|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 20, 2009, 4:51 AM
Post #201 of 387
(7707 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: onceahardman wrote: In reply to: Fuck you. I don't use straw man arguments ever. Oh man, thanks. That's so rich. I really DID laugh out loud, although I never type the abbreviation. Fuck off. In reply to: Here is you, from the same post: In reply to: Are you so insecure about your belaying that you have to concoct one irrelevant story after another about things that you might actually be good at? The argument is not about my insecurity, as you tried to assert in strawman fashion. You obviously do not know what a straw man argument is. In fact, I'm not even sure you know the difference between an argument and a question. In reply to: The issue is safety. My methods have proven safe, whether in sunshine, with frozen ropes, lightning, hypothermia, snow, sleet, rain, hail, at night, bit by biting ants, or with poison ivy on the belay ledge. I have never dropped anyone, in a 30 + year climbing career. Insecurity is no problem here. I know my ways work. And I'm still learning. 30 years of climbing, or 30 years since you first climbed? And the fact that you haven't dropped anyone, doesn't mean that your method has "proven safe." In reply to: As I said, prove my ways unsafe, and I'll gladly change. Well, appeals to logic, common sense, and accepted practice haven't been effective, and no reliable safety data exists; so, why don't you just shut the fuck up and keep doing what you're doing on your fabulous moderate trad lines, instead of keep lying to us about all the falls you've caught—in light of the fact that one active sport climber will catch more falls in a matter of months than you and Curt put together have in your whole careers. In reply to: I've already told you that I don't believe it is possible to consistently slide your brake hand up the rope with a firm enough grip without holding the free end of the rope with your non-brake hand. In reply to: You don't "believe"? Fine. Prove it. No matter how many times you write "prove it," the onus to "prove it" will still be on you, retard. Jay Jay, I don't know how you got so "out-to-lunch" on this topic. I have now suggested that we test the belay technique in question and see what happens. I guarantee you I will safely arrest the fall of all the sandbags using the belay technique under discussion, but I will do this anyway--just to humor you. If you feel my proposal is not sufficient, then the onus is clearly on you to suggest an experiment that would be meaningful. Absent any measurable data, your opinion (no matter how strongly stated) is simply a baseless opinion. Curt The test you describe would not be convincing, and may do more harm than good, since naive readers may not understand the limitations of the study. For one thing, you cannot possibly generate a large enough sample size. The event of dropping a climber would likely be rare under any belay technique, so you would need a huge sample size of drops to even see a single event, never mind enough to make meaningful comparisons with a control group (read on). Third, you ought to have a control group that uses an accepted belay method for comparison, because the question, really, is whether your method is at least as safe as accepted methods. Fourth, Hawthorne effect: Subjects will know they are being studied, and will almost certainly be on their best belay behavior, whereas they may not be in actual practice. Fifth, external validity: Real belaying involves taking up and letting out slack at irregular, unpredictable intervals. I don't see how you can replicate that using sandbags, and it would likely be an error to assume that the results of a sandbag study would translate to the more complex task of real-life belaying. So, not only is there no real data to back up your claims, collecting valid, convincing data may prove impracticable. Jay Well, clearly, if you can't even come up with an experiment that will prove or disprove your position, you are no longer in the realm of scientific enquiry. Perhaps your blind faith based beliefs in your opinions are greater than you care to let on? Curt
Bullshit.
I can come up with a study design; it just won't be practical to carry out. That's the way it goes. Rare events are difficult to study under the best of circumstances. That's why good epidemiologic studies often cost 10s of millions of dollars and take 10 years to complete.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 20, 2009, 4:58 AM
Post #202 of 387
(7701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: onceahardman wrote: In reply to: Fuck you. I don't use straw man arguments ever. Oh man, thanks. That's so rich. I really DID laugh out loud, although I never type the abbreviation. Fuck off. In reply to: Here is you, from the same post: In reply to: Are you so insecure about your belaying that you have to concoct one irrelevant story after another about things that you might actually be good at? The argument is not about my insecurity, as you tried to assert in strawman fashion. You obviously do not know what a straw man argument is. In fact, I'm not even sure you know the difference between an argument and a question. In reply to: The issue is safety. My methods have proven safe, whether in sunshine, with frozen ropes, lightning, hypothermia, snow, sleet, rain, hail, at night, bit by biting ants, or with poison ivy on the belay ledge. I have never dropped anyone, in a 30 + year climbing career. Insecurity is no problem here. I know my ways work. And I'm still learning. 