|
|
|
|
ajkclay
Nov 14, 2002, 3:59 AM
Post #26 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2002
Posts: 1567
|
Dashingleech, listen up, you have made far too many assumptions, and backed them up with no sound arguments.
1. You assume that there is no safety system in soloing, and therefore any system, even a dangerous one, is better than this. This assumption is wrong. The safety system in soloing is the use of the brain. A solo climber knows the limits of what he/she is capable of, and is constantly assessing the situation. If there is a chance of dropping even a hint, then the soloist will back off. A solo climber relies on absolutely nothing other than his/her own skills. A TR solo climber has, by using a system of protection, relinquished some of the responsibility of his/her safety to the system to which they are attached. This is still a decision that has been made by the climber with a knowledge of the limits of his/her skills. By using a system, the climber acknowledges that there is a real possibility of falling. Now, let’s think about this for a moment. If a climber is using a system that they have acknowledged they may need to save their lives, then they trust it. If they did not trust it, they would not use it. If they trust it, they are likely to rely on it. If they rely on it, and as in socal’s case, it is not safe, (which has been proven, see the reply from Petzl on the matter), they have a very good chance of dying , and being pretty surprised about it as they drop.
2. Socal was not aware that his system is unsafe, when we posted, so you are condemning us for comments that actually may have SAVED HIS GODDAMNED LIFE. He has edited his original post, which was initially recommending to others that his system was a safe method for TR solo, which it is not. If this had been allowed to go unchecked, someone who did not know any better might have used the system he described thinking it was safe, and died as a result.
3. Quote: “Nobody said "Only use that system on easy climbs below your skill level, ones that you would free solo." He was told to never use it, and always use a backup.” Hello, are you paying attention that’s because it is NOT SAFE TO USE – EVER – FOR TR SOLO.
4. Quote: “there is no line of reasoning in existence that could argue his system is less safe than free soloing.” Wrong! You make too many assumptions kiddo. You have only been climbing outdoors for 3 months tops! How would a newbie know anything about the intricacies and differences between climbing solo and TR solo? Go out, learn about fear, and real decision making when your life really depends on it on a cliff-face, and then maybe someone will listen.
5. Have you ever actually started up a route solo, got to a point where you thought it was not safe to continue, down climbed, then attempted the same route on TR Solo, only to fall off at the crux? NO so SHUT UP AND DON’T PRESUME TO TELL ME WHAT IS AND ISN’T SAFE NEWBIE!
6. Soloing requires a good brain, and reasoning skills, which probably explains why you admit it’s too dangerous for you.
|
|
|
|
|
olebetsy
Nov 14, 2002, 4:12 AM
Post #27 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2002
Posts: 25
|
You know what? My 21 year old son has told me about his soloing in Joshua. I don't want to have to go down there to pick up his body. I think it is nuts. And Warren Harding, one of the craziest old climbers there EVER was, said to a friend of mine that soloing simply wasn't worth the risk. When and if any of you wild young things are ever parents, you won't want your babies to grow up and solo...
|
|
|
|
|
ajkclay
Nov 14, 2002, 4:24 AM
Post #28 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2002
Posts: 1567
|
Betsy, I'm 32, have two boys who love to climb, and I teach them to always use their brains. More people die on the roads than soloing so where do you draw the line? Teach them responsibility. Try to limit them, and they'll find it more attractive, and do it without your knowledge, which is more dangerous.
I do not tell my kids to solo, nor do I do it in front of them, but when they are adults, and able to make their own minds up, it will be their own decision. They, like I, will weigh up the risks and benefits, and decide accordingly whether to solo, and if they decide to do it, what to solo.
