingie" is that the ONLY place you seem to find healthy debate -- debate among two sides that both seem armed with a considerable factual arsenal -- is on this forum. In many ways, that's what scares me about Y2K. As DWay stated in several documents and as I've found advising PhD students in their research, if you don't define the problem correctly, you can't possibly solve it. The complete lack of awareness is a crystal clear indication to me that way too many people who should have at least been trying to both define and solve the problem have been paying no attention whatsoever. I have found so many economists, engineers, business folks, computer scientists, Wall St. analysts, etc., etc. who have failed to even detect the problem, let alone define it and help solve it. Why is it that my Y2K Shtick is now so good that I can do the DGI-to-GI conversion in about five minutes on a credible number of technically gifted scientists? (A 30 minute talk sent some guy flying into a 1.5 million CREFF stock liquidation despite my urgins to make up his own mind.) Why do they have to be told?

I can tell you that there is absolutely NO leadership at the university where I teach chemistry. I got a call from the head of the Y2K task force chair asking my opinion on the CDC. The pathetic part is that he knows of nobody who has taken the time to look at the whole picture as much as I have. (Thanks forum regulars.) I asked him if he has run into anybody with my views on Y2K (4-8 with big error bars) and he says, "no". I ask him if any of the optimists can adequately defend their positions and he says, "no". He can't even get the director of facilities to establish clear plans for a REAL 3-day winter storm, let alone a Y2K storm. Recent literature from the VP of research tells researchers to "assess your exposure to Y2K". Boy, that'll sure get all those pollys hopping!

I proudly call myself a doomer in public since the secrecy is part of the problem. (There are other doomers on campus, but the spin has sent them scurrying for cover.) By my definition of doomer, you and the always-articulate Flint are also doomers.

It is now clear to me that your efforts to fight with the more pessimistic forum members (I refuse to call them extremists, however) made you look like a polly for awhile.

I know why everybody tars the trolls; they deserve it. Why does everybody tar the optimists? I believe that it is because legitimate information has been so very difficult to extract from the ooze of information called spin and the public redicule has been so great that people's tolerance has dropped. We don't need optimism; it is absolutely everywhere. Problem is that I honestly don't know which optimistic reports I would believe at this point. To use a phrase that was used innappropriately (by OJ's lawyers) the first time I heard it, "How many worms must you find in your sphaghetti before you throw out the sphaghetti?" The press coverage as well as corporate and government disclosure have been a big-assed bowl of wormy sphaghetti.

To those who've made it to here, thanks for listening. It's therapy.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), December 14, 1999.

Brian, Ken thinks that scientists and engineers and programmers are the grunts of the world. According to Ken, they are only capable of eating pizza and doing as the CEO directs them to do.

The real shapers of the world, to Ken, are the lawyers and business folk. See, he thinks, in his own special reality, that its justified for a lawyer to make 1000+ an hour to work a Y2K litigation suit, but the hell with hiring additional programmers or engineers to make sure y2k is contained. As Ken said to me on an earlier thread "bring your measly IT salary to my next poker game".

Government and industry had this option some years ago, and refused. Mainly because of the 'market forces' of Ken's beloved Capitalism, which dictated that as paltry a sum as possible be allocated, and allocated as late as possible.

It is clear to all except folks like Ken that greed and stupidity are coming home to roost. But in the end, he will turn it around and blame it on the incompetence of the programmers and engineers.

-- a (a@a.a), December 14, 1999.

Brian -

I caught that as well. "Goin' to see the elephant" was an Old West term for "new and unusual entertainment" that's still used nowadays by military and law enforcement in reference to firefights and other such dangerous encounters.

Ken's a pretty literate kinda guy; I'm thinking the double meaning may have been intentional. What say you, Mr. Decker?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), December 14, 1999.

I want to thank "a" for aptly demonstrating the principles in my original post. "a" is a software guy... not an engineer or a scientist. As such, he sees Y2K from a particular perspective.

