The Real World Y2K: Why Ask Why? TIP October 1999

Howdy, y'all, and welcome to the last Real World column before Y2K! In fact it may be the last Real World column ever, if some millennium pundits are correct. If December 31, 1999 truly does mark the end of the world (as we know it) then I may be writing my next column in a log cabin by candlelight, just like good old Abe Lincoln did. Well, if that's the case then so be it! If candlelight was good enough for Abe, it's good enough for me. Besides, I watch way too much TV as it is already, and who needs electricity. Personally, I think it's quite overrated. Sure, I won't be able to listen to my favorite CDs anymore, but then again I won't have to respond to such annoyances as e-mail, voice mail and phone calls from those pesky clients! Yes, Y2K could be like a very long camping vacation. Just what every modern day logged-on, plugged-in, stressed-out yuppie needs! Yes siree, it could be fun to "rough it" for a while. Unfortunately, reality would eventually kick in—bummer!

Well, when you get right down to it, I guess there's nothing quite so fun as fantasizing about the end of the world—people have been doing it since the beginning of time. If you don't believe me, just read the Bible. So I say the recent Y2K mania is just another iteration of an old theme—to quote Chicken Little "the sky is falling," to quote Noah, "all aboard," or to quote Lot, "don't look back." Of course, I am not trying to make light of some technical difficulties that we may experience on New Year's Eve (or the Good Book, for that matter either) but after all, these glitches are all our own doing—they are all man-made. If computer programmers back in the 1970s had a time line of more than about 25 years we wouldn't be in this mess! Further, time is a manmade concept and a faulty one at that.

A case in point: We are still working off a calendar that we lifted from the Romans 2,000 years ago, which, according to Ovid, was kludged together from still older "archaic calendars." What's worse is that the calendar didn't even work right when the Romans were using it! The number of days in the month didn't add up properly, and so the thing was constantly under revision. But the Romans were pretty tenacious about it—after all, not knowing what day or month it was really made total world domination, toga parties, and nights out at the Coliseum difficult to plan. In the end, it took them about 500 years of trial and error to develop the Julian calendar (basically the same as the Gregorian calendar we use today), and it was still wrong! Like our calendar, it measured time as a year comprised of 365 days, except for leap year. Have you ever wondered why we have a leap year? It's because the Romans couldn't do the math—even after 500 years of trying. And here we are 2,000 years later still using the same calendar (more or less). No wonder we have a Y2K bug! Can you imagine the legacy of goof-ups we are leaving behind us for our descendants in the year 4000? It's pretty frightening.

So, needless to say, I, for one, am not all that concerned about Y2K. We've made it this far, which to my way of thinking is quite amazing. I seriously doubt that a little computer glitch will lead to the fall of "modern civilization." By the way, as a complete aside, am I the only person who finds the term "modern civilization" a little oxymoronic or at least ironic? Civilization, like many things, I guess, is a matter of opinion. But back to the topic at hand—Y2K—I think we need to get a grip. This issue has received more hype than you can shake a stick at (another aphorism that I don't understand). Personally, I think we all need to take a reality check on this one. I am not saying that we won't have problems on December 31, but I do think the hype has gotten way out of hand. I may be alone in this assertion but I do not plan to spend my New Year's Eve in a bunker with a 6-month supply of chipped beef and spring water. Nor do I intend to withdraw all of my savings from the bank and deposit them in my mattress. However, I know several people who are making similar arrangements. Perhaps I am going out on a limb with my cynicism on this topic and will be proved wrong, but frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. If, as Mark Twain once said, it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt, it is far too late for me anyway!