If they ask me about soloing, I will discuss the pros and cons with them. To stick my head in the sand and tell them it's too dangerous just runs the risk of them doing it in an uniformed way.
|
|
|
|
|
texastechclimber
Nov 14, 2002, 10:04 PM
Post #29 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 83
|
ajkclay, you and I see eye to eye on many issues. Thanks for the well put response to dashingleeches arguement.
|
|
|
|
|
bwnco
Nov 14, 2002, 10:37 PM
Post #30 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 59
|
Been climbing a realative short time. The thought of soloing made me puke yet I couldnt but it out of my mind. Knowing that if you did a route several times safely roped up, it should be nothing but a mental thing to do it solo. So I had to do it, was just a 5.7 but the focus you have and clarity while doing it was worth it. Total focus, and challenging to relax and climb, great challenge for the mind but still makes me throw up when I think about it. But it is a wierd kind of satisfaction. I havent even told anyone about it, thats kind of the wierd thing, totally self serving in some way... bwnco
|
|
|
|
|
climbincajun
Nov 14, 2002, 11:25 PM
Post #31 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
i do solo, but only when im 'feeling it', and then only well below my ability. i have led up to 5.11 sport and 5.9 trad comfortably, but never soloed harder than ~5.7
edit: I have also never soloed when there were spectators about. IMHO, if you have that urge, you are soloing for a STUPID reason. Soloing 'solo' keeps your motivations true.
[ This Message was edited by: climbincajun on 2002-11-14 15:38 ]
|
|
|
|
|
mtngypsy
Nov 14, 2002, 11:39 PM
Post #32 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2002
Posts: 73
|
Going ropeless is the ultimate, everyone should try it from time to time. It is what climbing is and has been since its beginnings.
Learn, plan, calculate and practice, like every other climbing skill it needs to be developed and used properly. When done well the felling is the total flow sensation. Dangerous, definitely but then the world is a dangerous place and no gets out alive. Driving home in rush hour now that’s true danger.
In the mountains everyone solo’s. Big climbs and big peaks mean either going ropeless at points or spending the night, or another night or another week... A ridge like the NW Arete of Sir Donald made famous by Ropers Fifty Classic Climbs is a 2000 ft 5.1 ropeless climb. First ascent done in 1903 probably done mostly ropeless, almost all climbers that summit these days leave the rope in their pack to use for raps and emergencies.
Climbing for me is about freedom, movement, adventure and exploring. When my skills and muscles are honed, and my mind is clear and focused a day of free soloing, be it mountains or crags is a glorious day indeed. Moving freely in the mountains, without all the fancy junk, left only with your skills and ambitions is to truly be a climber.
[ This Message was edited by: mtngypsy on 2002-11-14 15:56 ]
|
|
|
|
|
ajkclay
Nov 15, 2002, 12:37 AM
Post #33 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2002
Posts: 1567
|
Roland, climb on Brother.
Hey, I live in Adelaide, South Australia, which is a 'Sister City' to Austin, Texas.
Cool huh?
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
dashingleech
Nov 15, 2002, 4:57 AM
Post #34 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 25
|
ajkclay,
Clearly you did not read my post very well. I already refuted the points you tried to make in your response, but I'll followup here anyway with a point-to-point:
1. You state "The safety system in soloing is the use of the brain." First, this is not a safety system in any sense of the word. Second, this is the exact type of attitude that Socal and Joe Ivy had. You believe that your brain is sufficient safety. That is clearly igornant of reality of the situation. At best, the skill (and brain) of a climber will reduce or eliminate climbing mistakes, but that's it. No climber, no matter how good, can control all of the conditions of a climb. The attitude that one can control it all is both arrogant and ignorant. Even this was clearly pointed out in the Joe Ivy story, a point which you have obviously ignored.
Furthermore, as was pointed out in the tibloc discussions, backups are essential. Where is the backup in a free solo? As you said yourself, "A solo climber relies on absolutely nothing other than his/her own skills." The believe that your skills are sufficient safety is exactly equivalent to Socal's believe that his system was sufficiently safe. Just like him, you'd probably be fine most of the time, but it would only take one small thing beyond your control to change that.
Oddly, to suggest why Socal's system is more dangerous because "By using a system, the climber acknowledges that there is a real possibility of falling." This is the exact point, that in free-soloing, you do not. That is not because there isn't the possibility, it's because you refuse to recognize the reality of the situation.
Then you go on to say that the problem with socal's system is that they trust it, stating "If they rely on it, and as in socal’s case, it is not safe, they have a very good chance of dying." What you fail to realize is that this is exactly what you are doing. You are putting trust in a system that is insufficiently safe for the situation.
