I like that guy a lot, humble overachiever, he was described by other elite mountaineers as calm at practically every situation. Not huge ego like many in that business.
That being said, there is survivorship bias with guys like him or Messner - they risked so many times and came out alive that they are by no means representative, rather an exception. Many folks like them lie frozen up there in some crevasse, just because of tiny mistake that you don't even realize you're doing, or simply unlucky with being at bad place at bad time.
Shorter "American Alpine Journal" (circa 1970s): we were tired, hungry, cold, low on oxygen, and that's when we made this stupid mistake and ${colleague} died.
I don't know what current standards may be; around the turn of the century there was a proposal that a team should include someone at base camp radioing simple math questions "6 times 9" and timing the response. If the response time increased significantly, they'd say it was time to turn back.
(Viesturs on how to train to climb without supplemental oxygen: he doesn't think he trained to do it, he's just lucky to be a freak)
Not sure it's fair to bring up survivorship bias here. Ed Viesturs has been a high-profile mountaineer and guide known for his careful/conservative approach, for decades.
It's the opposite of a strawman version of results-oriented thinking which says that, for instance, 64/16 = 4 is a good result even if it was obtained by crossing out and cancelling the two 6's giving 4/1 = 4.
Result-oriented thinking has to include some reflection about whether results are being obtained in a way that is repeatable or will work in other situations.
I agree that the point is to understand why your actions are either correct or incorrect. Hence why I wrote "understanding" in my post.
There is something to be said about the false dichotomy of being either for or against results oriented thinking. As you note, understanding why your thinking is correct is a critical component; however, the best way to understand if your thinking is correct is based on results.
SethTro's comment might be read several ways and they've not clarified whether they support or oppose cautious climbing practices.
One explainer of ROT uses poker as an analogy. (https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-results-oriente...) This is both a poor analogy, if read shallowly (follow a strategy even if there are occasional setbacks), and a possibly useful one (negative outcomes are far more consequential in mountaineering than at the poker table).
In cards (or many financial investments) it's possible to amortize risk over many bets --- you're rarely all-in on any one of them. In mountaineering, you're all-in all the time, and an early minor miscalculation or unwise choice may commit you to disaster. In the former case, taking small hits is sensible, in the latter, it's avoiding any extraneous risk thatis the wise move --- luck eventually runs out, and with high stakes, poor odds, and many bets, the daredevil strategy fares poorly.
You can of course find similar situations in finance and business. Startups, unlike VCs, are all-in on their specific venture. Funders can hedge bets, founders cannot.
In personal finance, there's the question of what size a financial hit a household can stand. For something like 40% of US households, finding funds for an unexpected $400 expense within a month is beyond their means. In a world with a steady rate of $400 shocks possible (medical bills, car repair, towing/impound fees, appliance repair, lawsuit or fines, unemployment, etc.), this means financial ruin is an everpresent looming threat.
One time I was day-dreaming while riding and realized too late that I was about to run a red light. I instinctively panic-braked and came to a stop right in the middle of the intersection. Fortunately there was no traffic around, but that one still haunts me to this day.
Same thing a few weeks back. Didn't stop in the middle of the intersection, but a solid bike's length over the line. Fortunately it was the middle of lockdown so there was very little traffic. Certainly made me wake up and pay attention.
Long ago I was grubbing out a stump with a chainsaw. I pause to look at my work and swing the saw away. BZZZZRT! A moment's distraction and I've bitten my chaps. "D'oh!" I'm looking down at the streamers of kevlar hanging from the gash in the safety chaps and it takes me a second to realize, "That could have been my leg!" and started shivering.
I've done a bit of climbing. I think it takes more bravery to accept that conditions are bad and you need to turn around, than to continue on with the rest of the group.
It's not clear-cut, either. If you turn around and the group continues, and they don't die, it's really hard to accept that you made the right choice. Just because they got lucky and survived, sometimes the right choice was still to turn around. But there's no certainty, and it's hard not to second-guess your choices.
Same. Had a very successful expedition on Denali; until we reached high camp. Making great time, beautiful conditions, strong team, great chemistry, and very little issues with altitude.
Then, the shiteth has hitteth the fan. Socked in for a few days with no weather window. Had to bail, with the summit in reach.
Lesson learned, the mountain will always be there.
