If you agree to hike in a group, become the pace setter in front, and don't let the slower people in the group take a good rest after you rest to let them catch up you look like and ARE functionally an asshole. All it takes is a little self-awareness to treat group hiking as a group activity instead of an activity where you get to as fast as you possibly can go.
It's affectionately known as a Fuck You stop, and the easiest solution is to put the slowest people up front, instead of writing lengthy blog posts about why it's a noble thing.
That article is a very reasonable take on it; it specifically defines FU stops as not-agreed-upon-in-advance slinky stops. It also doesn't mandate any specific style of hiking together (other than to say stay together in dangerous conditions). Applying the lessons from that article to just about any group activity is a great lesson in "how to not be an asshole."
Something that gives the "pro FU stop" side ammunition is less nuanced takes on them, such as "If you ever do a slinky stop, you're an asshole" or "Always have the slowest hiker lead." It then becomes easy for non-assholes to end up sympathizing or siding with the assholes just because the absolutist claims have gone too far.
Assholes also weaponize this to garner sympathy. A statement of "I'm called an asshole just because I do slinky stops" when the actual truth is they have refused to calmly discuss other options for hiking.
I agree :-p. If you want to exercise, and are going in a group, you can simple hike forward and backward in the trail, to make sure everyone is doing ok. When hiking in groups, for example with families, we do that, either some adult or a kid with a lot of energy is asked to go forward and then backwards to tell us how we are doing, and they enjoy the explorer role, while at the same time the little kids, or the grandparents in the group are also kept the loop and accompanied the whole way.
> If you want to exercise, and are going in a group, you can simple hike forward and backward in the trail
Yeah, my wife and I kept hiking up through month 8 of her pregnancy. As she started slowing down, I'd take the dog ahead and hike back to her, always keeping her in eyesight. Eventually we got to the point where we were literally running circles around her as she plodded along.
Good idea, but needs to be someone with a little bit of self awareness or experience doing this. A preadolescent has no sense of rationing their own energy and will burn themselves out long before the end and make themselves and their caretakers miserable. Speaking from experience with my nephews :)
The article is about how the advice is bad and myopic because it pretends like the optimal solution is averaging everyone and ignores that there is actually some subtlety to choosing the right thing to do, not about how it's not-ever-rude to do that.
> and don't let the slower people in the group take a good rest after you rest to let them catch up you look like and ARE functionally an asshole.
This is every hike I've ever taken with my family on vacations. I'd always lag behind and finally catch up—out of breath—and the second I'd arrive the family would continue.
This conditioned me to hate hiking and physical activity. Then I started hiking with good friends who didn't even make it a problem to just casually hike with me, even if they could go faster. They're good folks.
A bit of devil's advocate here, but the slower people in the group are willing and able to rest at any point that the fast hiker is ahead and the fast hiker would never even know.
Depends on the hike. There can be a safety issue with getting too far apart. There can also be the opportunity for further friction: on a dayhike if the fast person gets to the end or the turnaround point and then is or feels compelled to wait. As said elsewhere, setting expectations would be the key.
Then they shouldn't have joined the group in the first place. If you don't want to wait for others, then find a different group or go hiking by yourself. This isn't that complicated.
I genuinely don't understand all these replies about "sTaY iN tHe GrOuP". Sure, if you keep stopping, waiting for others then going straight away that's kinda assholey, but so is demanding that others stop and carry on with you when they don't want to. Starting as a group shouldn't mean ending as a group. I mean, read what you just wrote.
> If you don't want to wait for others, then ... go hiking by yourself.
That's literally what's happening when you start with a group but don't want to wait for others........... If the others are slow and have no intent to speed up, you should be perfectly free to speed off, without judgement from the group. Otherwise it's just a frustrating experience for everyone.
