Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
An unpopular take on The Alpinist
|
Thanks Carnie! Does this apply to the powerball lottery? If I play more do my odds of winning change? |
amariuswrote: I believe this is correct based on my 5 yrs previous 100 level stats class. It's more intuitive with Russian roulette. Yes, each pull is a 1/6 chance. But if you must pull the trigger 6 times, even if you spin the cylinder before each pull, your odds of getting caught once, over all 6 pulls cumulatively approaches 1/1 despite each pull being 1/6. |
Cherokee Nuneswrote: Well you know just how to distract me, with a probability question lol. Yes it does but it works against players unless they are risk-loving (as opposed to risk-averse/neutral). For example, if the probability of winning a lottery with one ticket/trial is 1%, the probability of winning with 2 trials is (1 - (0.99)^2) = 0.0199, which you'll notice is slightly less than 2%. So by buying two tickets, your chances of winning have increased (to your question) but not quite doubled. So this isn't something you'd rationally do if you were risk-averse/neutral but could make sense if you're risk-loving. Conversely this behavior kind of "works for us" for events we don't want to happen. If the probability of dying on a given trial is 1%, the probability of dying over the course of two trials is not quite double that. And the probability of dying over the course of 100 trials isn't 100% but ~63%. |
NateCwrote: Do you say the same about all the heroin addicts that have overdosed that you've seen? They just chose to live life the way they wanted? Or did the momentary escape from the pain take over and drive them to an inevitable and preventable death? |
Sprayloard Overstokerwrote: For starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence Climbing, physical activity in general, is a physical way to connect with the real world, in the present moment, often with loved ones and in my experience provides insight and inspiration and brings meaning to life outside of climbing. Narcotic use is a chemical way to escape the real world and the present moment, removes connection with loved ones, allows users to (only at the surface) avoid unpleasant aspects of life, impedes brain function and original lines of thinking and massively distorts neurotypical brain chemistry. One is an apple. The other is orange colored arsenic. Do you see this, to me at least, obvious nuance? |
Sprayloard Overstokerwrote: Do I say what? That their death isn't meaningful? Pretty much, but the irony is that it's not more or less meaningful than the old man who fell down the stairs on blood thinners and bled out, or the mom smashed by a drunk in an MVC. For many who see death on the regular, we start to recognize that it's a process that's inevitable. Much like the mountains it doesn't give a shit who you were. It seems that people largely go one of two ways with this realization. Many become even more scared of living and all the ways you can get killed. Others of us (I'd put myself here), start to feel like we're going to die somehow and some way, and venturing out into the world becomes a lot less scary. I'm not trying to get killed by any means, but my relationship with all of the death and tragedy that I've witnessed is that there's absolutely zero reassurance that you won't get killed by something at any given time. Be that medical episode, or traumatic incident. So I may as well carefully give chase to that which endows me with knowledge of self and the world around me. As far as "they chose the life they wanted?" Your question is very reductionist. I really don't feel that the equivalency that you are trying to draw works. To some extent, yes a heroin addict does in fact choose their life. My uncle died of a fentanyl overdose last year, after many many years of struggling with addiction to all sorts of drugs. And ultimately, if you reduce it far enough to a yes or no question...yes he made a choice and it killed him. But the way you've intentionally chosen to word your question leaves it without any room for nuance, so I've answered without nuance and will provide the caveat that there's a lot of room to get deeper into this answer. To clarify what I was getting at when I made that post: If Marc Andre had fallen down the flight of stairs he was sleeping on and died, would we be providing our un-welcomed opinions on how he lived his life and where he chose to sleep? I largely think not. I think this conversation is coming from a place where people cannot see themselves doing what he was doing because they believe it to be too risky for themself, and therefore they admonish it. Particularly because he died. Colin Haley, Mark Twight, Dani Arnold, Matt Cornell, (to name a very few) all have done similar to Marc Andre but they aren't being called out here or in any threads...perhaps largely because they are still alive to tell people to go fuck themselves. They are admired because they are alive. Marc Andre gets criticized because he died. There's an irony that the courage to criticize only comes when he isn't here to defend himself. There's a deep possibility, a possibility that exists in a VERY uncomfortable place, a place people don't like going to because they cannot relate to it at all and it's REALLY scary for most. I want to point out that I have NO idea for sure that Marc Andre felt this way, but the possibility exists because other alpinists such as Steve House have expressed it in no uncertain terms... There are people who are so willing to devote themselves to something, that they are ok if they die doing it. The power of what it is showing them about themself and human potential is worth the risk. They understand that death is inevitable in some form but the choice to seek self-knowledge may come with death as a cost and they consent to the risk with acceptance. It is, in my opinion, beyond reproach to pick apart how someone chooses to live his life and assume risk based only one's personal lens for living. They may value experience, life, and realization so much differently than myself. Therefore it makes zero sense to examine their life through my lens. To apply my personal matrix for risk to the life they chose to pursue is insulting to their free will. It is very much the same way that I do not sit here and criticize the life of a person who chooses to avoid taking any risks in the mountains by staying in the lowlands. Live and let live, die and let die. |