Somebody Shoot Me While I'm Happy

Speaking of writers with the predilection to wax philosophic—I love Kurt Vonnegut. Why, you may ask, do I love him? Well, I just recently finished Timequake (Vonnegut, 1997) which, I believe, is his most recent book, and he has such a talent for turning human misery (reality) into comedy. Considering the subject matter he deals with, it's amazing his books get read at all. I also love him because he is living proof that there is a place for cynicism and sarcasm in this world. To me this is very reassuring! I mention this book because its central premise (a fictional one) is that on February 13, 2001 we will all experience a Timequake. This is a glitch in the space-time continuum that will force us all to go back to February 17, 1991 and relive the same 10 years over again in exactly the same way. We would relive everything exactly the same knowing it was a rerun but completely unable to change anything. Now that would be a bummer. I don't know about the rest of you but if I had to relive the past 10 years in the exact same way it would be awful. I'm not saying that the past 10 years have been bad ones (on the whole) but knowingly reliving certain parts would be unbearable (e.g., my dissertation, certain parts of my love life, and all the times that I had to wake up before 5:00 a.m. to go meet with a client). So to my way of thinking, a few technical difficulties brought on by Y2K don't seem too bad. Unless of course you happen to be flying over a large landmass and your plane takes a sudden nose dive.

What's more, I know some other people out there agree with me. To this end, I recently read a piece in "training" magazine. It was a letter from the editor stating that he basically refuses to get worked up over Y2K. However, I also realize that many others do not share my view on this. In fact, a few brief searches on the internet (and other sources) yielded some pretty interesting, scary and funny results on Y2K, which are listed below.

Y2K Factoids

I watch CNN Headlines News. There I said it. Yes, yours truly is a CNN junkie. One of the many things that I have always found mildly amusing about CNN is its presentation of statistical and semi-factual information. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Headline News programming format, there is a segment known as a factoid that is used to segue to commercials. For those of us who can't get enough context-free information in our lives, the factoid is a quick (and totally reference-free) blurb that provides the viewer with yet more trivial information to store in his or her brain. Usually they read something like this: "Seventy percent of all Americans prefer white to wheat bread." I made that one up but I think it's pretty exemplary of the type of semi-useful information one normally gets in a factoid. In essence, for those of you who watch VH1, the factoid is the granddaddy of the pop-up video. So, without further delay, here are my Y2K factoids!

Did you know…?

• There are over 650 products listed for Y2K on Yahoo! Shopping.

• There are 723 site matches for Y2K on Yahoo!

• There are 195,691 matches for Y2K on AOL Netfind.

• According to the Tool Box catalog, over 12% of Americans own a home generator (in case we lose power on December 31, 1999).

• According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there are 27 nuclear power plants in the U.S. that are not yet Y2K Compliant.

• A Washington, DC-based counter-terrorism company has predicted that it's almost certain the Year 2000 will be ushered in with a major terrorist attack.

• The OMB reports that the Defense Department alone will spend $3.65 billion on Y2K repairs—almost half the estimated $8 billion cost to the entire federal government.

• Pentagon officials have repeatedly stressed that their Y2K test results show that America's military will be prepared for battle even after December 31.

• According to an article in American Demographics, most people believe that panic buying and stockpiling will create artificial shortages of goods even if there are no glitches in manufacturing and distribution.

According to research conducted by CDB Research & Consulting Inc.:

• 92% of American adults are aware of the potential for Y2K disruptions.

• Only 22% are "very concerned" about it and more than half of the respondents (52%) were "unconcerned" about the issue.

• However, 32% are worried that their financial services will be adversely affected.

• Further, people with more money are less concerned than people with less money. Specifically, 13% of people with annual household incomes of at least $75,000 are concerned but 26% of people with less than $45,000 in annual income are very concerned.

The Worst Part of Living in the 21^st Century

On a related note, Peter D. Hart Research Associates polled 1,264 adults nationwide to find out what they thought might be the worst part of living beyond Y2K. I don't know how they picked some these categories, but I though it was worth a mention nonetheless.

Here are a few things that could happen in the next century. Please tell me which one would be the worst part of living in the 21^st century:

Scientists will be able to clone human beings 58%

Most people will live to be at least 100 years old 12%

Women in their 50s and 60s will be able to conceive children 9%

Genetic engineering will be conducted 8%

Extraterrestrial life will be discovered 7%

Other 6%

Interesting poll. Obviously they didn't speak to many 50_60+ year-old women! As for cloning being bad, it's like I always say: its not what you clone but who you clone. I don't think people would object to clones of eligible bachelor and bachelorette versions of, let's say, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Jennifer Lopez, or Shania Twain. However, clones of their bosses and IRS auditors would probably not be all that welcomed. Personally, cloning wouldn't bother me at all, but I would have to draw the line at the Backstreet Boys. That would be going too far!

