I think the recent discussion of stealing from Whole Foods in the NYT is an example of this sort of thinking. The panelists seem to think it would hurt Amazon, without understanding that Amazon might respond in a variety of ways that would reduce their losses.
One nuance with Millennium Bug and other doomer subjects: some people say "this will be a disaster" and others say "this will be a disaster unless we put time and energy into solving it." And the first statement can also be an attempt to marshal the attention or resources to get that solution in place.
I think the recent discussion of stealing from Whole Foods in the NYT is an example of this sort of thinking. The panelists seem to think it would hurt Amazon, without understanding that Amazon might respond in a variety of ways that would reduce their losses.
Great example. And those responses lead to deadweight losses for society.
One nuance with Millennium Bug and other doomer subjects: some people say "this will be a disaster" and others say "this will be a disaster unless we put time and energy into solving it." And the first statement can also be an attempt to marshal the attention or resources to get that solution in place.
People are bad at distinguishing between those claims, yes. I write a bit about that here:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gEShPto3F2aDdT3RY/sleepwalk-bias-self-defeating-predictions-and-existential
And I might return to it.