This entire debate is solved by mutual agreement of expectations. Communication solves these problems, and even if unexpected situational changes occur that might change the plan, communicating those changes helps everyone to help each other. This whole pseudo-philosophical debate can be boiled down to "discuss and be honest with each other and be willing to adapt"
When participating in a group activity, there is the implicit assumption that the group will stick together. It is acceptable to split up a group if you all discuss and agree to it. But if you just run off on your own without warning, that makes you an asshole.
If you say "This pace isn't working for me, do you mind if I just go on ahead?", I've met very few hikers who would say no -- except of course cases where that would be dangerous. If you just blitz ahead without saying anything, that's going to bother people at a minimum.
I hike at least 2-3 times a week, over what I'd consider difficult to the point of being just under needing specialized equipment or training to do. I often bring newcomers with me. There are many times me going ahead a bit to scout the trail and judge the impact of recent weather, etc. and waiting to guide others over technical parts is the smartest play for everyone.
Phrases like "full stop" make it sound like you have no room to question your own assertions, when in fact there are enough people with contrary opinions that it might help you to do so.
> There are many times me going ahead a bit to scout the trail and judge the impact of recent weather
I'm curious what you need to judge in advance that's worth getting beyond line-of-site of "newcomers"? I suppose if you're preparing routes which take time this makes sense but I'm struggling to think of examples.
Things change awfully quick and it's a nightmare when you lose a group member and have a vast and potentially densely foliaged area to search with rescue teams many hours from responding.
As long as everyone's aware of the situation and properly prepared then it's certainly their choice to make.
The mountains I climb nearby can have the trails erased or dramatically altered by rainfall. The marked route can become dangerous when going slightly off trail can be entirely safe.
Wouldn't it make sense to take the group along and have everyone turn around when it is impassable? Is the scouting because the group is physically incapable of going the extra distance when route finding is needed?
From my limited experience with Iceland's terrain I think I'd be worried about "newcomers" behind me losing the trail so I think I'd be even more wary but perhaps it depends on the group, equipment, etc. While there isn't much dense foliage out here in the Rocky Mountains I've seen many people get separated even in alpine terrain. Especially in boulder fields where groups routinely get separated and I've seen several called for rescue independently after searching for hours.
I want to make this distinction because I don't think it's obvious to a lot of people reading. You're not talking about leaving the newcomers to fend for themselves because you want to "feel the burn". You're talking about using your experience to make tactical decisions about the route, which may involve periods of separation. And you have the experience to weigh the risk of separating to scout against the risk of staying together and potentially bringing the whole group into terrain you're not prepared for. You're not just leaving them behind because they're going slower than you would prefer.
Yes. Scouting ahead of a group to find best path because you are more experienced is not selfish. It is the opposite of what the article author is peddling.
Seriously. I think the author just chose a very poor analogy for their social critique.
> unless you're hiking in dangerous wilderness, there is no hard reason to prefer larger numbers.
This is simply untrue. Many people hike in groups because it is drastically safer than hiking solo. There are plenty of stories where separated hikers simply disappear after going off-trail in thick brush to use the restroom. THIS is the primary reason why the stigma exists and the author completely brushes it aside.
If you're a person hiking in "non-dangerous" wilderness you probably need the group even more since you likely failed to bring a map and compass, much less any survival gear. You may very well not know which trail you're on nor have planned for features and junctions to expect. The bare minimum you can do is stay with a few extra people who can help carry you out when you sprain your ankle or worse.
Honestly, the article author probably doesn't even know much about hiking or care. He just uses hiking as metaphor to say "individualist society is better society, I don't want poor people to slow me down".
> Indeed, it assumes that it's very important for the entire group to stick together. That it would be bad to split up, or for someone to be left walking alone behind the pack.
This was a dead giveaway for me that the author has little experience hiking. So many comments here about socializing, politeness, etc, not even mentioning the danger. But people plugged into the community and reading about incidents know how quickly things can turn from routine to crisis, and how many of them could have been prevented or mitigated by following these simple rules. Just one of many, many examples: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/06/17/new-hampshire-o...