30 years of climbing, or 30 years since you first climbed? And the fact that you haven't dropped anyone, doesn't mean that your method has "proven safe." In reply to: As I said, prove my ways unsafe, and I'll gladly change. Well, appeals to logic, common sense, and accepted practice haven't been effective, and no reliable safety data exists; so, why don't you just shut the fuck up and keep doing what you're doing on your fabulous moderate trad lines, instead of keep lying to us about all the falls you've caught—in light of the fact that one active sport climber will catch more falls in a matter of months than you and Curt put together have in your whole careers. In reply to: I've already told you that I don't believe it is possible to consistently slide your brake hand up the rope with a firm enough grip without holding the free end of the rope with your non-brake hand. In reply to: You don't "believe"? Fine. Prove it. No matter how many times you write "prove it," the onus to "prove it" will still be on you, retard. Jay Jay, I don't know how you got so "out-to-lunch" on this topic. I have now suggested that we test the belay technique in question and see what happens. I guarantee you I will safely arrest the fall of all the sandbags using the belay technique under discussion, but I will do this anyway--just to humor you. If you feel my proposal is not sufficient, then the onus is clearly on you to suggest an experiment that would be meaningful. Absent any measurable data, your opinion (no matter how strongly stated) is simply a baseless opinion. Curt The test you describe would not be convincing, and may do more harm than good, since naive readers may not understand the limitations of the study. For one thing, you cannot possibly generate a large enough sample size. The event of dropping a climber would likely be rare under any belay technique, so you would need a huge sample size of drops to even see a single event, never mind enough to make meaningful comparisons with a control group (read on). Third, you ought to have a control group that uses an accepted belay method for comparison, because the question, really, is whether your method is at least as safe as accepted methods. Fourth, Hawthorne effect: Subjects will know they are being studied, and will almost certainly be on their best belay behavior, whereas they may not be in actual practice. Fifth, external validity: Real belaying involves taking up and letting out slack at irregular, unpredictable intervals. I don't see how you can replicate that using sandbags, and it would likely be an error to assume that the results of a sandbag study would translate to the more complex task of real-life belaying. So, not only is there no real data to back up your claims, collecting valid, convincing data may prove impracticable. Jay Well, clearly, if you can't even come up with an experiment that will prove or disprove your position, you are no longer in the realm of scientific enquiry. Perhaps your blind faith based beliefs in your opinions are greater than you care to let on? Curt Bullshit. I can come up with a study design; it just won't be practical to carry out...
Then do it. I know plenty of statisticians who can vet your plan and see if what you come up with is what is truly required to settle this issue.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Mar 20, 2009, 5:06 AM
Post #203 of 387
(7694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
jt512 wrote: The test you describe would not be convincing, and may do more harm than good, since naive readers may not understand the limitations of the study. For one thing, you cannot possibly generate a large enough sample size. The event of dropping a climber would likely be rare under any belay technique, so you would need a huge sample size of drops to even see a single event, never mind enough to make meaningful comparisons with a control group (read on). Third, you ought to have a control group that uses an accepted belay method for comparison, because the question, really, is whether your method is at least as safe as accepted methods. Fourth, Hawthorne effect: Subjects will know they are being studied, and will almost certainly be on their best belay behavior, whereas they may not be in actual practice. Fifth, external validity: Real belaying involves taking up and letting out slack at irregular, unpredictable intervals. I don't see how you can replicate that using sandbags, and it would likely be an error to assume that the results of a sandbag study would translate to the more complex task of real-life belaying. So, not only is there no real data to back up your claims, collecting valid, convincing data may prove impracticable. Jay
As interesting as it would be to see this thing concluded one way or the other, your analysis makes sense.
I do think it could be revelatory to stress the belayers with blindfolds and ear plugs and by having them stand on one foot and recite a poem or verse. Isolating or occupy their senses to reduce their ability to focus. Even then though, there would be no way to prove the results reflected or exceeded real life.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 20, 2009, 5:15 AM
Post #204 of 387
(7689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: Bullshit. I can come up with a study design; it just won't be practical to carry out. That's the way it goes. Rare events are difficult to study under the best of circumstances. That's why good epidemiologic studies often cost 10s of millions of dollars and take 10 years to complete. Jay
So, are you at least conceding that the difference in belay failure rates between the way I belay and the way you belay (when isolated) would constitute a "rare event?" How "rare" do you mean? I might even agree if you think that this technique, by itself, is way, way down the Pareto chart of other things likely to cause a belay fuck-up.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 20, 2009, 5:18 AM
Post #205 of 387
(7684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: onceahardman wrote: In reply to: Fuck you. I don't use straw man arguments ever. Oh man, thanks. That's so rich. I really DID laugh out loud, although I never type the abbreviation. Fuck off. In reply to: Here is you, from the same post: In reply to: Are you so insecure about your belaying that you have to concoct one irrelevant story after another about things that you might actually be good at? The argument is not about my insecurity, as you tried to assert in strawman fashion. You obviously do not know what a straw man argument is. In fact, I'm not even sure you know the difference between an argument and a question. In reply to: The issue is safety. My methods have proven safe, whether in sunshine, with frozen ropes, lightning, hypothermia, snow, sleet, rain, hail, at night, bit by biting ants, or with poison ivy on the belay ledge. I have never dropped anyone, in a 30 + year climbing career. Insecurity is no problem here. I know my ways work. And I'm still learning. 