Given the specialization in our modern world, labels like "engineer" or "scientist" or "programmer" are largely meaningless. I will hire engineers to design a million gallon water storage facility. These engineers, while smart people, are not qualified to design to a new passenger jet or synchronize a regional traffic signalization system. Most engineers are smart enough to understand the limitations inherent in their own specialization... and avoid entering into areas where their expertise is limited.

No single profession can claim universal understanding of any complex, technical issue like Y2K. This includes business owners, attorneys, accountants, economists and other folks "a" seems to hold in low regard. Each profession holds a piece or two of the puzzle.

As a side issue, the marketplace decides the relative value of labor. You can go back to the arguments for the "just wage" or Veblen's defense of the technocrats. Everyone has a different idea of what a particular type of labor is "worth." Is Michael Jordan worth $25 million per year to play a child's game? Well, folks, Mr. Jordan, in his career, generated tremendous revenues for the Chicago Bulls. No one was forced to buy a "23" jersey or season tickets or $200 sneakers. Mr. Jordan exercised his economic rights to sell his unique abilities... and more power to him.

Do I think the capitalistic system particularly "fair?" Do I think every person is paid what they are "worth?" These are questions for a philosopher, not an economist. The real question, are you free to sell your labor in the marketplace... and are firms free to compete for your services? Whenever someone starts talking about "fair," I ge the distinct idea they want to impose their ideas, rather than let the free market decide. This is exactly what Karl Marx intended.

While we can find numerous examples where we can quibble, in general, people with unique skills generally make more money than people with common or very few skills. Perfect? No. But mostly reasonable. If I am the world's best heart surgeon, who should determine how much I charge? Should I make more money than the world's worst heart surgeon? Complex questions, and profoundly interesting, but I digress.

I don't think anyone on the planet has a "lock" on Y2K. It is only natural to suppose some folks have access to better information than others. Perhaps even "a" has a single piece of the puzzle... but I reject the idea his piece looks the same as that of every other technical person in the known world. 17 days until we see the elephant....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 14, 1999.

Mac...

I'm from Montana... of course, we have a multi-tiered analogy including the "Old West" reference.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 14, 1999.

Ken mentioned

I want to thank "a" for aptly demonstrating the principles in my original post. "a" is a software guy... not an engineer or a scientist. As such, he sees Y2K from a particular perspective.

Ken

One of the problems with your view is that you figure all technical folk have an ability to make a judgement call on the Y2K mess when actually it is a coders problem.

"Programmers" are the ones that developed the code in the first place but it is so widespread now that it engulfs all areas of society.

Therefore it is now a responsibility of folks that aren't always up on top of the problems. This of course extends to the management (all the way up).

Repeatedly we are informed from all sources that fixing the Y2K issue is a responcibility of top management down but you have to look at the fundemnetal problem and that is the ability of a device or series of devices to function correctly. What makes them function correctly for the rollover? The correct code. And who would you assume creates that code?

Somehow the programmers are just a little more involved in the issue than you might give them credit for.

And as you say,,,, Duh!

Possibly a waste of 5 min. of my time typing this out but there you go.

-- Brian H. (imager@home.com), December 14, 1999.

Ken

Of course you already know my opinion of economists in judging the effects of Y2K.

One can of course hope they are right but that would be because of blind guessing and not informed opinion.

Matter of fact this whole Y2K thing looks like blind guessing.

Back to the elephant.

-- Brian H. (imager@home.com), December 14, 1999.

One of the appendages of the elephant that the general public is for the most part generally unaware of:

"THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM AND THE GLOBAL TRADING SYSTEM"

http://y2k.ita.doc.gov/y2k/y2k.nsf/dd5cab6801f1723585256474005327c8/b3 cb5b3db231dd9b85256759004baaa5

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), December 14, 1999.

I agree with Mr. Decker. No person can see the elephant. That's why there are so many pollys out there. The closest thing I know of is this forum and its collective wisdom. Combined efforts here have painted a vague, but discernible, picture of a big mother bull elephant charging right at us (IMHO).