If I Could Save Time in a Bottle

Have you ever made a time capsule? Well, I did once in high school. For the sake of posterity (or maybe it was out of boredom) my boyfriend and I decided to write down an important message to each other and bury it in the ground in a quasi-airtight bottle. Our master plan (actually I think it was more his plan) was to meet at the appointed "place" at some appointed future time and dig up the capsule. This was supposed to be carried out even if we "broke up." Well, suffice it to say, shortly thereafter I broke up with the boyfriend, forgot the appointed date and time and even forgot the nature of the "important" message. I guess I just lost interest in the project. After all I had better things to do—like go off to college and meet other boys.

So much for my great time capsule experience. Besides, in my opinion time capsules are an arrogant and egocentric activity—something one does out of the deluded notion that one of their trivial and mundane life events is worthy of posterity. Well, it may come as no surprise then that time capsules are all the rage for the millennium—at least that is what I read on AOL. In fact, America Online has put together what it claims to be the most sophisticated and largest time capsule ever (and is accepting entries up until December 31, 1999). The capsule is guaranteed to be maintained until the year 3000 by some hi-tech computer system (which I hope is Y3K compliant).

Can you imagine maintaining this capsule until 3000 and then unearthing it? First of all, I doubt "modern civilization" will even last that long. Second, who cares if the capsule lasts till 3000; it's not like any of us will live long enough to check up on this! If it fails on December 31, 2999, will my descendents get my money back with interest? Somehow I doubt it. Third, does anyone really believe that a capsule full of incoherent internet spewage and lubricious chat-room ramblings from people with names like drevil@yahoo.com or 2cool4u@hotmail.com will be interesting to anyone? I can just imagine some of the contents that will be going into this thing. Call me a misanthropic naysayer, but somehow I don't think it will be as compelling as Shakespeare's complete works. Personally, I was thinking of submitting this column as my great contribution to the history of the world but I figured it would be even less interesting in 3000 than it is now.

Tastes Great, Less Filling

Who says Y2K survival food has to taste bad? This is the motto for the Y2K Emergency, gourmet survival food outlet (see http://gourmetsurvivalfood.com). Yes, by shopping at this handy dandy web site you can "prepare your family to survive Y2K, emergencies, or other disasters!" It warns all visitors (with a scrolling countdown clock that is updated to the second) that "the year 2000 will arrive in 176 Days, 8 hours, 39 minutes and 54 seconds, whether you are ready for it or not!" Well, dear readers, I have finally stumbled upon a Y2K product that makes perfect sense. If I have to be in a bunker waiting for the end of the world I might as well have some tasty snacks in tow. Bring on the Chateaubriand for two and Dom Perignon chilled to 12 degrees Celsius—the end of the world is near and I want to go in style! The company further claims to offer "healthy and delicious soy-based gourmet foods that can be stored for up to one year non-refrigerated." Stop the presses and cancel my order! Delicious soy-based gourmet food is an oxymoron in about three different ways—especially if it is also combined with nonrefrigerated. However, if any of you are still interested, you can get a 10% Y2K discount if you order today! It just goes to show that some people will stop at nothing to make a buck—even if they don't have a world in which to spend it.

Attack of the "Doomsday" Asteroids

I read an interesting article in the paper today. According to a recent piece by Deborah Zabarenko of Reuters entitled Scientists Warn of Risk From Doomsday Asteroids, scientists predict that there is a 1 in 1,000 to a 1 in 10,000 chance that a "doomsday" asteroid will hit Earth at some time during the 21^st century. For those of you aren't familiar with the subject, a "doomsday'' asteroid is defined as one with a diameter greater than six-tenths of a mile, which could cause global climatic catastrophe if it collided with the Earth. Further, the debris from this type of collision would cause worldwide clouding and cooling, with possibly disastrous effects on crops and animals. On a lesser note, there is a 1-in-3 chance of Earth being struck by a smaller asteroid that could cause only "localized destruction."