Yes, socal's system is unsafe. I wholeheartedly agree. But why? Clearly it works much, if not most, of the time. The answer is that under certain conditions beyond the climber's control, it will fail catastrophically and there can be no backup to help. This is also true of free-soloing.
2. You claim that I am "condemning [you] for comments that actually may have SAVED HIS GODDAMNED LIFE" because he didn't realize it was unsafe at first. If you read my post, I said he is aware of it now. So if he decides to use it now, knowing full well the potential consequences and adjusts his focus accordingly, would you still condemn him?
3. Let's take it one step further. Suppose he decided to do a free climb, which you claim is sufficiently safe (assuming he did it "properly" below his skill level, yada, yada). Then he decided to use his system as a backup just in case, again knowing full well it isn't a safe system. Would you then still say it was less safe then free-soloing without any backup? It appears you would because you then say "Hello, are you paying attention that’s because it is NOT SAFE TO USE – EVER – FOR TR SOLO". In other words, you are saying a free solo is safer than a free-solo with some sort of (admittedly less than perfect) backup. That is, in itself, a demonstration of the lack of ability to reason.
(Note here that I am not suggesting anyone should ever use his system. There are certainly better systems. What I'm pointing out is that as flawed as it is, it can certainly be safer than your proposed system.)
4. You then try to pick on my lack of outdoor experience as if it is relevant. That's an old debator's trick that typically shows a lack of ability to reason. A line of reason stands on it's own, no matter who it is made by.
I also don't have a ton of experience putting a bullet in a revolver, giving it a spin, then pointing it at my head and pulling the trigger. However, one doesn't need that experience to know that it's dumb. Incidently, that only has about a 1/6 chance of killing you, but would it be any less dumb if there were 100 cylinders?
Furthermore, this attitude of "my skill is sufficient safety" is not unique to free-soloing or climbing. It's evident throughout many fields, and is viewed as very dumb in most of them and people have wised up. Not so in climbing.
5. Once again you try to suggest that skill and "feeling" is sufficient safety, and then again try to suggest that I am insufficiently qualified to determine what is safe. Safety is not an experience issue. Experience provides skill. Safety is independent of experience. It includes both things you can and cannot control. Besides, safety is an issue of the ability to reason, which ironically I clearly seem to have more experience than you.
6. As a final attempt at insult, you state "Soloing requires a good brain, and reasoning skills, which probably explains why you admit it’s too dangerous for you."
I'm not sure why you think insults make a replacement for reasoning, but it ironically shows your lack of an ability to reason. As for me, I have a PhD (in mechanical engineering at that) and have been a student of philosophy and debating for about 15 years or so. You picked the wrong guy to suggest I don't have a brain or reasoning ability.
You did get one thing right, I do admit that free-soloing is to dangerous for me. Not because I don't believe I could do it, but because it is inherently dumb to believe that ones brains and skills are sufficient safety.
I'll wish you good luck on your climbing, mostly because you rely on it more than you are willing to admit.
|
|
|
|
|
flamer
Nov 15, 2002, 5:15 AM
Post #35 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
Oh Mr. Leech! You don't get it do you?
Simply stated, (not a novel-hint) Free soloing is not safe and by recognizing this fact, a free soloist can be as safe as possible. There are no delusions that a faulty toprope system will save you, if you fall. You just can't fall!
One more thing- All the knowledge in the world will not make up for lack of experience. A Phd will not make you a better rockclimber. And The people on this site really don't care!
Don't Fall!
[ This Message was edited by: flamer on 2002-11-14 21:41 ]
|
|
|
|
|
galt
Nov 15, 2002, 7:50 AM
Post #36 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 3, 2002
Posts: 267
|
DASH,
I say let SoCal do what he wants, but in his ORIGINAL message he was telling others that his method was safe. I don't think anyone here would say Soloing is safe (no matter how good they are), but no one here is telling people to go do it. If SoCal wants to go climb with a Tibloc then by all means do it, but DON'T TELL SOMEONE ELSE TO DO IT TOO! If these guys want to solo then by all means do it, but again DON'T TELL SOMEONE ELSE TO DO IT TOO!