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), December 15, 1999.

Ken,

A couple of observations about your analogy:

1. There is an elephant. Even the seven blind men realized that there was something there. Most of the pollies and the media are acting like an 8th blind man who walked under the elephant's belly without touching it, and then said "You seven are crazy - there's nothing to this elephant thing."

2. After they all got their hands around some part of the problem (elephant), they stood around arguing about who was right in their interpretation. What they should have done is realize that they were next to something unknown that was large enough to crush them, and then get the hell out of the way.

-- Coder (Coder@Work.Now), December 15, 1999.

Ken, good analogy.

Brian, you wrote, "Alot of the panic and uncertainty surounding Y2K wouldn't be happening if we had accurate data. The data that we have is inconclusive bordering on alarming on this very important topic...I think that this is where the level of worry increases in folks. Where you have the unknown and no way to prepare against it."

That's the point: no way any of us can see the total picture. As much as some on this forum say that they have the ability to think "outside the box" or "see the rabit" or someother compliment on their intellect, no one has all the data. Even if we assumed accuracy of the data, no one knows how the system fits together. No one can put the puzzle together. There have only been vague hand waving and smoke and mirrors (even in EY's analysis). We all maybe understand various pieces but not the total picture.

To say there exists an interconnectedness brings Y2K understanding to a religious event, the universal oneness. Well, sorry but I (and I assume the pollys) can't make that leap to the universal oneness without the logical steps supporting that view point.

And to that last statement in the quote, absolutely, how do you prepare against the unknown? Hopefully you use your intellect and previous past experiences to remedy any situation, improvise. No amount of stored toilet paper can prepare for the ways in which Y2K failures will surface.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 15, 1999.

Dave (sorry Ken, no response for you from me),

I think it's just the university culture. There is something very insular and comfortable about many university campuses. I like to think of it as a hermit effect. It's a place to go to wall yourself away from "everyday" concerns so that you can focus on intellectual pursuits.

I consider myself to be particularly well-situated to ride out whatever Y2K brings short of TEOTWAWKI. Someone at the university hospital I work for really GIs. There is lots of remediation, testing, and many contingency plans, even for the live animal research which could be adversely affected by outages. There are monthly generator tests. There are few natural disasters in the area, and lots of hunters.

I personally had enough money to prepare and to hedge some of the family fortune which is not yet in my direct control. I expect a 7, but I'm probably prepared for a 9 right now (as long as I don't have to provide for too many neighbors and friends). I have grub, guns, gold, and most importantly, water. My only concern is that I might get trapped in the city.

What I don't get is how so many people can blow off the uncertainty and not make any plans to deal with potential problems when so little REAL information about compliance or readiness is out there.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), December 15, 1999.

Brian, a programmer can possibly tell me a particular program will fail (or not) on rollover. For the most part, I feel this expertise is limited to programs where the programmer as personal knowledge... just one part of the elephant. This is part of the problem, Brian. A program sees his work as the "universe." The oft stated opinion... If the program fails, the enterprise will fail. This is a rather myopic business. Despite the egos of some IT shops, an enterprise can function with suboptimal IT functioning.

Coder... if here was no elephant, I doubt we would have spent billions of dollars. There are literally millions of opinions on what Y2K will look like. Your conclusion depends largely on if you trust folks who have access to a part of the elephant you do not. Do you trust the NERC or FDIC? Are they "telling the truth." The pessimist contends they are lying until proven true. The optimist says they are telling the truth, in the absence of any evidence of lying.

I contend that one's predipositions has a great deal to do with how someone fills in the blank spots.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 15, 1999.

I contend that one's predipositions has a great deal to do with how someone fills in the blank spots.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 15, 1999.

Yep.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000eh6

Link

Capitalism is not perfect, but it will solve most Y2K problems. Of course, there are forces that can exacerbate Y2Kprimarily public panic and government intervention. The true danger of Y2K is economic recession or depression due to public panic and a subsequent loss or personal or economic freedoms through government intervention. As a nation, staying calm and rational will deter centralized government "solutions."