Just another example of overly sensational, hyped up, gloom and doom reporting related to the end of the world. So let me get this straight, even if we survive Y2K, a doomsday asteroid could wipe us all out on January 1. Personally, I think this type of reporting is designed not to inform us about what is going on the scientific community but to create fear, or at least feed off people's existing fears. I think this is wrong. Obviously, we have a right to know if a big nasty rock is going to come along and utterly obliterate us all forever, but the way the article is pitched (i.e., the headline) seems to me to be a bit irresponsible. The headline (and initial tone of the piece) makes it seem like these enormous half-a-mile wide asteroids are circling the planet waiting to strike a death blow and annihilate us any day now. However, when you read the article, it is apparent that chances are we will only be hit by a smaller asteroid that will cause far less damage. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to come in contact with any asteroids no matter how small, but the headline is very misleading. It's like those mailings you get from Publishers Clearinghouse. At first glance when you peer through the plastic window on the envelope it says something like "Janine Waclawski, you have won $100 million." Of course when you look inside the thing you can see that you haven't won anything at all—except maybe some discounts for subscriptions to magazines you don't read. But I digress. The point I am trying to make here is that selling fear disguised as scientific inquiry is wrong. Whether it's Y2K or doomsday asteroids, our fears and anxieties should not be exploited for the sake of the almighty dollar or making headlines.

Speaking of exploitation, am I the only person who has noticed the recent resurgence of big budget catastrophe movies to come out of Hollywood in the past few years? Movies such as Armageddon, Volcano, Deep Impact, Hard Rain, Mimic, 12 Monkeys, The Fifth Element, Independence Day, Outbreak, The Lost World and Godzilla (just to name a few) all portend the end of the world in one way or another. Whether it's viruses that will eliminate human life on Earth, hostile aliens that will decimate our major cities, unstoppable bugs that will grow to 8 feet in height or giant dinosaurs trying to take over Madison Square Garden, according to the film industry the end is near and Bruce Willis is a key factor in saving our planet! Nevertheless, regardless of all the negativity, I, for one, am really looking forward to the next millennium. Yes, despite the current angst-ridden zeitgeist that is prevailing at the end of this millennium and my own purportedly cynical outlook on life, I am genuinely very optimistic about the event.

Regarding the asteroids (the real ones—not the one in Armageddon) the article went on to say that asteroid impact experts at the University of Pisa in Italy believe that `'The risk is there, but we're taking care of it." So I guess they are tracking the asteroids and hopefully have some way to destroy or at least avert them. Somehow knowing that we have scientists in Pisa on the case is not all that comforting to me. I think they should concentrate on straightening up their leaning tower and then maybe move on to saving the world from asteroids.

The End of the World or Just Another Day?

Y2K discount or not, I decided that, as usual, my opinion on this subject is (a) not the only one, (b) not necessarily the right one, and (c) probably not the most informed one. Given this startling and probably fleeting introspective insight, I thought it would be a good idea to ask some more respectable (and knowledgeable) individuals their opinions on Y2K. I also figured that since I am writing for TIP, I'd better make the column relevant to I-O in some way. So, as per usual, following are some Q&A on Y2K.

(1) What are your predictions regarding what will happen on January 1, 2000? What if any problems will we experience? Have you had any personal experience with Y2K-related problems already?

(2) Do you think the hype about Y2K is warranted? Is the topic receiving too much, just right, or too little attention?

(3) Have you personally made any special preparations for Y2K?

(4) As an I-O psychologist, have you dealt with any Y2K issues (e.g., with clients or as a topic of research)?

(5) What (if any) are the psychological implications of Y2K in the workplace?