As for my soloing I've only hit up local campus buildings. By the way climbing down is MUCH harder then going up
Climb on and be SAFE
By the way DASH I think I once read about someone who was a Mechanical Engineer and a student of Philosophy...
[ This Message was edited by: galt on 2002-11-15 00:00 ]
|
|
|
|
|
hallm
Nov 15, 2002, 7:55 AM
Post #37 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 170
|
I think the answer to this discussion on safety is this: neither free-soloing or using a death-system for roped soloing is very safe, if you fall. However, no one is trying to assert that free soloing is safe if you fall.
A soloist knows a fall likely means death (or at least severe bodily injury), but does it because he or she believes they can climb the route without falling. A person using a death-system believes that a fall will be caught.
Both will be equally dead or maimed, but at least the soloist won't be surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
crackflack
Nov 15, 2002, 1:34 PM
Post #38 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2002
Posts: 3
|
I know you see incredible climbers like Dean Potter doing it but seriously, take it easy, it's not as easy as it looks. To free solo you must have your technique perfect and you have to be able to hold the highest level of concentration throughout the whole climb. I love to free solo, it's the purest form of climbing. I'm not going to advise other people to do it just for fun. So be careful, thats all I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Nov 15, 2002, 2:13 PM
Post #39 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
I did my first free solo this past weekend. It was nothing big, just an easy 5.6, I didn't even plan on it I was just messing around the base of a crag and saw this awesome looking climb, it just looked so fun so I just hopped on it and before I knew it I was on top (it was only like 30 ft). I didn't think about anything while climbing other then how cool it was, pure fun.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
hawthorne5630
Nov 15, 2002, 2:59 PM
Post #40 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 15
|
Anybody know of any solo first ascentionists? I know SG did many and some in the .10 range. Talk about unsure outcome. By the way, he is still alive. He must have been pretty sure of his ability.
|
|
|
|
|
flamer
Nov 15, 2002, 4:18 PM
Post #41 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
Jim Erickson(or was it Pat Ament?) did several first ascents free solo. Including Blind faith in Eldo. Blind faith had 1 pitch of 5.10a and one of 5.9+(2 pitchs total). Erickson did the FIRST ASCENT ONSIGHT FREE SOLO!! A true master.
Derek Hersey-R.I.P
[ This Message was edited by: flamer on 2002-11-15 08:19 ]
|
|
|
|
|
mtngypsy
Nov 15, 2002, 5:38 PM
Post #42 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2002
Posts: 73
|
Dash:
I am not sure what you are on about. If you understood climbing you would know that someone teaching faulty systems is about as dangerous as it gets.
I don’t care what level you climb at if your are free soloing you absolutely know your putting your life on the line. A newbie working a solo TR system that they don’t know is faulty is in big trouble. Think of an over eager 17 year old with no mechanical aptitude running out to the crags alone with a bunch of brand new gear. I’ve seen it and the results aren't pretty.
Brains and skill are the essence of free soloing. Without a rope the skills of assessment and judgment are worked to the core. In every style of climbing these are the two most important skills you can have, assessment and judgment.
My risk tolerance is very different than yours and yes one day I could make the wrong decision and plummet to my death, I accept that. This is not golf. Our 17 year old newbie may not have accepted that, he may be over confident in the abilities of a bunch of hardware and systems he learned about on the internet. If the same newbie tried going ropeless at least the risk would be very obvious to him.
Articles on this site about systems should be and need to be hammered with criticism as soon as they are posted. Only in this way will new climbers understand that everything they read here is suspect even the ramblings of this crusty old bastard.
|
|
|
|
|
climbincajun
Nov 15, 2002, 6:02 PM
Post #43 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
its great that people have such strong feelings about if/when/why/how/why not to free solo.
unfortunately, thats not even what this thread was about. there are certainly many other threads on that topic however.
thus, i refer you all to the original post:
DO YOU SOLO, AND AT WHAT GRADE?
not:
TELL ME WHY I SHOULDNT SOLO OR BELIEVE EVERYTHING I READ ON RC.COM...