'the shit hits the fan' → 'the shite hitteth the fan'
'the shit has hit the fan' → 'the shite hath hit the fan'
You could also throw in an archaic alternate spelling of 'hit' ('hitt' or 'hitte') or 'fan' ('fann' or 'fanne'). Or spell 'the' as 'ye', though that's really older than the Shakespeare/King James Bible thing, and it's always pronounced as 'the', with no 'y' sound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter) .
There is a fair amount of research into group dynamics and group decision making, specifically in the context of alpinism. For example [1], written in English, from the "Berg und Steigen" blog.
In general, I can't recommend German-language "Berg und Steigen" magazine enough. It's focuses on safety and risk management in mountain-related activities (mountaineering, indoor/outdoor climbing, skiing, ski touring, mountain biking, ...). Older issues become completely freely accessible in their archive [2].
The American Alpine Club produces an annual publication called "Accidents in North American Mountaineering" that collects and presents case studies of climbing[1] accidents, often with some analysis.
When I was a more active climber, I read it religiously every year. It was very interesting and I definitely learned some important safety lessons I put to good use in my own activities.
Tangential, but a while ago I got really into sports gambling - mostly golf. And a rather unique thing about golf is that there are over 100 players in the field, and only one can win (and obviously there are other things to bet on besides the winner) but it's supremely important to internalize the fact that you can make very good decisions and still lose most of the time. You can't tell how your strategy has played out until you've got enough trials under your belt.
In any situation where you're trying to make a prediction, the best you can do is to make a decision based on available information, and then try to update based on outcomes, but being wrong in retrospect is absolutely not equal to having made a bad choice. It's, frankly, shocking to me how often someone will witness one bad outcome and accuse the person involved of being an idiot and making the obviously wrong choice.
I'd highly recommend reading Ed Viesturs' account of his ascent of K2 - "K2: Life and Death on the World's Most Dangerous Mountain", it also details the history of K2 mountaineering, amazing read.
One of my favorite mountaineering photos is one of Ed Viesturs navigating a long traverse across a > 50 degree snowfield high on K2 with Scott Fisher kneeling in the background on belay. Can't seem to find it now but I think I first saw in this book.
Doesn't seem to be in my copy of the book - there are a few of Viesturs and Fisher but none with belaying. If you're eager to find it, Viesturs seems pretty active on Instagram, he might be able to find it for you.
Couple of book recommendations if you find mountaineering and its associated safety culture interesting:
Forever on the Mountain is a pretty in-depth reporting of a spectacularly deadly mountaineering disaster on Denali (or McKinley), which Ed Viesturs has climbed ~200 times per the article. I know it's easy to say with the benefit of knowing how it ends, but you can just watch the mistakes pile up.
From TFA:
"These high-altitude mountains are one of the few places on the planet where there is literally no help. If you screw up and break a leg, it’s up to your partner to get you down."
Touching the Void recounts an accident in which this was exactly the case. The author broke his leg on the way down at altitude, and things got (much) worse from there. Spoiler alert, he survived to write the book. Pick a time when you can finish it in one sitting. Once you get about 1/3 of the way in, you likely won't be able to put it down.
Everest the Hard Way is a telling of a successful Everest expedition, but provides a good look into the planning and decision making that makes that happen.
Deep Survival is also worth a read. It doesn't focus exclusively on mountaineering, but as I recall, some of the case-studies are mountaineering. Sorry, it's been a while.
Into Thin Air, from which the article riffs on the title, covers the 1996 Everest disaster. It's been even longer since I read that, but it's worth a read.
I'd be interested in a book recommendation if anybody has one that talks about how safety culture is spread. I'm a rock climber (as distinct from mountaineering), and one of the things I observe is that the safety culture in the sport sucks [0], [1]. I'd be curious what the climbing community can do to better spread or develop a safety culture within the rapidly growing sport, especially as fewer people are being brought in by experienced mentors and are instead getting into it via rock gyms.
My admittedly outside understanding is that mountaineering has a much more developed and widespread safety culture, perhaps because the barriers to entry almost require getting into the sport via a mentor.
[0] I saw somebody (top rope) belaying outside while lying in a hammock. This was on a single pitch route with ample space to stand. Even if you have to be anchored, there's just no reason to impede your hand and arm mobility like that.
