Psychology Today and "Mountain Climbers"

Every one who I talk to about climbing tell me I am crazy until they do it. So does that mean that I made them crazy or that there is something more to it than just risk taking? I am sure it is the same way with rafting, base jumping, all of that. You cant explain it in words after you do it. How do they think they will be able to explain it out without ever doing it.

Face it, climbers are a different kind of people. Many historically were self made types, maybe 'loners' too, but focused on indivitual risk sports all their lives.(think gymnasts, pole vaulters, etc.) No surprise that the gymnastic feel and flow of rock climbing is attractive.

I don't think the author has a good understanding of "normal" climbing. If you're not soloing or taking some huge risk, you're playing with your own fear, but in a safe way. It's when you lack the technical knowledge, don't understand your own ablilities, or go out and take big risks for your own reasons where you can get hurt.

I didn't read the whole thing but my favorite part is this: "Many high-sensation seekers don't have the money or the role models for sky diving or rock climbing, Zuckerman notes. 'In such groups, the main forms of sensation seeking include sex, drugs, heavy drinking, gambling, and reckless driving.'"

Is rock climbing really more expensive than drugs, heavy drinking, and gambling? Hell, even sex and reckless driving can be very expensive...

HA! Take that psychologists!

Didn't read the whole thing, but from what I skimmed it has a real point: on sight trad climbing, shooting dice, sniffing cocaine, skiing true honest to god you fall you die terrain.

Physically they are worlds apart, but i get a very similar mental rush from all four activities.

Phillip Morris wrote:Didn't read the whole thing, but from what I skimmed it has a real point: on sight trad climbing, shooting dice, sniffing cocaine, skiing true honest to god you fall you die terrain. Physically they are worlds apart, but i get a very similar mental rush from all four activities.

I wonder what's cheaper snorting coke or climbing(trad and ice).

The article was written in 1994, and is probably referencing climbing in the 80's and early 90's. Everyone I've ever met who started climbing in the '80s or earlier is a little off. I'll buy it. Things are different now.

JJ Brunner wrote:I don't think the author has a good understanding of "normal" climbing. If you're not soloing or taking some huge risk, you're playing with your own fear, but in a safe way. It's when you lack the technical knowledge, don't understand your own ablilities, or go out and take big risks for your own reasons where you can get hurt.

There are lots of different styles of climbing, and they all have somewhat different risks. But I don't think most traditional climbing is exactly "safe" -- I suppose it's somewhere in the middle of the risk spectrum. I've wonder about the folks who say that driving to the crag is the most dangerous part of a day of climbing--I think there's some denial gong on in that mindset.

certainly some consideration should be given to the opposed gender as being completely f'n nuts for a normal baseline measure in mentation.

I do agree that climbing and skiing definitely both have their calming, relaxing aspects, but to anyone who leads, you didn't do your first 5.10 lead without a hint of fear. The fear is what attracts me anymore. And with that I still have the opportunity to push hard and get scared or enjoy myself on an easier grade or slope. In the end I suppose the real question is what is being done by who to make anything extreme. TR is climbing, but its not extreme in my book. Neither is an 11 sport climb for me. If you've never done an 11 before, then its extreme.

I read a college student's thesis in ski magazine regarding the strong genetic link between hard core drug addicts and athletes in extreme sports. I thought that was interesting.

Woodchuck ATC wrote: Knuckle chalk only here,,,cuz that's what sociopaths do.

You want to go there tough guy!?!? Okay, so ...sociopaths typically don't make much money, (wait...Donald Trump, Carl Icahn? Different thread), so- in the eighties, I lived in Eldorado Spgs; couldn't afford new rock shoes- so I climbed barefoot. (I'm the only person I know who has led all of Outer Space barefoot-shameless bragging)I walked everywhere in the canyon barefoot, picking up rocks with my toes and throwing them into the creek. Long story short, I used foot chalk...sociopathology? Oh yeah...

pfwein wrote: There are lots of different styles of climbing, and they all have somewhat different risks. But I don't think most traditional climbing is exactly "safe" -- I suppose it's somewhere in the middle of the risk spectrum. I've wonder about the folks who say that driving to the crag is the most dangerous part of a day of climbing--I think there's some denial gong on in that mindset.