For whoever needs to hear it: HIKING IS DANGEROUS!!! Respect the wilderness, prepare, and take care of each other.
> The author seems to be arguing that a societal focus on helping disadvantaged people is harmful to those who are the most advantaged.
Not even sure why something so self-evidently true needs to be argued. The time and resources spent on helping the disadvantaged by the very nature is not spent on the advantaged ones. Which means that they get less than they otherwise could have. Yes. And?
In a zero-sum game, sure. But assuming we all live in a society, helping the disadvantaged raises the mean level of, er...advantage for all. The advantaged ones get the further benefit of living in a society that's better off as a whole. A rising tide lifts all boats, as they say.
And that's without even getting into the morality of inherent advantage.
I wish I could upvote this a thousand times. The amount of this kind of objectivist discourse I see in tech circles is really disturbing (and telling), considering how much power tech has over society today.
In the future. And even then, not necessarily. So for those advantaged it looks a lot like a forced investment of dubious profitability. Of course they oppose it.
> A rising tide lifts all boats
It has been shown several times that no, this doesn't necessarily work in economics, it is entirely possible that the rising tide will only lift the boats of the rich.
Sure, it's tricky to get it right, and we've already discovered a lot of ways to get it wrong. I still think it's a worthy goal.
Directing resources to those already best-placed to use them is tempting, but taking it to its logical conclusion only perpetuates "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." That, by itself, is a recipe for collapse over the long-term.
Again, without even touching on the moral aspects.
I would argue that that's not self-evident at all.
Example: Do you think that high performing equestrian athletes generally come from wealthy backgrounds because horses are an expensive hobby, or because being born into wealth provides you an innate ability to ride horses?
Yes, it's a terrible article. Even if you ignore the bad metaphorical layer, the bad literal layer forgets the fact that hiking is (generally) for recreation If you act without consideration for your hiking companions, nobody is going to have any fun and you're probably going to find yourself hiking alone before long.
This article is just a bunch of mental gymnastics trying to justify being an asshole. Imagine going on a hike with your grandparents, leaving them in the dust, and then using this kind of twisted Ayn Rand logic to justify it to yourself. Also, find me one person on the planet who uses the term "typical virtue peddlers" unironically who isn't an asshole.
If you don't intend on waiting for those you are traveling with, you should just take a separate hike and enjoy your own company.
Ability to walk quickly at altitude is in fact a skill one can improve with repetition. Your lungs become acclimated to the practice and it does become easier for you. It's fine to hike with others in the same condition, but to decide that others not in this condition are lazy is a pretty baseless assumption.
I believe this is actually a good metaphor for the other social systems the author mentioned. If you think poor people are just lazy or don't want to work you need to think about the way practicing having means makes your existence much easier IMO. Again, you can decide to leave others behind, but I know my life is better for both helping others and receiving help when I need it.
Quite so. Imagine agreeing to do any other activity together with someone else, and then immediately separating yourself from them because you decide that is more efficient. Agree to, say, cook a meal with someone -- but you decide to just prepare your own portion, and then go do something else while they are still trying to figure out how to chop some unusual vegetable.
Is that person ever going to want to cook a meal with you again? I suspect not, and you can't force them to. Instead, show them how to chop that vegetable, maybe discuss general technique, maybe even divide labor in a more reasonable way -- whatever works best for the two of you. It will probably take you longer, but you'll probably also get to do the collaborative activity again.
Yes, as the author stated, what is considered "average" depends of the group, so I guess he won't be hiking with beginners or overweight people...
Your analogy is off : there is no challenge in cooking faster than others and no adrenaline rush either.
What if you are a vegan & asked to cook burgers with a group of hunters? That is what the author tries to say : go hike with people of your hiking level, to avoid frustration on both sides.
The thing I kept thinking when reading this was, what about the hikers' agency in deciding whom they hike with?
