dryad

What I was trying to address originally had more to do with the reactions to taking risk depending on outcome. Back to the original arbitrary example, Wayne's success was greeted with lots of and , as it righfully should, but no "Dude, it's great you made it but that was a pretty dumb thing to do". People are generally encouraged to push themselves and take risks (to some extent) and they're applauded if they succeed, but they have their judgement and decision to take that risk called into question if something goes wrong.

A number of recent threads about bold climbs, and climbing accidents where those involved were being second-guessed almost instantly, inspired this series of thoughts regarding risk and injury. It seems like if you get injured, it's hard to get any kind of real sympathy. It's seen as some kind of character flaw - you didn't place good enough pro, or inadequately assessed avy conditions, or shouldn't have been on that route to begin with, or whatever. But on the other hand, if you do something risky and succeed, you get accolades. To pick an arbitrary example, if Wayne got hurt on his trip up Logan's NW Ridge, would he be lauded for a valiant effort, or be flamed for being dumb enough to want to free-solo it to begin with? I would expect more the latter than the former. Is it just that everybody loves a winner and nobody loves a loser? Now, I don't really have a point here. I'm just commenting on my perceptions of the climbing culture.

When you get beta saying bring a "small alpine rack", what exactly does that mean? Obviously it would depend on where you're going and your own personal preference, but as general guideline, what do you bring?

I can totally relate to that. Not just climbing up somewhere where there might not be pro, but also accidentally wandering into 5.10 territory when I'm only a, say, 5.7 leader. Not being sure if I'm on route really makes me nervous. That's the good thing about bolts - hard to get lost. (Standard disclaimer: But of course I'm just a newbie dork, so what do I know.)

Check this baby out On sale, double wall, 4-season, pretty light. So what if it's lopsided?

No, I feel the same way. I like placing pro where I want it. It might be a height thing. Whenever I led sport, it seemed like the bolts weren't at all conveniently located.

From the horse's mouth:

C'mon, I can't believe nobody wants this baby.

Ah, gladiator fights - something to do with all the megafauna left homeless after their habitats have been logged. Don't expect bread, though. That's a liberal thing.

Are those wrap around Roman sandals she's wearing? Weird.

Thanks for the concern, russ, I hear ya. I had a basic lesson once, did some skiing inbounds and plan on doing more before heading out on something like this. No way would I try it if it was my first ever time on teles.

Doesn't say yet on the website. Edit: I just emailed them to find out.

This is offered by North Cascades Mountain Guides Sounds pretty great. Has anybody gone through this program or can recommend another guide service to check out? (I haven't had much luck trying to teach myself from a book, plus is sounds like a fun trip.)

They always play "Show me show me show me" and often "Friday i'm in love" during the Thursday 80's nights at Neighbors. That place is so much fun and I haven't been there in ages. Time for a re-visit soon.

Mine did the same thing. It's a well-known defect that's in the new version. Just take it back to where you bought it and they'll give you a new one.

SAT is being redesigned Money quote: "In short, the dreaded SAT could actually help produce a national curriculum, a sweeping education reform enacted without the passage of a single law. "

More from the Science Daily archives... (source) Mom Was Right -- If You Don't Have Anything Nice To Say About Someone, Don't Say Anything At All: The Boomerang Effect Of Gossip Is Discovered WASHINGTON -- It appears to go against common sense -- not to mention classic psychological theory -- but researchers writing in the April edition of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology say they have identified a common, but apparently mindless, psychological phenomenon that plays a previously unrecognized role in the way people form impressions of other people. Specifically, they've found that when someone attributes positive or negative traits to someone else, the listener will often attribute those same traits to the speaker. "In other words," the authors write, "politicians who allege corruption by their opponents may themselves be perceived as dishonest, critics who praise artists may themselves be perceived as talented, and gossips who describe others' infidelities may themselves be viewed as immoral." In a recent communication, the authors suggest that this phenomenon could play a role in the public's reaction reaction to participants in the recent White House scandal. "For example," they note, "when Kenneth Starr accuses Bill Clinton of perjury, Starr himself may be seen as more deceitful. Similarly, when Linda Tripp claims that Monica Lewinsky had sex with the President, Tripp herself may be seen as more promiscuous. The gist of our research is that when you gossip, you become associated with the characteristics you describe, ultimately leading those characteristics to be 'transferred' to you." The researchers conducted a series of four studies on the phenomenon they call spontaneous trait transference. Three of the four studies involved participants looking at photographs accompanied by brief statements. In the first study, the statements were ostensibly about someone the person in the photograph knew. In the second, the statements were either about the person in the photograph or about someone else. In the third study, participants were clearly told that the photographs and the statements had nothing to do with each other; they had been paired at random. In the final study, participants watched videotapes of actors answering off-screen questions about themselves or about someone they knew. Some of the statements accompanying the photographs (or made on the videotape) were designed to elicit a positive or negative trait. For example "cruel" was implied by the statement "He hates animals. Today he was walking to the store and he saw this puppy. So he kicked it out of his way." But consistently through the studies, participants attributed the elicited trait to the speakers, even though these speakers described someone other than themselves. This occurred even when participants were specifically told that there was no connection between the speakers and the statements, suggesting, the authors say, that this phenomenon is irrational and largely outside of conscious awareness. Article: "Spontaneous Trait Transference: Communicators Take on the Qualities They Describe in Others" by John J. Skowronski, Ph.D., The Ohio State University at Newark; Donal E. Carlston, Ph.D., and Lynda Mae, M.A., Purdue University and Matthew T. Crawford, Indiana University Bloomington in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 4. This story has been adapted from a news release issued by American Psychological Association.