|
|
|
|
|
mtngypsy
Nov 15, 2002, 6:46 PM
Post #44 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2002
Posts: 73
|
Watchout the thread police are out, don't get of topic or you'll be in trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
jgill
Nov 16, 2002, 12:29 AM
Post #45 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2002
Posts: 653
|
Josh,
Are you sure you're not talking about Cassandra, near Golden? Jim soloed that in 1973 and called it "the spiritual high point of his climbing career". I assume it was a FA, at 5.10+. He was convinced his hands would not slip out of the hand crack. They did exactly that a few years later on a moderate crack on the fourth flatiron - he survived broken legs, a broken arm, and a concussion.
This is a story worth remembering. . .
|
|
|
|
|
jgill
Nov 16, 2002, 12:32 AM
Post #46 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2002
Posts: 653
|
Pat Ament very rarely if ever free soloed. He considered himself a master of safe climbing and was a wizard at rigging protection. He even wrote a book about the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
ajkclay
Nov 16, 2002, 3:35 AM
Post #47 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2002
Posts: 1567
|
Okay dashingleech (Chad), if you want to go point for point, let's go.
1. Quote: “Socaliforniaclimber is now well aware his system is unsafe, making it an equal comparison.” You make assertions that are purely fictional. Your statement is completely baseless. Quote: “because he didn't realize it was unsafe at first. If you read my post, I said he is aware of it now” Yes, you did, but Socal didn’t. You are making it up to suit yourself. This is Socal’s last post on the subject: “AND STILL NO EVIDENCE AT ALL OF INJURIES REUSLTING FROM TOOTHED ASCENDERS. ONLY THEORETICAL CRITICS. IT WAS A SIMPLE EXERSIZE THAT SEEMS TO DISPROVE MANY THEORIES THAT TIBLOC CAUSE DEATH AND INJURY. TO WHO??? I WOULD HONESTLY LIKE TO KNOW, FOR MY SAFETY, FOR EVERYONES SAFETY. BUT IM NOT GOING TO TAKE ANYONE WORD FOR IT...JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY SO.
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?” Sorry Chad, but I see no evidence of Socal admitting his system is unsafe, in fact, he still defends it’s use. As your argument is based upon a false statement, all of your assertions based upon this statement are invalid. End of story. You say you know how to debate, you should then know how it goes. You can’t just make things up my friend.
2. Quote: “there is no line of reasoning in existence that could argue his system is less safe than free soloing.” For someone who claims to be a student of the art of debating, you seem pretty sure of yourself. I sure wouldn’t want you on my team. You are using a black and white argument, Chad is right and there is no room for debate, Adam may as well give up. Faulty logic sunshine. Back it up with evidence, or leave it out.
3. Quote: “I already refuted the points you tried to make in your response” Refute: prove falsity or error of statement. Okay, when did this happen? What evidence did you present? I don’t seem to recall anything other than arguments based upon false statements.
4. Quote: “First, this [the] is not a safety system in any sense of the word. …You believe that your brain is sufficient safety. That is clearly igornant (sic) of (sic) reality of the situation” The chances of you having any experience in the use of ascenders, in particular the Petzl Tibloc and Basic, for the purpose of self-belay are fairly slim, however you assert with an air of authority “Socal’s system is unsafe. I wholeheartedly agree.” How did you come to this conclusion? One could reasonably argue that you are acknowledging the greater depth of experience and knowledge in the field of rock climbing by those whom you now criticise, and profess to know more than when it comes to the subject of free soloing, even though you have never done it (and from an ignorance of the definition of free soloing, mistakenly define Socal’s top rope soloing as “free-solo with some sort of (admittedly less than perfect) backup,” when anyone who knows ANYTHING about even the basics of free soloing knows that this, by definition cannot be free soloing). I however, in the light of your PhD in Mechanical Engineering am willing to grant you the courtesy of acknowledging your prior level of expertise when it comes to mechanical systems, and admit that you are probably qualified to make this judgement. I ask of you in return the same courtesy in one of my fields of expertise: Psychology (Masters Degree).