I'm an athletic guy, and a fast hiker. I go up climbs like an escalator. If someone agrees to hike with me, there's a tacit understanding of what to expect, so if you agree to go, then don't complain when you get exactly what was advertised. I will tell you suck it up, hydrate, and eat a Clif Bar. Furthermore, I won't even agree to take you if there is reason to believe you are overestimating your fitness, and/or underestimating the trail.
Conversely, if they make it clear they want a leisurely hike, and I agree to it, then it is on me to dial down the intensity.
All that has to happen is an honest conversation about the desired intensity from the get-go, and then it's clear who's being a dick because it's whomever is going back on the agreement.
Can't we all just be mature adults about such things? I've never personally had an issue with this in almost two decades of hiking. Maybe it's because I usually avoid random group hikes with strangers?
Agreed, but I think that author's gripe is that in the absence of a conversation the rule is that the slowest sets the pace. That the "implicit/default/unspoken" rule in today's society dictates that we stoop to the lowest common denominator otherwise we are being insensitive.
I think this is why we break into groups like marathon runners, 7-minute milers, car-to-car mountain climbers, etc. In the forming of this group is also an "implicit" social contract about what it takes to belong. The existence of these groups ensures that the lowest common denominator meets a certain criteria in order to join.
Edit: Additionally, the recent moral philosophy is that excluding people from a group is unfair. College, the C-level suites, Everest, marathon running should be accessible to everyone. I think the backlash now is that previously closed groups feel like they are forced to let people in below their standards and thus forced to sink to the lowest common denominator in society.
Ah, well said, that is a good way to look at it. Very true!
Agree with your edit too. The logical and natural order of skill progression has somehow become offensive to many people. It's the "I got my karate black belt in 6 months!" mentality. It's denying the very nature of expertise.
When I did tough mudder I was with a group from my gym. Some of us were fitter than the others. There was a group of 3-4 guys running up front and every now and then we would stand and wait for the rest and carry on.
After we finished, one of the slower ones was talking about how much harder it must have been for me, since I was going faster the entire time. I pointed out it was probably a lot easier since we were having pauses every now and then and they just had to keep on going.
I think at that point they realised they should have ran up front with us.
In my community we have a courtesy rule for hiking, running, and cycling where if you organized the outing and invited people slower than you, you're not allowed to go ahead of them.
I feel like nobody in the comments here so far actually understood the article?
The point is not: you should keep going and leave the slow people behind.
The point is: "It's a perfect example of something that seems to pass for empathetic wisdom, but actually holds very little true empathy: an understanding of people who actually think differently from each other."
The rest of the article is describing ways to actually think more about what is best and most empathetic to do instead of just turning your brain off with a piece of memorizable advice.
I'm sure people understand the message. They just don't agree.
My reading of the article is that the author is spending a lot of words on saying "Look, this is why being selfish asshole is actually good! And if you don't let me be selfish, you're actually the asshole! You should award empathy to privileged people first, they deserve it more!" which is terrible message, even if the article was well written, which it isn't.
It was already disgusting message about hiking, the moment the author said "you can also apply this to poverty and obesity" he crossed the moral event horizon.
Both on hike and in society you have duty and responsibility for others - and that includes slowing down for them when necessary, both physically and metaphorically.
Your strong and emotional reaction made me read the article (thanks for that) and it makes your statement even stranger.
What is disgusting in saying that the majority/the average can exercise a moral tyranny on the individual that is above the average by virtue of its sheer number?
The author is right in saying that, by prioritizing the slowest, you penalize the fastest. This is not a moral opinion, just pure logic.
> the moment the author said "you can also apply this to poverty and obesity" he crossed the moral event horizon.
Again, you're getting outraged over what seems, to me, a very practical and healthy reasoning :
"If someone is standing on a slope, you don't just offer them your hand and let them hold on indefinitely, wasting both people's energy, because you will soon both fall down. You should instead get them on solid ground instead, and get them to move better on their own. If someone wants sympathy and aid but rejects offers of working on a solution, that means they don't want to expend any effort in solving it themselves."