Ywan Cwrote: He was both. More importantly, perhaps, we are all both. All of these things (risk, skill, luck, etc.) exist on a continuum. There's no clear distinction between "acceptable risk" and "too much" risk. There is some level of "normal" or "acceptable" risk but even that is extremely subjective; for example, the risks climbers take in a basic day of single pitch cragging are perceived by many non-climbers as an unacceptable level of risk (just like riding a motorcycle, flying a small plane, or open-water swimming might be perceived by many as unacceptably dangerous). As a climber I might disagree with that assessment, but objectively it's neither true nor false. There's no doubt that Marc-Andre Leclerc was taking more risk than is "typical" for the sport (which is a difficult thing to put a finger on in the first place). There is also no doubt that he was highly skilled and that bad luck played a role in his death as well. Beyond that, all we can do is reflect on what risk we are comfortable with, in the context of ourselves and our partners, our families, etc., and do our best to make choices that are in alignment with that risk tolerance. If you are trying to have a conversation with a teenager about climbing and risk, Marc-Andre is a major outlier and probably not super relevant to the conversation. What he was doing is not really representative of what 99.9% of climbers will experience. |
|
Mark climbed as smooth as anyone I have ever watched climb. I suspect if he chose to stay out of Avy Terraine he would still be with us. I regularly solo ice climbs up to WI4 and the thing that concerns me the most is snow conditions. Thing is I climb in the east where you have to try pretty hard to climb in high avy danger. Its here but you have to look for it. I just know too many folks who have been hurt and killed in avalanches. When it comes to big mountains so many climbing teams just disappear in those remote ranges... Beautiful mountains but they have an entry fee and often don't let you leave. No matter how much you know they still get you. Many of the victims are avalanche safety instructors. My point being that Marc's passing had nothing to do with his free soloing and everything to do with being in that range in winter. He was taking the same risks as the fat clueless snowmobiler, the extreme skier/ rider or even the casual back country skier. He was taking the exact same risk as every roped party that climbs in that range . Avalanche doesn't care. Boom. Done. Another list of things to admire but stay away from is high altitude mountaineering. A few years ago one of my friends was raising money to climb K2. I could not donate. I could not be an enabler. None of my business if she want's to go but I did not want to contribute to what might happen. Her partner died on K2. Is what it is. Any of those places will get you... So don't pick on free soloists if you back country ski in Co, UT, Wyo etc. or even on Mt Washington in NH.. |
|
when the hot shot western skiers came to Mt Washington Nh and did their little film they called the whites Mini golf yet folks get killed there every year... |
|
Nick, while there is no question that being in avalanche terrain, high altitude, or some of the other aspects of being in alpine and 'super-alpine' situations do significantly increase the risk factors, you can't ignore the number of top-level soloists who died in far less objectively hazardous situations--Derek Hersey and John Bachar immediately come to mind. And, as we both well know, the New England ice on which you 'ply your trade' is far from the most stable or predictable of mediums--even for one with your skill and experience. I'm not saying that you shouldn't do your thing, but I do sense a bit of 'denial' in your post. Jabroni--eastern climbs may be 'mini' in terms of scale, altitude, aesthetics, and the need for long-term commitment, but the skill and mental fortitude required to lead an X-rated route at the Gunks or Devil's Lake ( pretty much anything there) and lots of other places or those very thinly-iced routes found in the Northeastern winter, are no different than those required for those bigger climbs that you referred to--and a fall from the wrong place will leave you just as dead. |
carnage adovadawrote: This is correct. Thank you. The risk keeps going up with each solo climb. It does not reset for each climb. It seems that this isn't widely understood and some people thinking it resets for each climb might explain a lot. This type of knowledge should be shared widely. Its not judgemental, its just knowledge. It has no negative impact on anyone and you never know who it makes a positive difference to. Also Nick again with the knowledge and interpretation about avalanches and high altitude: thank you for sharing! This is the type of knowledge I can share with the father and son. |
Jabroni McChufferson wrote: Risk is likelihood x severity. And it doesn't reset for each climb for each person. It increases over time and repetitions. If we know the numbers we can do the statistical probablities and we can work all this out. As we don't have this info then its hard to compare one place with another, or one type of climbing with another. Nick says the avalanche in certain areas is v frequent. Frequency is an important factor.. Anyway, since there's no numbers its all conjecture.. I was just curious to know what type of risk level I was watching on The Alpinist.. |
|
Well I just watched the Fred Beckey story. Incredible! Starting to get an idea of how profilic a climber can be and still live to a ripe old age.. |
|
There’s a related saying about a life spent climbing: There are old climbers and there are bold climbers, but not climbers who are both old and bold. It’s too general to carry very much meaning or detailed guidance, except the obvious meaning about regular exposure to risk when probability is not negligible. |