WHOOPS! Chad sits back, and slowly realises that he has tried to tell a Psychologist that he is ignorant of the capabilities of the brain, and how the behaviour of humans will adjust to suit the environment, as they perceive it. As a Mechanical Engineer, it is not unusual that you are prepared to state that unless a system is mechanical, and physically measurable using load tests etc. that it cannot be safe. I, however, as a Psychologist will contend that the brain is the most advanced tool that we, as humans possess, and therefore is the most important safety tool that we can take with us when climbing. You contend that the brain is no safety system at all, and I contend that Socal’s system is no safety system. So let’s take a look at the two in a realistic type of comparison.
In your preferred option, we will remove what you claim to be the inadequate safety system, the brain, and in my preferred option, we will remove what I claim to be the inadequate safety system, Mike’s Tibloc system for top rope soloing.
Let’s call your model person 1, and mine, person 2.
Person 1 has all of the gear that Mike suggested. Let’s be generous, and give him every piece of climbing gear ever invented. Person 1 does not have the cognitive development of a two year old. Person 1 does not have the cognitive ability to recognise the proximity of danger. Person 1 does not have the ability to use any of the equipment he has been given.
Person 2 is of average I.Q. Person 2 does not have any of the climbing equipment that person has. We won’t even give him chalk and climbing shoes to make it even fairer.
Person 1 and person 2 are on a ledge 10 metres from the ground. The ledge is 10 metres below the top of the cliff. The climb up is easy. The climb down is easy.
Person 1, not realising that he is any danger wanders around for a while, and ends up falling off the edge of the cliff, and dies. Poor person 1.
Person 2 realises that to fall would be catastrophic, and so, after investigating all of the available options, decides upon the safest route to escape the situation, and uses it. (Whether he climbs up or down is up to him, depending on his analysis of the situation.)
'But that’s not fair; your person had a fully functional brain' you say? I thought you said it wasn’t part of the safety system though.
Okay, let’s try it again, this time; let’s give your guy a brain too. But this time he’s only got Socal’s system.
This time they are going to start at the bottom of a cliff. They are both on an easy climb.
Person 1 has Socal’s system. He has been told it is safe to use (as Socal asserts), and that he will not fall under any circumstances.
Person 2 has nothing more than he had last time.
They both start climbing, and person 1 is going well. His system is safe, so he can afford to climb reasonably quickly, sometimes with only two points of contact with the rock.
Person 2 is climbing slowly. He realises that to make one mistake will be very serious. He makes sure that he has three points of contact at all times.
Now, heh heh, let’s make them slip…just one foot.
Person 1 comes off the rock, and his heart rate increases a little, but the system catches him, and he realises he is safe. HIS FAITH IN THE SYSTEM IS REINFORCED. He begins to climb faster now; he knows that there is no way he will fall, so he can afford to take risks.
Person 2 really got a scare, but he had another three points of contact, so he was okay. His heart rate takes a bit longer to go down, but he decides that he can continue, so he does. (Keep in mind that he can opt to down-climb at any time if he perceives too great a risk) Person 2 has an even greater sense of potential for danger now, and has become even more careful. He now double-checks every move before continuing.
Let’s make them slip again, two feet off this time.
Whoa! Person 1 came off again, but lucky he’s got the Socal fail proof system! It caught him again. He returns to climbing even sooner this time, because his faith in the system is now complete. He’s really punching out the moves, Sharma, step aside.
Person 2 has had enough! The risk of slipping again is too great, so he has decided to climb back down. Every move is deliberate, and he does not remove his hands or feet until he is sure that he has three solid points of contact. It takes him a while, but he eventually makes it back down.
That just leaves us with person 1. He’s happy as a pig in poo. Whoops, another slip, but that’s okay, the system caught him again, and he’s nearly at the top. Just as he gets to the top, another slip, and….how many is that now? Four?
Quote: “ a safety system that may (emphasis mine)work ~75% of the time” D’oh! That means that it is likely to fail one in every four times doesn’t it? You’re the number cruncher Chad, I could be wrong, just check for me will you?