What did you want him to say? That your duty is to sacrifice yourself for others' well-being even if they don't do most of the work themselves?
I am not sure, why you are using words like "emotional" and "outraged". The problem with the article is that it glorifies selfish attitude, which leads to uncaring, individualist, exploitative and toxic society.
The author is proud of not caring about anyone but himself, and he wraps that into layers of disingenuous and faulty logic to prove how that is actually good.
> What did you want him to say? That your duty is to sacrifice yourself for others' well-being even if they don't do most of the work themselves?
I don't know why you would use such loaded (and emotional) word as "sacrifice". But yes. That is how society works.
The author isn't willing to perform even basic functions of person living in society - like walking slower when hiking in a group. Is walking slower a sacrifice? Is paying taxes to fund roads a sacrifice? Is paying taxes that fund social safety net a sacrifice? Where exactly does cooperation and consensus becomes a sacrifice?
Reminder that the author is criticizing the naivety of the advice "If you're hiking and you stop to let other people catch up, don't start walking immediately when they arrive.", rather than the actual action of doing that thing when it's actually appropriate.
„The original "lesson" is not actually about respecting people's needs, or about ensuring accessibility for all. It's mainly about disregarding some people's preferences entirely in favor of certain others, holding up some arbitrary level of preference and skill as the norm. What's too far ahead is considered unreasonable. But if you take the advice to its logical conclusion, it would mean that everyone has to perform at the lowest common level, even if someone obviously doesn't belong there, and would be happier elsewhere.„
This is something thay many people from the former communist countries understand. There was a saying in Poland that went something like: „no matter if you stand up or lie down you are owed 2000PLN” that was about just that happening in the communist times.
A version of "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be mowed down".
The fact that many in the West were lucky enough not to live on other side of iron curtain is the only reason I can see for this growing push towards making people equal in every way.
If you are day-hiking with a random Meetup group, you are going to get a lot of variation in experience, and some people will fall behind. It's up to the group leader to decide what to do next. Did we decide to have a sweeper? Is this a vigorous or easy hike? Should we split up into smaller groups? Should we set a waypoint? Does everyone have a trail map? Are we making good time?
If you are hiking the Appalachian Trail with a group of people, it is impossible for everyone to hike the same pace. You will always end up splitting off, either with one or two people, or by yourself. Later on you will meet up with the larger group. But besides pace, it would also drive you insane to hike for 6 months next to the same people. Different people also need food, water, and rest in different amounts. Maybe you just want to stop and smell the flowers more often.
These [among other] reasons are the inspiration for the phrase "Hike your own hike." This same principle applies at events like Burning Man, where it is expected that people will wander off and do their own thing, because the whole purpose is to practice self-reliance. Hiking is another place to practice self-reliance. Yes, you may want someone to stick around and wait for you, but don't push that expectation on them. On the other hand, if you feel unsafe and need someone to stick around, tell them that before you begin hiking, because they may rather not hike with you.
Interestingly enough, as an experienced cyclist, many of the group rides I go on are "stay at the pace of the slowest rider, other than on climbs". On climbs of any reasonable difficulty it can actually feel worse to go slower than your comfortable pace. Waiting at the top of a half hour or longer climb for your friends is also not a particularly enjoyable thing to do either. You start to cool off right after sweating and can get chills, so even with this rule of regrouping at climbs, it's still better to stay within a certain skill band. A great cyclist and a beginner can enjoy hours together on flats, but on climbs, at some point neither will really have fun.
Having been the slower rider on climbs as well, I don't mind just rolling over the top and keeping on either - keep the heart rate up, and avoid cramping from stopping.
The bottom line is, etiquette should be established, not assumed or internally debated. I have groups I ride with where the rule is social time until we hit the climbs, then after that, if we regroup we regroup, if not, everyone knows how to get home. I have regroup mandatory rides where we all want to keep an eye on each other as well. All of this is established BEFORE you go, so there is no dilemma involved.