[1] A representative for a major gear manufacturer (if you climb, you've heard of them) was explaining a new safety feature on a new model of their belay device. He was telling me about it and started giving an example of where it would be valuable by saying something along the lines of "suppose you were climbing and your belayer didn't know what they were doing".
It's telling and disappointing that a major gear manufacturer seems to have accepted that the safety culture in the sport has allowed this scenario to be plausible and/or common.
Rock climbing: I was very happy about all the coverage around the Dawn Wall project, with Caldwell and Jorgeson. A big part of that climb was finding ways to do it safely, protected all the way. Great contrast with all the free solo hype that had gotten so much coverage before.
One of the worst experiences of my life was trying to spot and move pads around for a buddy trying to climb a super-highball in the Buttermilks. Horrifying. I didn't want to help but nobody else was around.
When I read Annapurna: First Conquest of an 8000-meter Peak many years ago I was blown away by the story which was both a huge victory in that era of mountaineering but also a personal tragedy for Herzog. This book together with Touching the Void and Eiger Dreams by Jon Krakauer are very captivating books even if you are not so much into mountaineering.
However, I have later read True Summit: What Really Happened on the Legendary Ascent of Annapurna by David Roberts which provides a different perspective on the Annapurna expedition.
And to reply to the grandparent post: Joe Simpson has written a number of books and while they are not specifically about safety culture they often touch on the ethics and dilemmas of high altitude climbing just as Touching the Void did by telling a story where the rope was cut.
Honestly, it's many years since I read these books so my memory is a bit hazy, but from what I remember Boukreev's book was a response to what he saw as Krakauer's criticism of his actions as a climbing leader during the fatal 1996 Everest disaster.
Roberts is more like a historian with the perspective that Herzog perhaps wasn't so heroic after all but instead, despite poor leadership and reckless decision-making, was saved by his companions that were the true unsung heroes of the expedition.
The first book is a rebuttal, the second is trying to reveal what really happened many years ago.
Oh man, my thoughts on Free Solo are multiple and conflicted and I would love to discuss it! Unfortunately, I should get some actual work done today :-(
Other great mountaineering books:
Annapurna (already mentioned) -Herzog
All of Ed Viesturs books are great
The Summit - Pemba Gyaljie
Dark Summit - Nick Heil
Conquistadors of the Useless - Terray
Eiger Dreams - Krakauer
Denali's Howl - Hall
"No Shortcuts to the Top: Climbing the World's 14 Highest Peaks" by Ed Viesturs and David Roberts tells the whole career of Viesturs and a great account of his way of handling safety on the mountain. My whole family loved it, great book. Full of lessons that can be applied to life in general.
"An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth" by Chris Hadfield is a similar book in terms of applicable lessons to life, work ethic, relationships with peers and overall being a good human being. The part about the concept of aiming to be a zero is a marvelous read, for example.
Charles Perrow's Normal Accidents addresses this concept of risk from a complex systems (and complex organisations) perspective. The title comes from the fact that accidents arise from normal operations --- these systems are always operationg at the borders of control, often previous incidents have reduced perceptions of risk, further shaving safety margins, until there are none.
Alex Honnold has some great advice on risk mitigation and erros as well. For a guy who get's promoted as a huge risk taker it's just not really true when he explains what goes into a big wall solo. For example he stated that if he could only do one type of climbing it would be typical sport climbing so he could actually take chances and work right at the point of failure; not where you want to be in the middle of a free solo.
I can't find a link right now but there's a great interview out there that Honnold and Peter Croft did together talking about their different approaches to free soloing. It was interesting to hear the contrasts in their styles.
love how cool he is about missing his first attempt
> The weather was deteriorating, we’d used all of the rope we’d brought with us, the conditions were getting worse and worse by the minute. That umbilical cord of safety was stretched and maybe almost broken, and we figured we might be able to get to the top, but no way were we going to get down. And climbing a mountain has to be a round trip.
a plan isn't a strategy unless it accounts for resource trends and contingencies
this is why people tabletop / wargame things when they're important + involve uncertainty
>> But on a mountain, sometimes it is black and white, right? I mean, you can be as rah-rah relativism as you want, but sometimes the world makes it very clear that you’ve made a mistake. All else being equal, if you survive and the other guy doesn’t, your decision was right and his was wrong.
>> Yeah. But I make a point of not judging people. You can’t go up to them and say, “Nyah, nyah, I was right and you were wrong.”