Poor old number 1. His system just failed him. He too has gone to the bottom of the cliff. Just as his ascent was faster than person 2’s, so was his descent. He has made a rather big mess hasn’t he? Look at the surprised expression on his lifeless face. It seems that he was not expecting to fall. He must have abdicated some of the responsibility for his safety to a system that was not safe. How could that have ever happened?
Well, there you go. As you are a Mechanical Engineer, and I am just a lowly Psychologist, I am keen to hear how you “refute” my prediction of human behaviour in the situation described. Evidence this time please.
5. Quote: “you are saying a free solo is safer than a free-solo with some sort of (admittedly less than perfect) backup. That is, in itself, a demonstration of the lack of ability to reason.” Yes Chad that is exactly what I am saying for the reasons postulated in the story of person 1. If you want to go ahead and debate the issue of reinforcement, I’m willing to take you on.
6. Quote: “I am not suggesting anyone should ever use his system” yes, you are. You are saying that the use of this system is preferable to free soloing. Well, is it? Think about the above scenario. Or are you arguing along the lines of it’s better to be killed by a bullet than by decapitation? Semantics.
7. You certainly picked my Ad Hominem argument. I bet you were proud of that. The problem is, that you did not pick the reason for its use. Ever played chess? The point of that attack was to goad you into tipping your hand, which you did. In your rush to prove your level of intelligence, you have also exposed your hand. Do you have any cards left up your sleeve? I do. All you know of me is that I am a psychologist. There’s still more to come sunshine, but you will just have to wait and see. One of the fundamental rules of debating; never let the opposition know just how smart you really are. So, now you find yourself in a position, don’t you? Do you reveal more about yourself, in an attempt to prove that there’s still more to Chad, do you allude to more, or do you say nothing, and suggest to everyone that that’s all there is? Tricky.
8. Quote: “Safety is not an experience issue. Experience provides skill. Safety is independent of experience” ergo safety is independent of skill. Right? Try telling that to a driving instructor. An inexperienced driver therefore, is just as safe as an experienced driver, because they have all of the same safety features at their disposal. Or, to put it into a climbing context, I should trust a piece of protection placed on a climb by a first time climber, because his/her experience in placing protection has no bearing on the safety of the placement.
9. Funny how the majority of posts seem to be criticising your posts, yet you still persevere with your claims. Now, where have I seen that before?
P.S. For someone with a Phd, your posts contain a lot of grammatical and spelling errors.
Your turn
edit: darn smilies not behaving
[ This Message was edited by: ajkclay on 2002-11-15 19:38 ]
|
|
|
|
|
mtngypsy
Nov 16, 2002, 4:32 AM
Post #48 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2002
Posts: 73
|
ajkclay:
You took the words right out of my mouth (only a community college education for me), in fact you used up so many words I don't know if there is enough words left for Dash to reply?
oh, when I solo I kinda of ignore the grades, they only tell me how hard someone else thinks it will be for me
[ This Message was edited by: mtngypsy on 2002-11-15 20:44 ]
|
|
|
|
|
poorclimberboy
Nov 16, 2002, 4:36 AM
Post #49 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2001
Posts: 37
|
ok my short answer would be get your head in it... try smaller problems that are below your skill level and if you like the added fear factor then try something bigger...I wouldn't suggest free soloing s route you've never climbed before (as I did it was only about 40ft high but near the top it got pretty dirty and sketchy footings that scared the heck outta me) just make sure that at all times you know you can downclimb if things get rough up there and make sure you're having fun! oh yea and I free solo at hmm around 5.5 depends on the day though sometimes I'm more focused than others
[ This Message was edited by: poorclimberboy on 2002-11-15 20:38 ]
|
|
|
|
|
olebetsy
Nov 16, 2002, 4:55 AM
Post #50 of 73
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2002
Posts: 25
|
Fine, take your risks soloing, but what I'm worrying about is a kid who claims it's great soloing when he's " toasted. " It seems to me doing anything intensely physical straight is hard enough - and I have been a bike racer, I run, lift weights, hike, climb - without being stoned or drunk or high on whatever. Throw substance use into the mix, and you may as well be playing Russian roulette. Young guys don't seem to believe that they can die. Talk me out of that, folks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