I think this analogy can apply to a lot of the other analogies.
I'm old and often hike with younger people who are much faster than I am. When I catch up with them if I need a break, I ask for one. So far, I've never hiked with anybody who refused that request. If I did, it would be the last time. It's just not that hard.
63 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadThis article is a dumpsterfire
https://slowerhiking.com/skills-techniques/the-fu-stop-or-ho...
Something that gives the "pro FU stop" side ammunition is less nuanced takes on them, such as "If you ever do a slinky stop, you're an asshole" or "Always have the slowest hiker lead." It then becomes easy for non-assholes to end up sympathizing or siding with the assholes just because the absolutist claims have gone too far.
Assholes also weaponize this to garner sympathy. A statement of "I'm called an asshole just because I do slinky stops" when the actual truth is they have refused to calmly discuss other options for hiking.
Yeah, my wife and I kept hiking up through month 8 of her pregnancy. As she started slowing down, I'd take the dog ahead and hike back to her, always keeping her in eyesight. Eventually we got to the point where we were literally running circles around her as she plodded along.
Worked great for everyone.
This is every hike I've ever taken with my family on vacations. I'd always lag behind and finally catch up—out of breath—and the second I'd arrive the family would continue.
This conditioned me to hate hiking and physical activity. Then I started hiking with good friends who didn't even make it a problem to just casually hike with me, even if they could go faster. They're good folks.
> If you don't want to wait for others, then ... go hiking by yourself.
That's literally what's happening when you start with a group but don't want to wait for others........... If the others are slow and have no intent to speed up, you should be perfectly free to speed off, without judgement from the group. Otherwise it's just a frustrating experience for everyone.
This entire debate is solved by mutual agreement of expectations. Communication solves these problems, and even if unexpected situational changes occur that might change the plan, communicating those changes helps everyone to help each other. This whole pseudo-philosophical debate can be boiled down to "discuss and be honest with each other and be willing to adapt"
Phrases like "full stop" make it sound like you have no room to question your own assertions, when in fact there are enough people with contrary opinions that it might help you to do so.
I'm curious what you need to judge in advance that's worth getting beyond line-of-site of "newcomers"? I suppose if you're preparing routes which take time this makes sense but I'm struggling to think of examples.
Things change awfully quick and it's a nightmare when you lose a group member and have a vast and potentially densely foliaged area to search with rescue teams many hours from responding.
As long as everyone's aware of the situation and properly prepared then it's certainly their choice to make.
We also don't have "foliage" in Iceland :)
From my limited experience with Iceland's terrain I think I'd be worried about "newcomers" behind me losing the trail so I think I'd be even more wary but perhaps it depends on the group, equipment, etc. While there isn't much dense foliage out here in the Rocky Mountains I've seen many people get separated even in alpine terrain. Especially in boulder fields where groups routinely get separated and I've seen several called for rescue independently after searching for hours.
> unless you're hiking in dangerous wilderness, there is no hard reason to prefer larger numbers.
This is simply untrue. Many people hike in groups because it is drastically safer than hiking solo. There are plenty of stories where separated hikers simply disappear after going off-trail in thick brush to use the restroom. THIS is the primary reason why the stigma exists and the author completely brushes it aside.
If you're a person hiking in "non-dangerous" wilderness you probably need the group even more since you likely failed to bring a map and compass, much less any survival gear. You may very well not know which trail you're on nor have planned for features and junctions to expect. The bare minimum you can do is stay with a few extra people who can help carry you out when you sprain your ankle or worse.
This was a dead giveaway for me that the author has little experience hiking. So many comments here about socializing, politeness, etc, not even mentioning the danger. But people plugged into the community and reading about incidents know how quickly things can turn from routine to crisis, and how many of them could have been prevented or mitigated by following these simple rules. Just one of many, many examples: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/06/17/new-hampshire-o...