Especially if the other guy doesn't survive. Then, no, you can't go up to them and say that. I mean, presumably if they're dead they didn't even come back down the mountain, so what are you going to do? Climb back up and thumb your nose at them?
45 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 78.9 ms ] threadThat being said, there is survivorship bias with guys like him or Messner - they risked so many times and came out alive that they are by no means representative, rather an exception. Many folks like them lie frozen up there in some crevasse, just because of tiny mistake that you don't even realize you're doing, or simply unlucky with being at bad place at bad time.
I don't know what current standards may be; around the turn of the century there was a proposal that a team should include someone at base camp radioing simple math questions "6 times 9" and timing the response. If the response time increased significantly, they'd say it was time to turn back.
(Viesturs on how to train to climb without supplemental oxygen: he doesn't think he trained to do it, he's just lucky to be a freak)
Half the people I know in SF couldn't do that at sea level.
I've had this exact same feeling making mistakes on a motorbike, didn't get hurt, but scared me shitless for a few weeks nonetheless.
Result-oriented thinking has to include some reflection about whether results are being obtained in a way that is repeatable or will work in other situations.
There is something to be said about the false dichotomy of being either for or against results oriented thinking. As you note, understanding why your thinking is correct is a critical component; however, the best way to understand if your thinking is correct is based on results.
One explainer of ROT uses poker as an analogy. (https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-results-oriente...) This is both a poor analogy, if read shallowly (follow a strategy even if there are occasional setbacks), and a possibly useful one (negative outcomes are far more consequential in mountaineering than at the poker table).
In cards (or many financial investments) it's possible to amortize risk over many bets --- you're rarely all-in on any one of them. In mountaineering, you're all-in all the time, and an early minor miscalculation or unwise choice may commit you to disaster. In the former case, taking small hits is sensible, in the latter, it's avoiding any extraneous risk thatis the wise move --- luck eventually runs out, and with high stakes, poor odds, and many bets, the daredevil strategy fares poorly.
You can of course find similar situations in finance and business. Startups, unlike VCs, are all-in on their specific venture. Funders can hedge bets, founders cannot.
In personal finance, there's the question of what size a financial hit a household can stand. For something like 40% of US households, finding funds for an unexpected $400 expense within a month is beyond their means. In a world with a steady rate of $400 shocks possible (medical bills, car repair, towing/impound fees, appliance repair, lawsuit or fines, unemployment, etc.), this means financial ruin is an everpresent looming threat.
I think we're so used to point->counter->point->counter nested trees that we pattern match disagreement even when it's not there.
Always wear your chaps kids!
It's not clear-cut, either. If you turn around and the group continues, and they don't die, it's really hard to accept that you made the right choice. Just because they got lucky and survived, sometimes the right choice was still to turn around. But there's no certainty, and it's hard not to second-guess your choices.
Then, the shiteth has hitteth the fan. Socked in for a few days with no weather window. Had to bail, with the summit in reach.
Lesson learned, the mountain will always be there.
'the shit hit the fan' → 'the shite hit the fan'
'the shit hits the fan' → 'the shite hitteth the fan'
'the shit has hit the fan' → 'the shite hath hit the fan'
You could also throw in an archaic alternate spelling of 'hit' ('hitt' or 'hitte') or 'fan' ('fann' or 'fanne'). Or spell 'the' as 'ye', though that's really older than the Shakespeare/King James Bible thing, and it's always pronounced as 'the', with no 'y' sound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter) .
In general, I can't recommend German-language "Berg und Steigen" magazine enough. It's focuses on safety and risk management in mountain-related activities (mountaineering, indoor/outdoor climbing, skiing, ski touring, mountain biking, ...). Older issues become completely freely accessible in their archive [2].
[1] https://www.bergundsteigen.blog/human-factor-and-decision-ma... [2] https://www.bergundsteigen.at/?module=archiv/ausgaben
When I was a more active climber, I read it religiously every year. It was very interesting and I definitely learned some important safety lessons I put to good use in my own activities.
[1] All types, not just mountaineering
In any situation where you're trying to make a prediction, the best you can do is to make a decision based on available information, and then try to update based on outcomes, but being wrong in retrospect is absolutely not equal to having made a bad choice. It's, frankly, shocking to me how often someone will witness one bad outcome and accuse the person involved of being an idiot and making the obviously wrong choice.