Subj: RE: Comments for TIP

Date: 7/21/99 3:33:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: WCamara@collegeboard.org (Camara, Wayne)

To: J9151@aol.com

1. I have no predictions on what may or may not happen. However, I have already experienced Y2K problems. I was traveling in the southwest with my family this spring and since we drove from the Grand Canyon to Phoenix we were quite anxious to get into our hotel room, get refreshed and hit the pool! My kids were especially anxious after the 4_5 hour drive, which meant I was really motivated to get into my room. Well, as we arrived at this resort on Camelback Mountain (around 1 p.m.), I noticed an awful lot of activity and an unusual amount of luggage and people in the lobby. I checked into the hotel and was told the computers were down. This evidentially meant that they had no idea which rooms were available and which were occupied. They also had no idea which rooms had been cleaned or not and could not even verify my confirmed reservation. Upon some less than gentle prodding from me, the assistant manager (one of a gang of hundreds with this title I assume) told me this was a Y2K problem. You see—this was April 1st and the fiscal year for the resort hotels begins on this date. As an I-O psychologist with two very cranky kids who wanted to get into the pool after hiking the canyon for a few days, I decided to help the organization problem solve.

Since it was now 1 p.m., the hotel staff suggested my family go out to lunch and return around 4 p.m. (official check-in time) and that I would certainly get a room by then. Through a series of structured questions I surmised that the assistant manager had no idea when this problem would be corrected, what the problem was, or how to handle these people. He simply assumed that since the computers at the resorts shut down (because of Y2K) that this was tantamount to an act of God. I offered the hotel my own suggestions, and received no reaction when I showed the hotel staff my super-plus-gold-titanium-frequent stayer card.

When I asked if anyone had checked out of the hotel today. I was told "certainly." Next, I asked if other persons were allowed to check in, and was told "no." My razor-quick reactions told me that we had some undetermined number of open rooms. I then informed the hotel staff that I simply wanted one of these rooms and they would still have x _ 1 open rooms to hold for others. I also suggested that perhaps the staff could physically check out rooms, or housecleaning submit a list of cleaned rooms each hour (offering ideas on how we could actually handle this problem with paper and pencils rather than a PC). Well, all my well-meaning suggestions did get me a free lunch (by now the staff, as confused and dazed as they were, knew they wanted me out of there). I eventually did get my room at 4 p.m. and the Y2K problem was solved, but it was clear that this took everyone by surprise. The staff informed me that this same thing was happening at about 20 of the hotel's other resorts as well.

2. With today's increased reliance on PC-based and LAN-based systems, I still fail to understand how Y2K is such an enormous problem for so many companies. My own organization has had to reimburse other organizations that work for us to cover their Y2K expenses (which are in the millions of dollars). I have difficulty understanding why clients are obliged to cover costs for organizations that continue to rely on outdated mainframe systems. As a consumer, I am more than concerned about the additional costs we are incurring for similar problems.

3. As a precaution, I may return from vacation a day or two prior to the new year, but that will probably be it.

4. Nope.

5. A lot of concern for the integrity of data and ways to protect major systems. I see many workers very concerned over prevention in a relatively novel situation where problems are difficult to foresee or anticipate.

Wayne J. Camara

Office of Research and Development

College Board

***

Subj: Re: Comments for TIP

Date: 7/21/99 9:39:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: gatsby24@earthlink.net

To: J9151@aol.com

Dear Janine:

Thanks for including me in your survey. Best of luck to you with gathering other opinions!

1. Although I believe that the United States will probably be adequately prepared to deal with Y2K, I am worried about the effects of the crisis on other countries that do not have the adequate resources to prepare for the event. I do believe that on the whole, the global economy will be affected and that this will indirectly impact us, as we are so closely tied to occurrences across the globe. I do think that things here may be a bit strained and perhaps we will see resource shortages, although I do not believe that there will be widespread famine, and so forth. There are other problems that may occur, not due to Y2K itself, but to the scare around it. As individuals begin to scramble by removing money from the banks, hoarding food, and so forth, we may see some deep implications of the scare. That, in fact, may actually be the crisis.

2. I think that the concerns surrounding Y2K are warranted. I do also believe however, that not enough information and not the right information is being given out by the media. It has become the big "black box" in a sense, and most Americans probably do not know the reality of what can happen. By not being informed, this may lead people to be quite scared, and therefore pull money out, and so forth. I think that the media needs to do a better job of sharing practical, realistic expectations about what will happen, and the right way to prepare for it. If people understand and feel comfortable, they will be more likely to respond in a rational manner.