30 years of climbing, or 30 years since you first climbed? And the fact that you haven't dropped anyone, doesn't mean that your method has "proven safe." In reply to: As I said, prove my ways unsafe, and I'll gladly change. Well, appeals to logic, common sense, and accepted practice haven't been effective, and no reliable safety data exists; so, why don't you just shut the fuck up and keep doing what you're doing on your fabulous moderate trad lines, instead of keep lying to us about all the falls you've caught—in light of the fact that one active sport climber will catch more falls in a matter of months than you and Curt put together have in your whole careers. In reply to: I've already told you that I don't believe it is possible to consistently slide your brake hand up the rope with a firm enough grip without holding the free end of the rope with your non-brake hand. In reply to: You don't "believe"? Fine. Prove it. No matter how many times you write "prove it," the onus to "prove it" will still be on you, retard. Jay Jay, I don't know how you got so "out-to-lunch" on this topic. I have now suggested that we test the belay technique in question and see what happens. I guarantee you I will safely arrest the fall of all the sandbags using the belay technique under discussion, but I will do this anyway--just to humor you. If you feel my proposal is not sufficient, then the onus is clearly on you to suggest an experiment that would be meaningful. Absent any measurable data, your opinion (no matter how strongly stated) is simply a baseless opinion. Curt The test you describe would not be convincing, and may do more harm than good, since naive readers may not understand the limitations of the study. For one thing, you cannot possibly generate a large enough sample size. The event of dropping a climber would likely be rare under any belay technique, so you would need a huge sample size of drops to even see a single event, never mind enough to make meaningful comparisons with a control group (read on). Third, you ought to have a control group that uses an accepted belay method for comparison, because the question, really, is whether your method is at least as safe as accepted methods. Fourth, Hawthorne effect: Subjects will know they are being studied, and will almost certainly be on their best belay behavior, whereas they may not be in actual practice. Fifth, external validity: Real belaying involves taking up and letting out slack at irregular, unpredictable intervals. I don't see how you can replicate that using sandbags, and it would likely be an error to assume that the results of a sandbag study would translate to the more complex task of real-life belaying. So, not only is there no real data to back up your claims, collecting valid, convincing data may prove impracticable. Jay Well, clearly, if you can't even come up with an experiment that will prove or disprove your position, you are no longer in the realm of scientific enquiry. Perhaps your blind faith based beliefs in your opinions are greater than you care to let on? Curt Bullshit. I can come up with a study design; it just won't be practical to carry out... Then do it. I know plenty of statisticians who can vet your plan and see if what you come up with is what is truly required to settle this issue. Curt
This is just off the cuff, but one approach might be to recruit a large panel of climbers (say 20,000?) who are willing to change their belay technique, and randomly assign them to one of two (or maybe three) techniques, and then thoroughly train them in their assigned technique, follow-up on them for long enough (5 years?) and compare their accident rates. Some sort of mechanism to periodically validate subjects' compliance with the belay technique would be a good idea, though probably not strictly necessary. One might be able to recruit gym owners into the study to help confirm reported accidents.
Personally, I'm not convinced that the above study would be ethical, since the BS method seems unsafe on its face, in which case, random assignment would be out the question, and instead you'd have to allow subjects to continue using their normal belay method, and adjust for confounding factors, like experience levels, in the analysis.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 20, 2009, 5:20 AM
Post #206 of 387
(7683 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
notapplicable wrote: As interesting as it would be to see this thing concluded one way or the other, your analysis makes sense.
No it doesn't. Jay is claiming that it is not practical for his opinion to be validated or proven.
notapplicable wrote: I do think it could be revelatory to stress the belayers with blindfolds and ear plugs and by having them stand on one foot and recite a poem or verse. Isolating or occupy their senses to reduce their ability to focus. Even then though, there would be no way to prove the results reflected or exceeded real life.
Sure. So long as those belayers using Jay's method (the control group) were treated similarly.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 20, 2009, 5:36 AM
Post #207 of 387
(7678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: Bullshit. I can come up with a study design; it just won't be practical to carry out. That's the way it goes. Rare events are difficult to study under the best of circumstances. That's why good epidemiologic studies often cost 10s of millions of dollars and take 10 years to complete. Jay So, are you at least conceding that the difference in belay failure rates between the way I belay and the way you belay (when isolated) would constitute a "rare event?" How "rare" do you mean? I might even agree if you think that this technique, by itself, is way, way down the Pareto chart of other things likely to cause a belay fuck-up. Curt
I'm using the word "rare" as a statistician, not as a rock climber. How rare would belay method failure have to be for the method to be acceptable? 1 in 50,000 falls? In that case, a belay method could be much worse, and the event still be rare enough to require a very large sample size to estimate. If a method had an error rate of 1 in 2000, I think we would agree that that was too high, but given that true error rate, there could easily be no observed errors at all after 6000 trials; and what if there were just 1 error, then what would that tell us? Nothing, really.