-- Memory (of@n.elephant), December 15, 1999.

It's good to know someone remembers my "Y2K and Risk" essay. Like any decent researcher, I am acutely aware of my own biases. Based on my understanding our market economy, I speculated that the free market would resolve most Y2K problems. Without government edict, billions have been spent to remediate the problem... though we will not know the success of this effort until sometime next year.

I am still waiting to have a lucid discussion on the theory of market failures as applied to Y2K remediation. Unfortunately, the best I've heard thus far has been... they're all lying.

Of course, there are forces that can exacerbate Y2Kprimarily public panic and government intervention. The true danger of Y2K is economic recession or depression due to public panic and a subsequent loss or personal or economic freedoms through government intervention. As a nation, staying calm and rational will deter centralized government "solutions."

-- Memory (of@n.elephant), December 15, 1999.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 15, 1999.

Maria mentioned

"""To say there exists an interconnectedness brings Y2K understanding to a religious event, the universal oneness. Well, sorry but I (and I assume the pollys) can't make that leap to the universal oneness without the logical steps supporting that view point."""

"Holy" Smokes, where did you get the universal oneness from?? (chuckle:o) To start with you don't get to "universal oneness" strictly from logic as nature isn't strictly logical. But what is logical is that if something screws up in a sewage system then the s**t has to go somewhere. And talking to a surveyor last night he could see my point very easily that waste water system failure would be understandable and a real problem. And he is technically oriented. No rocket science here Maria. Its called gravity.

I don't like the "religious" analogy when looking at Y2K, in someways I agree with Ken that the human ability to work out situations should help overcome many of the problems that humans will deal with, but I do put certian systems beyond this consideration. Power failure, natural gas failure, water failure and sewage failure are those unknowns that can be critical to human survival. Which brings us to your next point.

And to that last statement in the quote, absolutely, how do you prepare against the unknown? Hopefully you use your intellect and previous past experiences to remedy any situation, improvise. No amount of stored toilet paper can prepare for the ways in which Y2K failures will surface.

Ah very good Maria, you are right, one would do that. Now I have lived with out "tap water" wall plugs for power, sewage facilities, and "central heat" for years accumulated in my life. There is little doubt in my mind that it would be REALLY difficult to discribe that lifestyle to you. It is something that is aquired over time and not something that you can "fake".

So it has allways been suprising that pollies seem to be "afraid" of this type of lifestyle when actually there is nothing like rocket science involved either. For me it isn't an unknown it is a real life (albeit past life) that some still live in the Canadian North. (ie. no big macs for a thousand miles)

To me I look at society as a construct the folks have no real grasp of and they have no idea about living with nature as it were.

It is not the TP that you need but the awareness that life can be lived with a minimum of convieniances. The trouble is it will be impossible with s**t coming out of pipes. Plain and simple.

And the information as I understand it doesn't seem to comfort me that it won't happen.

Not to much that is "universally mysterious" about this senerio.

You will notice that not one polly has come to the plate to dispute my "logic". Ergo we must have a risk. Agreement on all sides, (or at least no arguement).

It would be safe to say in this situation that "shit happens" and there is little that we can do about it.

One smelly part of an elephant I believe.

By the way Maria nice chatting with you again.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 15, 1999.

Opps

This should have been in quotes in my last post from Maria

"""And to that last statement in the quote, absolutely, how do you prepare against the unknown? Hopefully you use your intellect and previous past experiences to remedy any situation, improvise. No amount of stored toilet paper can prepare for the ways in which Y2K failures will surface"""

-- Brian H (imager@home.com), December 15, 1999.

Ken,

I can only repond with the same observation I used over a year ago when I brought up the blind men and the elephant:

I don't want to be the guy who pulls on the tail. Those in that vacinity may recieve a rather smelly suprise.

-Greybear, just trying to be quick enough on my feet not to get dumped on by the world at large.

--Got TP?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), December 15, 1999.