Something I found remarkable about Beckey was Messner's criticism of him for climbing so late in life. Messner felt strongly it seems, that the elder years were for memoirs and good works for others, that this was somehow owed and Beckey was squandering his vast wealth of knowledge by keeping it to himself and trying to climb things he knew damn well he'd never make it up again. There is a humbling in aging, I can say. In terms of no old bolds, well, its not really meant we all die young. Its more that bold becomes increasingly, um, heavy - on the mind, on the soul, on the body, as one ages until we mainly just stop the bold business. Just last weekend I repeated a multipitch I've done many times before, as a young man, in middle age and now in my later years. Hell I've soloed the route. But this last weekend I marveled at that fact, that I have been ropeless on this thing. And while I can revisit that solo in my mind, and conjur up what it was like, the confidence, the headspace, the utter solitude, the uncertainty - I could not put my head into that younger self anymore. While it wasn't shocking, it was poignant to feel a gap that will probably widen to a chasm (if I am lucky) between what I am and what I once was. I'm not pissing and moaning. I've been blessed! Blessed with literally a lifetime of climbing and doing any climbing at all, at any level in any style, is good enough for me now. Frankly, it always was. If I were to mourn the Alpinist's untimely demise it is sadness that he doesn't get to experience all that. And yet from where I sit, that man packed more climbing into a few short years than I probably managed in 30 or 40 year and I climbed quite a bit for a weakened warrior. But life doesn't work that way. Lastly, as to the teenager and the family story that started this thread, I'll refer back to the gap between younger me and older me, The gap I feel in my own life, from young to old, is trivial when compared to the gap between me at my best and Leclerc. He might as well have been in the Andromeda Galaxy, his climbing was that inaccessible to me. The risk he lived in is literally unfathomable to me and always was. I could not put myself into his shoes if I wanted, no more than I could walk a mile in Honnold's shoes. I can't judge them. Hell I couldn't even get to the base, of their risk, much less enter it. Same for the teenager. I'll close with this - perhaps watch this video with the teenager kid and ask him his thoughts and feelings about it. |
|
You know, many people here keep saying we accept a higher risk than a non-climber, or a non-climber declines the risk level we accept. To some extent, yes. But, I respectfully offer that it’s predominately that most non-climbers have an inaccurate assessment of the risk level b/c they don’t understand the safety systems that we use. So, I think it’s both, but mostly it’s non-climbers think the risk is higher than it actually is (in theory, when things are being reasonably close to standard practices). |
Bill Lawrywrote: Jim Donini |
|
The successful execution of certain human pursuits (I’m thinking in particular about alpine climbing, backcountry skiing and big wave surfing) requires entering nature on the grandest scale that planet earth has to offer. These are the places where nature is huge and humans are tiny. These are the places where mountain and ocean can swallow you whole and there is no sign of your passing. These are the places that allow the core of our consciousness to expand and connect with the infinite universal consciousness while moving through space in a pleasing way. These are the places where you go, wow - this is it: my movement here, in this way, at this moment, is the meaning of life. For obvious reasons, some people are drawn to these places. (I found such a place in Vermont once many years ago when I was in college but the Green mountains required 6 hits of acid to make it happen. And you can’t really live your life dosed so, like many, I moved out west and never looked back) |
Ywan Cwrote: Actually those old mountaineers who spoke in the Alpinist (Jim Donini, Reinhold Messner, Roland Garibotti) have all done something super dangerous. If you want an effective framework to conceptualize climbing risk and discuss it with a youngster, it's kinda like crossing roads without any traffic jams. Picture mountain accidents as getting hit by a car, and each car moving represent a natural (objective) hazard in the mountain (e.g. bad weather, rock fall), and tumbling as human error (subjective hazard). In climbing we essentially start as with zero motor skill, so we want controlled environment (gym) to learn the basics of walking, before you get into any road with cars. Then you can start crossing road with barely any traffic to learn what an actual road is (top rope). Then you go to a road with traffic light (sports lead climbing). Not zero risk but still very controlled. You can start learning how to read the traffic. Then you start crossing roads without traffic light (trad climbing). Now every road is different and requires both speed and sound judgements to cross. Speed might be hard to grasp but imagine if you are slow as snail, you have much less chance escaping an incoming car than, say, if you can safely teleport to the other side. You can mitigate the risks by getting more skilled (tumble less and go faster) and being better in observing and predicting the traffic. If you see the traffic being too crazy, you always have the option of not crossing the road at all. Those crazy alpinists are trying to cross a 8-lane highway when all the cars are borderline speeding. |
Stoked Weekend Warriorwrote: I think a better framework is to separate out the probability and consequence factors that make up total risk. This great article from the AAC talks about the relationship between probability, consequence, and risk: https://americanalpineclub.org/news/2020/4/8/managing-risk Top roping reduces the consequences of an event. For most of us top roping hard stuff (or while learning), the probability of an event is very high (we're likely to fall off). Top roping is like crossing a road with lots of traffic but it's all going 1 mph and we're wearing a giant inflatable airbag. Soloing is the opposite end of the spectrum, where the consequences are extremely high (near guaranteed fatality if an accident occurs), and participants try to keep the probability as low as possible with skill and experience. The challenge is that you can never achieve zero probability. |