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 20, 2009, 5:41 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 20, 2009, 5:38 AM
Post #208 of 387
(7677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: As interesting as it would be to see this thing concluded one way or the other, your analysis makes sense. No it doesn't.
Yes it does, Curt. This is an epidemiologic question, and I think I know a little bit about epidemiology.
Sorry that not all problems have easy solutions.
Jay
Edit: And once again, it isn't my opinion that needs a study to validate it. I'm not the one claiming that the very method that every climber for decades has been told is unsafe is actually safe.
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 20, 2009, 5:43 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 20, 2009, 5:42 AM
Post #209 of 387
(7673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: Bullshit. I can come up with a study design; it just won't be practical to carry out. That's the way it goes. Rare events are difficult to study under the best of circumstances. That's why good epidemiologic studies often cost 10s of millions of dollars and take 10 years to complete. Jay So, are you at least conceding that the difference in belay failure rates between the way I belay and the way you belay (when isolated) would constitute a "rare event?" How "rare" do you mean? I might even agree if you think that this technique, by itself, is way, way down the Pareto chart of other things likely to cause a belay fuck-up. Curt I'm using the word "rare" as a statistician, not as a rock climber. How rare would belay method failure have to be for the method to be acceptable? 1 in 50,000 falls? In that case, a belay method could be much worse, and the event still be rare enough to require a very large sample size to estimate. If a method had an error rate of 1 in 2000, I think we would agree that that was too high, but given that true error rate, there could easily be no observed errors at all after 6000 trials; and what if there were just 1 error, then what would that tell us? Nothing, really.
You didn't answer my question.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 20, 2009, 5:45 AM
Post #210 of 387
(7698 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: Bullshit. I can come up with a study design; it just won't be practical to carry out. That's the way it goes. Rare events are difficult to study under the best of circumstances. That's why good epidemiologic studies often cost 10s of millions of dollars and take 10 years to complete. Jay So, are you at least conceding that the difference in belay failure rates between the way I belay and the way you belay (when isolated) would constitute a "rare event?" How "rare" do you mean? I might even agree if you think that this technique, by itself, is way, way down the Pareto chart of other things likely to cause a belay fuck-up. Curt I'm using the word "rare" as a statistician, not as a rock climber. How rare would belay method failure have to be for the method to be acceptable? 1 in 50,000 falls? In that case, a belay method could be much worse, and the event still be rare enough to require a very large sample size to estimate. If a method had an error rate of 1 in 2000, I think we would agree that that was too high, but given that true error rate, there could easily be no observed errors at all after 6000 trials; and what if there were just 1 error, then what would that tell us? Nothing, really. You didn't answer my question. Curt
If you mean, do I believe that the difference in error rates between the BS and accepted belay methods is small, then no, I do not believe that. I'd say I'm agnostic about it, at least for experienced climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Mar 20, 2009, 5:50 AM
Post #211 of 387
(7695 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: As interesting as it would be to see this thing concluded one way or the other, your analysis makes sense. No it doesn't. Jay is claiming that it is not practical for his opinion to be validated or proven.
I think his break down applies to all belay methods tested individually. Essentially, any method in common use has to be good enough not to result in frequently dropped climbers so the sample group would have to be large and the trials numerous to be meaningful.
Of course at this point I don't think the question is if the BS method is a death trap (clearly it's not) but rather if it's AS SAFE as the other commonly accepted methods. It needs to be tested against a method commonly accepted as safe.
curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: I do think it could be revelatory to stress the belayers with blindfolds and ear plugs and by having them stand on one foot and recite a poem or verse. Isolating or occupy their senses to reduce their ability to focus. Even then though, there would be no way to prove the results reflected or exceeded real life. Sure. So long as those belayers using Jay's method (the control group) were treated similarly. Curt
Sure, take the two methods, stress the belayers as much as possible and see if any sandbaggs get dropped.
Obviously it won't reflect real life but it doesn't have to. If you test one accepted method (P&S) and the unaccepted one (BS) under the same stress conditions then we could see if it is at least AS SAFE as a common and accepted method.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 20, 2009, 5:53 AM
Post #212 of 387
(7683 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: As interesting as it would be to see this thing concluded one way or the other, your analysis makes sense. No it doesn't. Yes it does, Curt. This is an epidemiologic question, and I think I know a little bit about epidemiology. Sorry that not all problems have easy solutions. Jay Edit: And once again, it isn't my opinion that needs a study to validate it. I'm not the one claiming that the very method that every climber for decades has been told is unsafe is actually safe.