For whoever needs to hear it: HIKING IS DANGEROUS!!! Respect the wilderness, prepare, and take care of each other.
Not even sure why something so self-evidently true needs to be argued. The time and resources spent on helping the disadvantaged by the very nature is not spent on the advantaged ones. Which means that they get less than they otherwise could have. Yes. And?
And that's without even getting into the morality of inherent advantage.
In the future. And even then, not necessarily. So for those advantaged it looks a lot like a forced investment of dubious profitability. Of course they oppose it.
> A rising tide lifts all boats
It has been shown several times that no, this doesn't necessarily work in economics, it is entirely possible that the rising tide will only lift the boats of the rich.
Directing resources to those already best-placed to use them is tempting, but taking it to its logical conclusion only perpetuates "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." That, by itself, is a recipe for collapse over the long-term.
Again, without even touching on the moral aspects.
...to the same height.
Of course it is disadvantageous for some people to just rise with the tide.
What was the answer? I read the article, and didn't see a conclusion.
Ability to walk quickly at altitude is in fact a skill one can improve with repetition. Your lungs become acclimated to the practice and it does become easier for you. It's fine to hike with others in the same condition, but to decide that others not in this condition are lazy is a pretty baseless assumption.
I believe this is actually a good metaphor for the other social systems the author mentioned. If you think poor people are just lazy or don't want to work you need to think about the way practicing having means makes your existence much easier IMO. Again, you can decide to leave others behind, but I know my life is better for both helping others and receiving help when I need it.
Is that person ever going to want to cook a meal with you again? I suspect not, and you can't force them to. Instead, show them how to chop that vegetable, maybe discuss general technique, maybe even divide labor in a more reasonable way -- whatever works best for the two of you. It will probably take you longer, but you'll probably also get to do the collaborative activity again.
Your analogy is off : there is no challenge in cooking faster than others and no adrenaline rush either. What if you are a vegan & asked to cook burgers with a group of hunters? That is what the author tries to say : go hike with people of your hiking level, to avoid frustration on both sides.
I'm an athletic guy, and a fast hiker. I go up climbs like an escalator. If someone agrees to hike with me, there's a tacit understanding of what to expect, so if you agree to go, then don't complain when you get exactly what was advertised. I will tell you suck it up, hydrate, and eat a Clif Bar. Furthermore, I won't even agree to take you if there is reason to believe you are overestimating your fitness, and/or underestimating the trail.
Conversely, if they make it clear they want a leisurely hike, and I agree to it, then it is on me to dial down the intensity.
All that has to happen is an honest conversation about the desired intensity from the get-go, and then it's clear who's being a dick because it's whomever is going back on the agreement.
Can't we all just be mature adults about such things? I've never personally had an issue with this in almost two decades of hiking. Maybe it's because I usually avoid random group hikes with strangers?
I think this is why we break into groups like marathon runners, 7-minute milers, car-to-car mountain climbers, etc. In the forming of this group is also an "implicit" social contract about what it takes to belong. The existence of these groups ensures that the lowest common denominator meets a certain criteria in order to join.
Edit: Additionally, the recent moral philosophy is that excluding people from a group is unfair. College, the C-level suites, Everest, marathon running should be accessible to everyone. I think the backlash now is that previously closed groups feel like they are forced to let people in below their standards and thus forced to sink to the lowest common denominator in society.
Agree with your edit too. The logical and natural order of skill progression has somehow become offensive to many people. It's the "I got my karate black belt in 6 months!" mentality. It's denying the very nature of expertise.
After we finished, one of the slower ones was talking about how much harder it must have been for me, since I was going faster the entire time. I pointed out it was probably a lot easier since we were having pauses every now and then and they just had to keep on going.
I think at that point they realised they should have ran up front with us.
The point is not: you should keep going and leave the slow people behind.