If you climb within your ability and provide yourself with adequate anchors, how is it not safe? And why do you call out trad climbing? A competent trad leader can provide for as much or even a greater amount of safety than some sport climbs. At least in my opinion.

Mark Nelson wrote:certainly some consideration should be given to the opposed gender as being completely f'n nuts for a normal baseline measure in mentation.

Ok, I almost snarfed my drink upon reading that. Hilarious.

Say what you will about the article. It does sound like the author only had one TR session. The point that I like is the one about a safe society, civilization.

Most people just don't think about this but am I the only one to long for the time when humans walked floated, paddled or sailed to take over every corner of the world? They essentially had no more than tools made of stone, bone and wood, what I like to call 'sharp sticks and fire' the people who walked headlong into the worst of the ice age to hunt wooly mammoths, sailed into the unknown horizon to find specs of land in the pacific. Sure an infected cut could take you out, an evil spirit. I think of that time in prehistory as being the pinnacle of the human race, the golden age. To me everything that goes on now pales in comparison.

Less Stroud of the series Survivorman has a new show called Beyond Survival it's a good introduction into anthropology. The episode where he watches a san bushman start a fire with a hand drill brought tears to his eyes. I can totally relate.

Nothing is truly fun without an element of risk. Fear is what everyone feeds on. Fear causes a high and makes everyone feel alive. Video games mimic that and so do movies but nothing is as good as the real thing. I used to skateboard back in the day for my fix. I am glad my kids found climbing for their fix. I guess I am a bad sociopathic parent for encouraging my kids to push their limits and get outside and have some fun. The other selfish thing is that I get a thrill from watching them go to the edge, succeed or fail, because it is so cool to see that huge grin and hear that "dad, did you SEE that!".

erikwellborn wrote:Liked the part "High risk takers may have a hard time finding meaning and purpose to everyday life." Didnt realize there's a "meaning and purpose" to everyday life.

That's me to the T...

I like being sociopathic. That's why I live in Wyoming, so I have space to get away from all the twerps who are "able to adjust to society." Fuck those shitheads. I like climbing. When I started 40 years ago, climbing was mainly a lot of sociopathic people who had no desire to get along. Why be another happy little robot?

Chris Drover wrote:Thanks for sharing. This is by far the best article on the topic that I've seen outside of "climbing media". Chris Edit with some thoughts: Just because the author quoted a researcher who said "risk-takers are sociopaths" doesn't mean that's the point of the article. I agreed with some characterizations (susceptibility to boredom, namely) and disagreed with others (drug-abusing criminals), but overall it made for a much better read than most of the drivel about climbing that fills the mainstream media outlets.

Risk takers ARE sociopaths!

I take far less risks even when Im pushing my trad limit (which is embarrassingly low, but limit nonetheless)than most people do driving to work!

There is a difference in how this community takes these risks though that are unacknowledged by that often seen general statement: we typically are very aware of our risks and make active decisions to proceed and know full well "it COULD happen to me."

The psychology of accidents and safety in general population constantly gets back to the "it WONT happen to me". Pushing yellow lights, rolling stops, speeding, texting while driving, deciding the turn lane starts 100m before it actually does, not having smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, not wearing safety glasses... All driven by "it wont happen to me"

When I see folks doing that shit, I assume things about that person. In most cases, when I see other climbers, I do not assume.

Dale & I have been discussing this a little bit but would like to work some more on it.

One thing aside from the ignorant 95 rule (95% of the time nothing bad happens anyway so why think about the consequences) is that people have a hard time assessing the full risk, but I think technical climbers have a better handle on assessment than most others that participate in the mountains; though ego still plays a role.

my honest opinion to any who considers climbing to be "high risk" or "extreme" is that 'Its not!' statistically speaking, most of us a more likely to be seriously injured in a car crash than climbing. I'm not talking about mountaineering - just climbing - cragging...I know a lot of you on here are the mountain/hardcore kind, but as far as single pitch sport and trad climbing is concerned (and bouldering) - well - it really isn't all that dangerous!

I am a much more interesting person than I ever imagined after reading that article.