How convenient for you. You can't prove your position is correct or that mine is wrong, but you're somehow right. That's absolutely laughable.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 20, 2009, 5:58 AM
Post #213 of 387
(7676 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: As interesting as it would be to see this thing concluded one way or the other, your analysis makes sense. No it doesn't. Yes it does, Curt. This is an epidemiologic question, and I think I know a little bit about epidemiology. Sorry that not all problems have easy solutions. Jay Edit: And once again, it isn't my opinion that needs a study to validate it. I'm not the one claiming that the very method that every climber for decades has been told is unsafe is actually safe. How convenient for you. You can't prove your position is correct or that mine is wrong, but you're somehow right. That's absolutely laughable. Curt
Curt, you're thinking about as well as Reno right now. You should be embarrassed to have written the above.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 20, 2009, 6:01 AM
Post #214 of 387
(7675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
notapplicable wrote: curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: As interesting as it would be to see this thing concluded one way or the other, your analysis makes sense. No it doesn't. Jay is claiming that it is not practical for his opinion to be validated or proven. I think his break down applies to all belay methods tested individually. Essentially, any method in common use has to be good enough not to result in frequently dropped climbers so the sample group would have to be large and the trials numerous to be meaningful. Of course at this point I don't think the question is if the BS method is a death trap (clearly it's not) but rather if it's AS SAFE as the other commonly accepted methods. It needs to be tested against a method commonly accepted as safe. curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: I do think it could be revelatory to stress the belayers with blindfolds and ear plugs and by having them stand on one foot and recite a poem or verse. Isolating or occupy their senses to reduce their ability to focus. Even then though, there would be no way to prove the results reflected or exceeded real life. Sure. So long as those belayers using Jay's method (the control group) were treated similarly. Curt Sure, take the two methods, stress the belayers as much as possible and see if any sandbaggs get dropped. Obviously it won't reflect real life but it doesn't have to. If you test one accepted method (P&S) and the unaccepted one (BS) under the same stress conditions then we could see if it is at least AS SAFE as a common and accepted method.
You'd only be proving that the methods are equally safe under artificial test conditions which might have no validity to real-life belaying. Catching sandbags is just too dissimilar to belaying climbers, and knowing that your belaying is being evaluated will change your behavior.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 20, 2009, 6:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 20, 2009, 6:06 AM
Post #215 of 387
(7666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: As interesting as it would be to see this thing concluded one way or the other, your analysis makes sense. No it doesn't. Yes it does, Curt. This is an epidemiologic question, and I think I know a little bit about epidemiology. Sorry that not all problems have easy solutions. Jay Edit: And once again, it isn't my opinion that needs a study to validate it. I'm not the one claiming that the very method that every climber for decades has been told is unsafe is actually safe. How convenient for you. You can't prove your position is correct or that mine is wrong, but you're somehow right. That's absolutely laughable. Curt Curt, you're thinking about as well as Reno right now. You should be embarrassed to have written the above. Jay
You have nothing, zero, nada to back up your opinion and I should be embarrassed? Hahahaha...
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Mar 20, 2009, 6:16 AM
Post #216 of 387
(7656 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
jt512 wrote: notapplicable wrote: curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: As interesting as it would be to see this thing concluded one way or the other, your analysis makes sense. No it doesn't. Jay is claiming that it is not practical for his opinion to be validated or proven. I think his break down applies to all belay methods tested individually. Essentially, any method in common use has to be good enough not to result in frequently dropped climbers so the sample group would have to be large and the trials numerous to be meaningful. Of course at this point I don't think the question is if the BS method is a death trap (clearly it's not) but rather if it's AS SAFE as the other commonly accepted methods. It needs to be tested against a method commonly accepted as safe. curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: I do think it could be revelatory to stress the belayers with blindfolds and ear plugs and by having them stand on one foot and recite a poem or verse. Isolating or occupy their senses to reduce their ability to focus. Even then though, there would be no way to prove the results reflected or exceeded real life. Sure. So long as those belayers using Jay's method (the control group) were treated similarly. Curt Sure, take the two methods, stress the belayers as much as possible and see if any sandbaggs get dropped. Obviously it won't reflect real life but it doesn't have to. If you test one accepted method (P&S) and the unaccepted one (BS) under the same stress conditions then we could see if it is at least AS SAFE as a common and accepted method. You'd only be proving that the methods are equally safe under artificial test conditions which might have no validity to real-life belaying. Catching sandbags is just too dissimilar to belaying climbers, and knowing that your belaying is being evaluated will change your behavior. Jay
I think it would be impossible to replicate the whole belay cycle using sand baggs and trying to have a climber repeatedly fall duing the unfrequent second or two that each method of belaying is at it's percieved weak point would be impossible. I'm picturing a very simple scenerio where the belayer maintained the belay in it's most vulnerable position and either sandbags or climber (backed up belay in this case) would take random falls.