The point is: "It's a perfect example of something that seems to pass for empathetic wisdom, but actually holds very little true empathy: an understanding of people who actually think differently from each other."
The rest of the article is describing ways to actually think more about what is best and most empathetic to do instead of just turning your brain off with a piece of memorizable advice.
My reading of the article is that the author is spending a lot of words on saying "Look, this is why being selfish asshole is actually good! And if you don't let me be selfish, you're actually the asshole! You should award empathy to privileged people first, they deserve it more!" which is terrible message, even if the article was well written, which it isn't.
It was already disgusting message about hiking, the moment the author said "you can also apply this to poverty and obesity" he crossed the moral event horizon.
Both on hike and in society you have duty and responsibility for others - and that includes slowing down for them when necessary, both physically and metaphorically.
Your strong and emotional reaction made me read the article (thanks for that) and it makes your statement even stranger.
What is disgusting in saying that the majority/the average can exercise a moral tyranny on the individual that is above the average by virtue of its sheer number?
The author is right in saying that, by prioritizing the slowest, you penalize the fastest. This is not a moral opinion, just pure logic.
> the moment the author said "you can also apply this to poverty and obesity" he crossed the moral event horizon.
Again, you're getting outraged over what seems, to me, a very practical and healthy reasoning : "If someone is standing on a slope, you don't just offer them your hand and let them hold on indefinitely, wasting both people's energy, because you will soon both fall down. You should instead get them on solid ground instead, and get them to move better on their own. If someone wants sympathy and aid but rejects offers of working on a solution, that means they don't want to expend any effort in solving it themselves."
What did you want him to say? That your duty is to sacrifice yourself for others' well-being even if they don't do most of the work themselves?
The author is proud of not caring about anyone but himself, and he wraps that into layers of disingenuous and faulty logic to prove how that is actually good.
> What did you want him to say? That your duty is to sacrifice yourself for others' well-being even if they don't do most of the work themselves?
I don't know why you would use such loaded (and emotional) word as "sacrifice". But yes. That is how society works.
The author isn't willing to perform even basic functions of person living in society - like walking slower when hiking in a group. Is walking slower a sacrifice? Is paying taxes to fund roads a sacrifice? Is paying taxes that fund social safety net a sacrifice? Where exactly does cooperation and consensus becomes a sacrifice?
This is something thay many people from the former communist countries understand. There was a saying in Poland that went something like: „no matter if you stand up or lie down you are owed 2000PLN” that was about just that happening in the communist times.
A version of "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be mowed down".
The fact that many in the West were lucky enough not to live on other side of iron curtain is the only reason I can see for this growing push towards making people equal in every way.
If you are hiking the Appalachian Trail with a group of people, it is impossible for everyone to hike the same pace. You will always end up splitting off, either with one or two people, or by yourself. Later on you will meet up with the larger group. But besides pace, it would also drive you insane to hike for 6 months next to the same people. Different people also need food, water, and rest in different amounts. Maybe you just want to stop and smell the flowers more often.
These [among other] reasons are the inspiration for the phrase "Hike your own hike." This same principle applies at events like Burning Man, where it is expected that people will wander off and do their own thing, because the whole purpose is to practice self-reliance. Hiking is another place to practice self-reliance. Yes, you may want someone to stick around and wait for you, but don't push that expectation on them. On the other hand, if you feel unsafe and need someone to stick around, tell them that before you begin hiking, because they may rather not hike with you.
Having been the slower rider on climbs as well, I don't mind just rolling over the top and keeping on either - keep the heart rate up, and avoid cramping from stopping.
The bottom line is, etiquette should be established, not assumed or internally debated. I have groups I ride with where the rule is social time until we hit the climbs, then after that, if we regroup we regroup, if not, everyone knows how to get home. I have regroup mandatory rides where we all want to keep an eye on each other as well. All of this is established BEFORE you go, so there is no dilemma involved.
I think this analogy can apply to a lot of the other analogies.