Forever on the Mountain is a pretty in-depth reporting of a spectacularly deadly mountaineering disaster on Denali (or McKinley), which Ed Viesturs has climbed ~200 times per the article. I know it's easy to say with the benefit of knowing how it ends, but you can just watch the mistakes pile up.
From TFA:
"These high-altitude mountains are one of the few places on the planet where there is literally no help. If you screw up and break a leg, it’s up to your partner to get you down."
Touching the Void recounts an accident in which this was exactly the case. The author broke his leg on the way down at altitude, and things got (much) worse from there. Spoiler alert, he survived to write the book. Pick a time when you can finish it in one sitting. Once you get about 1/3 of the way in, you likely won't be able to put it down.
Everest the Hard Way is a telling of a successful Everest expedition, but provides a good look into the planning and decision making that makes that happen.
Deep Survival is also worth a read. It doesn't focus exclusively on mountaineering, but as I recall, some of the case-studies are mountaineering. Sorry, it's been a while.
Into Thin Air, from which the article riffs on the title, covers the 1996 Everest disaster. It's been even longer since I read that, but it's worth a read.
I'd be interested in a book recommendation if anybody has one that talks about how safety culture is spread. I'm a rock climber (as distinct from mountaineering), and one of the things I observe is that the safety culture in the sport sucks [0], [1]. I'd be curious what the climbing community can do to better spread or develop a safety culture within the rapidly growing sport, especially as fewer people are being brought in by experienced mentors and are instead getting into it via rock gyms.
My admittedly outside understanding is that mountaineering has a much more developed and widespread safety culture, perhaps because the barriers to entry almost require getting into the sport via a mentor.
[0] I saw somebody (top rope) belaying outside while lying in a hammock. This was on a single pitch route with ample space to stand. Even if you have to be anchored, there's just no reason to impede your hand and arm mobility like that.
[1] A representative for a major gear manufacturer (if you climb, you've heard of them) was explaining a new safety feature on a new model of their belay device. He was telling me about it and started giving an example of where it would be valuable by saying something along the lines of "suppose you were climbing and your belayer didn't know what they were doing".
It's telling and disappointing that a major gear manufacturer seems to have accepted that the safety culture in the sport has allowed this scenario to be plausible and/or common.
Rock climbing: I was very happy about all the coverage around the Dawn Wall project, with Caldwell and Jorgeson. A big part of that climb was finding ways to do it safely, protected all the way. Great contrast with all the free solo hype that had gotten so much coverage before.
One of the worst experiences of my life was trying to spot and move pads around for a buddy trying to climb a super-highball in the Buttermilks. Horrifying. I didn't want to help but nobody else was around.
However, I have later read True Summit: What Really Happened on the Legendary Ascent of Annapurna by David Roberts which provides a different perspective on the Annapurna expedition.
And to reply to the grandparent post: Joe Simpson has written a number of books and while they are not specifically about safety culture they often touch on the ethics and dilemmas of high altitude climbing just as Touching the Void did by telling a story where the rope was cut.
Roberts is more like a historian with the perspective that Herzog perhaps wasn't so heroic after all but instead, despite poor leadership and reckless decision-making, was saved by his companions that were the true unsung heroes of the expedition.
The first book is a rebuttal, the second is trying to reveal what really happened many years ago.
Thank you for the recommendation.
"An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth" by Chris Hadfield is a similar book in terms of applicable lessons to life, work ethic, relationships with peers and overall being a good human being. The part about the concept of aiming to be a zero is a marvelous read, for example.
I'd love to hear suggestions for similar books.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/normal-accidents/oclc/1102386...
> The weather was deteriorating, we’d used all of the rope we’d brought with us, the conditions were getting worse and worse by the minute. That umbilical cord of safety was stretched and maybe almost broken, and we figured we might be able to get to the top, but no way were we going to get down. And climbing a mountain has to be a round trip.
a plan isn't a strategy unless it accounts for resource trends and contingencies
this is why people tabletop / wargame things when they're important + involve uncertainty
>> Yeah. But I make a point of not judging people. You can’t go up to them and say, “Nyah, nyah, I was right and you were wrong.”
Especially if the other guy doesn't survive. Then, no, you can't go up to them and say that. I mean, presumably if they're dead they didn't even come back down the mountain, so what are you going to do? Climb back up and thumb your nose at them?