For the BS method the belayer would have to keep their hand in constant motion up and down the rope untill the fall came. With the P&S method the belayer would do the same but with the top of the rope pinched and the hand sliding up and down with the tighter grip.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 20, 2009, 6:24 AM
Post #217 of 387
(7651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: notapplicable wrote: curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: As interesting as it would be to see this thing concluded one way or the other, your analysis makes sense. No it doesn't. Jay is claiming that it is not practical for his opinion to be validated or proven. I think his break down applies to all belay methods tested individually. Essentially, any method in common use has to be good enough not to result in frequently dropped climbers so the sample group would have to be large and the trials numerous to be meaningful. Of course at this point I don't think the question is if the BS method is a death trap (clearly it's not) but rather if it's AS SAFE as the other commonly accepted methods. It needs to be tested against a method commonly accepted as safe. curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: I do think it could be revelatory to stress the belayers with blindfolds and ear plugs and by having them stand on one foot and recite a poem or verse. Isolating or occupy their senses to reduce their ability to focus. Even then though, there would be no way to prove the results reflected or exceeded real life. Sure. So long as those belayers using Jay's method (the control group) were treated similarly. Curt Sure, take the two methods, stress the belayers as much as possible and see if any sandbaggs get dropped. Obviously it won't reflect real life but it doesn't have to. If you test one accepted method (P&S) and the unaccepted one (BS) under the same stress conditions then we could see if it is at least AS SAFE as a common and accepted method. You'd only be proving that the methods are equally safe under artificial test conditions which might have no validity to real-life belaying. Catching sandbags is just too dissimilar to belaying climbers, and knowing that your belaying is being evaluated will change your behavior. Jay
It is indeed convenient for you that the only "meaningful" experiment (according to you) to determine the efficacy of the belay technique in question is actually impossible to conduct.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Mar 20, 2009, 6:24 AM
Post #218 of 387
(7647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
If nothing else, it should demonstrate whether or not a belayer using the BS method can in fact get hold of and control the brake side of the rope before it runs out of control.
If I understand your argument correctly, that is the main point of contention. Whether or not the rope runs through the belay device and whether the belayer can catch that rope with out gloves. Even if the person knows they are being tested, it shouldn't prevent some evidence supporting or contradicting that very basic claim. No?
While it may not be an ideal level of proof, if it turns out the most basic point of contention is demonstratably false, it should go a long way towards settling this whole thing.
Oh and I'm not trying to be hard headed, I just think there has to be some way to test this thing even if it's not to recreate real life but rather to address each point of contention one at a time.
(This post was edited by notapplicable on Mar 20, 2009, 6:30 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 20, 2009, 6:29 AM
Post #219 of 387
(7641 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
notapplicable wrote: jt512 wrote: notapplicable wrote: curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: As interesting as it would be to see this thing concluded one way or the other, your analysis makes sense. No it doesn't. Jay is claiming that it is not practical for his opinion to be validated or proven. I think his break down applies to all belay methods tested individually. Essentially, any method in common use has to be good enough not to result in frequently dropped climbers so the sample group would have to be large and the trials numerous to be meaningful. Of course at this point I don't think the question is if the BS method is a death trap (clearly it's not) but rather if it's AS SAFE as the other commonly accepted methods. It needs to be tested against a method commonly accepted as safe. curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: I do think it could be revelatory to stress the belayers with blindfolds and ear plugs and by having them stand on one foot and recite a poem or verse. Isolating or occupy their senses to reduce their ability to focus. Even then though, there would be no way to prove the results reflected or exceeded real life. Sure. So long as those belayers using Jay's method (the control group) were treated similarly. Curt Sure, take the two methods, stress the belayers as much as possible and see if any sandbaggs get dropped. Obviously it won't reflect real life but it doesn't have to. If you test one accepted method (P&S) and the unaccepted one (BS) under the same stress conditions then we could see if it is at least AS SAFE as a common and accepted method. You'd only be proving that the methods are equally safe under artificial test conditions which might have no validity to real-life belaying. Catching sandbags is just too dissimilar to belaying climbers, and knowing that your belaying is being evaluated will change your behavior. Jay I think it would be impossible to replicate the whole belay cycle using sand baggs and trying to have a climber repeatedly fall duing the unfrequent second or two that each method of belaying is at it's percieved weak point would be impossible. I'm picturing a very simple scenerio where the belayer maintained the belay in it's most vulnerable position and either sandbags or climber (backed up belay in this case) would take random falls. For the BS method the belayer would have to keep their hand in constant motion up and down the rope untill the fall came. With the P&S method the belayer would do the same but with the top of the rope pinched and the hand sliding up and down with the tighter grip.
