sobo Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Whew! Good to know that I'm not dysfunctional anymore. Thanks for the article, CP! Quote
jefffski Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 i love this quote "Maddi suggests that well-adjusted people are "good at turning everyday experience into something interesting. My guess is that the safecracker or the mountain climber can't do that as well. They have to do something exciting to get a sense of vitality. It's the only way they have of getting away from the sense that life sucks." Larsen is even blunter: "I think risk takers are a little sociopathic."" overall a good read Quote
Suz Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Interesting article - who's been reading back issues of Psychology Today? I like that they characterize "us" alternately as abnormal, self-realizing, sociopathic, and the "spirit of America". Wonder if any of "them" have ever tried climbing... Quote
chelle Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 IMO Psychology Today is just pop psychology. Don't take it seriously. It was not well thought of by my psych profs when I was in school. Quote
iain Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 I was hoping this would be the long-awaited thread discussing board game strategy. Quote
jefffski Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 perhaps it is pop psychology but there is at least some truth, based on empirical research, to what they reported re the risk gene, dopamine etc. it's still all theory but it does shed some light. Quote
Jake Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 I dunno about that stuff about climbers being similar to crazy sex fiend psycho drug crazy dudes. I do know some climbers like that, but I also know climbers who are more into math and physics. Quote
catbirdseat Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 If you single out individual quotes, you may think that the article is biased, but I'd say it is pretty well balanced as a whole. I thought it was an enjoyable read. Quote
Norman_Clyde Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Quote: Salvadore Maddi, Ph.D., of the University of California-Davis warns, high-risk takers may "have a hard time deriving meaning and purpose from everyday life." The article offers more or less fair treatment of this subject, with the exception of the usual ridiculous assumption that "everyday life" in 2004 is actually a normal human environment. Right. Just like our cave person ancestors spent 45 minutes in traffic each morning, commuting to the water hole. Do psychologists, or anyone else for that matter, really believe that we were made to live as most of us do now? In my opinion, the more amazing fact is that so many human beings can successfully cope with modern existence at all. It is equally surprising that most modern Americans can nourish themselves largely on a diet of cheap substitutes for real life. Television comes to mind. I read an article once which made guesses on how human beings lived in prehistoric times by comparing their bony injuries to those of athletes in various dangerous sports. They found the closest correlation between ancient humans and...rodeo riders. This article immediately prompted a mental image of Neanderthals ropin' and ridin' a big mammoth, complete with rodeo clowns. Now that must have been living! Quote
JosephH Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 My main climbing partner did his Masters and PH.d on risk perception. The study of what satisfies/excites us (individual serotonin management) vs. the actual objective risks we accept in our daily lives is quite fascinating. We all talk about "getting in your car...blah, blah, blah", but our perecptions of speed, vertical vs. horizontal, height, objects in flight, bodies (human and machine) in motion juxtaposed against frequency of experience makes for very interesting results when surveying "average" folk on what they consider risky behavior. These perceptions cross-referenced against actual death and accident statistics for various activities usually show people are a lousy judge of the objective risks they accept in their lives. We don't typically acknowledge the risks associated with high velocities in particular, probably because as a species the experience is so new we aren't really wired to chemically acknowledge the risks associated with it. As a side note: I once watched a woman in heels, a full length fur, and an red umbrella breach a police baracade and walk at a sanquine and regal pace on her way to Bonwitt Tellers in the base of the Hancock building in Chicago while 8-12" ice chunks from the thawing antennaes bombarded all around her (6+ per minute within 30 feet) - she didn't break pace for a moment (even with ice shrapnel spraying her feet) or heed any of our yells to "RUN!LADY!RUN" - but simply strolled into the store giving us a look of complete disdain as she crossed the threshold. If it were an alpine situation crossing a ramp, few climbers I know would ever have dared to make the same crossing... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.