The recent thread about the psychotic artist's cats reminded me of this. BTW, I gotta say that I'm really impressed that a discussion of Pam Anderson's boobs drifted to one about a psychotic's art, and not vice-versa. (source) Biological Basis For Creativity Linked To Mental Illness Psychologists from the University of Toronto and Harvard University have identified one of the biological bases of creativity. The study in the September issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology says the brains of creative people appear to be more open to incoming stimuli from the surrounding environment. Other people's brains might shut out this same information through a process called "latent inhibition" - defined as an animal's unconscious capacity to ignore stimuli that experience has shown are irrelevant to its needs. Through psychological testing, the researchers showed that creative individuals are much more likely to have low levels of latent inhibition. "This means that creative individuals remain in contact with the extra information constantly streaming in from the environment," says co-author and U of T psychology professor Jordan Peterson. "The normal person classifies an object, and then forgets about it, even though that object is much more complex and interesting than he or she thinks. The creative person, by contrast, is always open to new possibilities." Previously, scientists have associated failure to screen out stimuli with psychosis. However, Peterson and his co-researchers - lead author and psychology lecturer Shelley Carson of Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Harvard PhD candidate Daniel Higgins - hypothesized that it might also contribute to original thinking, especially when combined with high IQ. They administered tests of latent inhibition to Harvard undergraduates. Those classified as eminent creative achievers - participants under age 21 who reported unusually high scores in a single area of creative achievement - were seven times more likely to have low latent inhibition scores. The authors hypothesize that latent inhibition may be positive when combined with high intelligence and good working memory - the capacity to think about many things at once - but negative otherwise. Peterson states: "If you are open to new information, new ideas, you better be able to intelligently and carefully edit and choose. If you have 50 ideas, only two or three are likely to be good. You have to be able to discriminate or you'll get swamped." "Scientists have wondered for a long time why madness and creativity seem linked," says Carson. "It appears likely that low levels of latent inhibition and exceptional flexibility in thought might predispose to mental illness under some conditions and to creative accomplishment under others." For example, during the early stages of diseases such as schizophrenia, which are often accompanied by feelings of deep insight, mystical knowledge and religious experience, chemical changes take place in which latent inhibition disappears. "We are very excited by the results of these studies," says Peterson. "It appears that we have not only identified one of the biological bases of creativity but have moved towards cracking an age-old mystery: the relationship between genius, madness and the doors of perception." This research was funded by the Stimson Fund and the Clark Fund at Harvard University and by the Connaught Fund at U of T.

Well, it rains a lot in Ireland. Leprechauns well may have perfected the optimal clothing system for that climate.

I think the cats from the "normal" period are scarier. Yikes!

Eureka Zeus 2 Exo Tent Does anybody have one of these? It looks sort of like a poor man's Bibler.

only 1 big objective: to learn to tele well enough to not throughly humiliate myself.

HR, I gotta say that bringing up Hitler to further your argument is sinking really low.

I'd like to thank everybody I climbed with this year for their infinite patience and encouragement, and for ropegunning me up lots of cool routes. Thanks guys!!! (y'all know who you are)

Yeah, it means that he wore long gloves.