I have a saying I use with clients. They never get it, but it's too clever to stop using. ;) The saying is "You get what you pay for." What I mean by that is that whatever hypothesis your study design actually addresses is the hypothesis you'll get an answer for. The study you propose tests the hypothesis of whether there is a difference in error rates between a belayer moving his hand up and down a rope below the belay device versus moving it up and down the rope when it is in the "pinch" mode above the device in response to a sandbag being dropped at a time that is not completely known to the belayer. Therefore, that is precisely the question that your study will answer. If one method turned out to be worse than the other in that study it might be reasonable to conclude that the worse-performing method should not be used in the field, because it evidently is inferior at its purported weak point. On the other hand, if both methods performed equally well, then the study would really say nothing about how they perform in the field, because the hypothesis that the study tested has no direct relationship to belaying in the field.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 20, 2009, 6:30 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 20, 2009, 6:35 AM
Post #220 of 387
(7637 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: Bullshit. I can come up with a study design; it just won't be practical to carry out. That's the way it goes. Rare events are difficult to study under the best of circumstances. That's why good epidemiologic studies often cost 10s of millions of dollars and take 10 years to complete. Jay So, are you at least conceding that the difference in belay failure rates between the way I belay and the way you belay (when isolated) would constitute a "rare event?" How "rare" do you mean? I might even agree if you think that this technique, by itself, is way, way down the Pareto chart of other things likely to cause a belay fuck-up. Curt I'm using the word "rare" as a statistician, not as a rock climber. How rare would belay method failure have to be for the method to be acceptable? 1 in 50,000 falls? In that case, a belay method could be much worse, and the event still be rare enough to require a very large sample size to estimate. If a method had an error rate of 1 in 2000, I think we would agree that that was too high, but given that true error rate, there could easily be no observed errors at all after 6000 trials; and what if there were just 1 error, then what would that tell us? Nothing, really. You didn't answer my question. Curt If you mean, do I believe that the difference in error rates between the BS and accepted belay methods is small, then no, I do not believe that. I'd say I'm agnostic about it, at least for experienced climbers.
Can you point to at least one single incident where this specific belay technique has been the proximate cause of an accident?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 20, 2009, 6:39 AM
Post #221 of 387
(7633 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: notapplicable wrote: curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: As interesting as it would be to see this thing concluded one way or the other, your analysis makes sense. No it doesn't. Jay is claiming that it is not practical for his opinion to be validated or proven. I think his break down applies to all belay methods tested individually. Essentially, any method in common use has to be good enough not to result in frequently dropped climbers so the sample group would have to be large and the trials numerous to be meaningful. Of course at this point I don't think the question is if the BS method is a death trap (clearly it's not) but rather if it's AS SAFE as the other commonly accepted methods. It needs to be tested against a method commonly accepted as safe. curt wrote: notapplicable wrote: I do think it could be revelatory to stress the belayers with blindfolds and ear plugs and by having them stand on one foot and recite a poem or verse. Isolating or occupy their senses to reduce their ability to focus. Even then though, there would be no way to prove the results reflected or exceeded real life. Sure. So long as those belayers using Jay's method (the control group) were treated similarly. Curt Sure, take the two methods, stress the belayers as much as possible and see if any sandbaggs get dropped. Obviously it won't reflect real life but it doesn't have to. If you test one accepted method (P&S) and the unaccepted one (BS) under the same stress conditions then we could see if it is at least AS SAFE as a common and accepted method. You'd only be proving that the methods are equally safe under artificial test conditions which might have no validity to real-life belaying. Catching sandbags is just too dissimilar to belaying climbers, and knowing that your belaying is being evaluated will change your behavior. Jay It is indeed convenient for you that the only "meaningful" experiment (according to you) to determine the efficacy of the belay technique in question is actually impossible to conduct. Curt
It's not convenient, Curt. I have no vested interest in the outcome. The study is not impossible. It's just moderately tough, as epidemiologic studies go. Rare outcomes require big sample sizes. Epi studies often require hundreds of thousands of subjects, and 10 years of follow-up, and are logistically more complex than this study would be by at least an order of magnitude. I know you're way beyond rationality at this point, so I won't waste my efforts directing you to any sources that explain how to calculate sample sizes for studies of rare events, or how to conduct a follow-up stuey. You'd not doubt conclude that it had something to do with how "convenient" these facts are.
jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 20, 2009, 6:40 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 20, 2009, 6:45 AM
Post #222 of 387
(7631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: jt512 wrote: Bullshit. I can come up with a study design; it just won't be practical to carry out. That's the way it goes. Rare events are difficult to study under the best of circumstances. That's why good epidemiologic studies often cost 10s of millions of dollars and take 10 years to complete. Jay So, are you at least conceding that the difference in belay failure rates between the way I belay and the way you belay (when isolated) would constitute a "rare event?" How "rare" do you mean? I might even agree if you think that this technique, by itself, is way, way down the Pareto chart of other things likely to cause a belay fuck-up. Curt I'm using the word "rare" as a statistician, not as a rock climber. How rare would belay method failure have to be for the method to be acceptable? 1 in 50,000 falls? In that case, a belay method could be much worse, and the event still be rare enough to require a very large sample size to estimate. If a method had an error rate of 1 in 2000, I think we would agree that that was too high, but given that true error rate, there could easily be no observed errors at all after 6000 trials; and what if there were just 1 error, then what would that tell us? Nothing, really. You didn't answer my question. Curt If you mean, do I believe that the difference in error rates between the BS and accepted belay methods is small, then no, I do not believe that. I'd say I'm agnostic about it, at least for experienced climbers. Can you point to at least one single incident where this specific belay technique has been the proximate cause of an accident? Curt
No. Therefore it is safe, and cannot possibly be due to the fact that the method is rarely used, used primarily by climbers whose training predated AMGA, whose partners fall relatively infrequently; or could simply have occurred without my knowledge of it.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Mar 20, 2009, 6:48 AM
Post #223 of 387
(7630 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
jt512 wrote: I have a saying I use with clients. They never get it, but it's too clever to stop using. ;) The saying is "You get what you pay for." What I mean by that is that whatever hypothesis your study design actually addresses is the hypothesis you'll get an answer for. The study you propose tests the hypothesis of whether there is a difference in error rates between a belayer moving his hand up and down a rope below the belay device versus moving it up and down the rope when it is in the "pinch" mode above the device in response to a sandbag being dropped at a time that is not completely known to the belayer. Therefore, that is precisely the question that your study will answer. If one method turned out to be worse than the other in that study it might be reasonable to conclude that the worse-performing method should not be used in the field, because it evidently is inferior at its purported weak point. On the other hand, if both methods performed equally well, then the study would really say nothing about how they perform in the field, because the hypothesis that the study tested has no direct relationship to belaying in the field. Jay
Although I think it would be informative to a certain degree, that actually makes perfect sense. Testing for which method is better at perfoming under test conditions will only tell you just that.
Ok, I know I'm jumping back and forth but the the bulk of the BS method isn't in question, it's only whether the rope is catchable during the upstroke. I wonder if we could test just that and validate/invalidate the method by testing it's percieved primary weakness. See post above your last one.
(This post was edited by notapplicable on Mar 20, 2009, 6:51 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 20, 2009, 6:56 AM
Post #224 of 387
(7622 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
notapplicable wrote: jt512 wrote: I have a saying I use with clients. They never get it, but it's too clever to stop using. ;) The saying is "You get what you pay for." What I mean by that is that whatever hypothesis your study design actually addresses is the hypothesis you'll get an answer for. The study you propose tests the hypothesis of whether there is a difference in error rates between a belayer moving his hand up and down a rope below the belay device versus moving it up and down the rope when it is in the "pinch" mode above the device in response to a sandbag being dropped at a time that is not completely known to the belayer. Therefore, that is precisely the question that your study will answer. If one method turned out to be worse than the other in that study it might be reasonable to conclude that the worse-performing method should not be used in the field, because it evidently is inferior at its purported weak point. On the other hand, if both methods performed equally well, then the study would really say nothing about how they perform in the field, because the hypothesis that the study tested has no direct relationship to belaying in the field. Jay Although I think it would be informative to a certain degree, that actually makes perfect sense.
Thank you for your sensibility. Please help out Curt. He seems to have lost his.
I'll have to postpone responding to the rest of your post until morning.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Mar 20, 2009, 7:01 AM
Post #225 of 387
(7732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
jt512 wrote: notapplicable wrote: jt512 wrote: I have a saying I use with clients. They never get it, but it's too clever to stop using. ;) The saying is "You get what you pay for." What I mean by that is that whatever hypothesis your study design actually addresses is the hypothesis you'll get an answer for. The study you propose tests the hypothesis of whether there is a difference in error rates between a belayer moving his hand up and down a rope below the belay device versus moving it up and down the rope when it is in the "pinch" mode above the device in response to a sandbag being dropped at a time that is not completely known to the belayer. Therefore, that is precisely the question that your study will answer. If one method turned out to be worse than the other in that study it might be reasonable to conclude that the worse-performing method should not be used in the field, because it evidently is inferior at its purported weak point. On the other hand, if both methods performed equally well, then the study would really say nothing about how they perform in the field, because the hypothesis that the study tested has no direct relationship to belaying in the field. Jay Although I think it would be informative to a certain degree, that actually makes perfect sense. Thank you for your sensibility. Please help out Curt. He seems to have lost his. I'll have to postpone responding to the rest of your post until morning. Jay
Yeah, if Open Range hadn't come on I would have been asleep two hours ago. Nothing like 4 hours of sleep on a Friday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