3. I have advised my family, colleagues, and so forth, to have paper documentation of all important information such as stocks, insurance, deeds, and so forth, I also plan to have my car filled with gas and some spare cash on hand. Other than that, no.

4. At my company (a human resource consulting firm heavily tied to technological human resource solutions), we have a specialized Y2K division, devoted to ensuring that both ourselves and our clients will get through Y2K smoothly. Software is being adapted and tested, IVR systems are being updated, and so forth. Clients also are rightly concerned about the effects of this event, and do look to us as consultants for advice and assurance as well.

5. Unwarranted concerns about Y2K may lead to a lack of motivation on the part of those who believe that there will be a worldwide crisis. Apprehension may also lead to elevated stress levels. I believe the key to preventing this is through education and keeping employees aware of the issue in both realistic and practical terms.

Kim Hoffmaster

University of Central Florida

***

So according to Wayne, some people are already experiencing Y2K-related problems. That's too bad; it sounds like he had a very unpleasant holiday experience. On the bright side, it sounds like he's got the beginnings of a good plot for National Lampoon's Y2K Vacation. Potentially, Y2K could even be the next great excuse for screwing things up. I think it could possibly replace such time-tested excuses as "my dog ate my homework" or as an updated version of "our computers are down." I guess when Y2K comes around we will find out exactly how much we do rely on computers to get things done in our everyday life. Moreover, despite my general incredulity regarding the impact of Y2K, I do agree with Kim that things in Europe (and elsewhere in the world) seem a bit more tenuous with respect to Y2K readiness. However, as Kim further points out, hopefully people won't get panicky and create a self-fulfilling prophecy and our problems (if we have any) will be minor ones. I, for one, would prefer to start the next millennium off on the right foot, if I can.

Personally, I do not have any plans to prepare for December 31, nor have I dealt with any Y2K issues in the workplace. As for the psychological implications of Y2K at work—I'm not sure. It seems to me that the coming of the next millennium has certainly captured people's attention and is having some kind of effect on our daily lives, so a spillover into our work lives must be occurring on some level. Whether it is a positive or negative effect I don't know. Interestingly enough, the most recent edition of the president's column in the July/August issue of the APA Monitor is aptly entitled Y2K Is Upon Us. Although the column is primarily a call to action for psychologists the next millennium (e.g., along the lines of future areas for psychology in the 21^st century), a few interesting facts about psychology and its growth since the last millennium are also provided. For example, even though 100 years ago psychology did not exist as a discipline, it is now one of the most popular undergraduate majors in the country. Moreover, APA is now the largest membership organization of professionals. This is all quite amazing when you think about it. Given the currently large and clearly burgeoning size of our field, psychologists may be pretty influential people in the next millennium. So, asteroids or not, the implications of Y2K for psychology are good ones, I guess.

As ever, I would like to thank my gracious contributors Wayne Camara and Kim Hoffmaster for their stories and comments. If we are still around in January 2000, I promise to tackle a more I-O relevant topic in my next column. As always, many thanks to Allan Church for his constructive feedback. If you have any feedback for me please feel free to contact me either by e-mail at J9151@aol.com or at W. Warner Burke Associates, Inc., 201 Wolfs Lane, Pelham, NY 10803 (914) 738_0080 (tel.), (914) 738_1059 (fax). See you in the next millennium.

References

CDB Research & Consulting Inc. 350 Hudson St., New York, NY 10014.
http://www.cdbresearch.com.

Phillips, L. (1999). Y2K Wariness. American Demographics, July, 26.

Suinn, R. (1999) Y2K is upon us. APA Monitor, 30, 7 2.

Vonnegut, K. (1997). Timequake. NY, NY: Berkley Publishing Group

Zabarenko, D. (1999). Scientists Warn of Risk from `Doomsday' Asteroids Reuters Ithaca, N.Y. July 27

October 1999 Table of Contents | TIP Home | SIOP Home