head game and mindset after a scare?

[montypiton]

"there's lies; there's damn lies: and there's statistics"

-Mark Twain

[rob]

 

Anyway, I know I've certainly developed a healthier dose of pragmatism and caution since getting older and seeing people die in ways that could have been me. I was involved in an avalanche recovery a few years into my "climbing career" and it changed my outlook permanently.

 

Re: head game, I think that's really the meat of the matter. Some people can take all of their fear and stuff it into their back pocket for later (a technique tvash taught me) and some can't. That's probably the difference between a great climber and an amateur. I wouldn't know

 

I find as I get older, the amount I can stuff into that back pocket gets smaller and smaller.

Edited March 12, 2014 by rob

[tvashtarkatena]

If you could assign probability of a fatal fall while free soloing - say 1%, you could calculate your mean time to failure - in other words, your expected lifespan, as follows.

 

Lets say you make a 1%, skull and bones crux move once a day, every day.

 

Your expected lifespan would be when the probability of making the move successfully N times in a row (that's the part Rob failed to read correctly) would be:

 

.50 = .99^N, where N is your expected lifespan in days.

 

In this case, N = 69 days.

 

This is an important principle to understand, particularly for free soloists who 'just go for it'. Yes, your chance of dying in this example is 1% every time (the part Rob did get) - and that produces a mean time to failure - your expected lifespan in this case, is still only 69 days.

 

Those few hard core, regular free soloists who survive have such a low probability of falling - well below 1%, obviously - that they clearly don't 'just go for it' (climb at the edge of their ability) very often.

 

The 'heads in a row' formula is a simplified instance of the same mean time between failure calculations used in design and manufacturing.

 

The gambling pic also provides an illustration. The probability of winning a blackjack hand is constant at 42%. The probability of winning 5 hands in a row is .42^5 = 1%.

 

That's how casinos make money.

 

I'm harping on this because the Rob's misunderstanding is a dangerous one. Several years back I met a Canuckistani guide who did understand this equation. He told me:

 

"I used to run it out. Now I sew it up. When you do it as much as I do, its a numbers game."

Edited March 12, 2014 by tvashtarkatena

[bedellympian]

Thinking along the lines of Tvash's stats equation, and maybe trying to rationalize my own dumb decision making: If the chance of not making moves successfully was enough to accumulate a greater than 50% chance of failure then you would expect to fall on roped climbs (because I doubt anyone solos as much as they roped climb) and this would let you know you were playing too much of a probability game to solo that grade, or type of move. I've never fallen on anything less than 5.10 but I've felt shaky on some 5.9s, therefore I have chosen to solo several 5.5 and 5.6 routes, some 5.7 routes I'd climbed before, and one 5.8 I'd climbed many times. I guess I feel like at this level the stats have nothing to do with the moves and their difficulty. It's that rare hold breaking that will get you, and that has less to do with stats and more to do with the science of what, when and where that rock is. It may feel like it, but we're not rolling dice. There is a more logical explanation to why shit happens.

[ivan]

"there's lies; there's damn lies: and there's statistics"

-Mark Twain

recently read a most delightful history of statistics, writ by that rarest of things, a mathematician w/ a sly wit - "the drunkard's walk" - basic thesis: the human-popsicle is poorly wired to intuit probability - the "monty-hall problem" his prime example

[denalidave]

Life does not equate to statistics.

 

Some have divine luck.

 

Others don't.

 

[denalidave]

Life does not equate to statistics.

 

Some have divine luck.

 

Others don't.

Yet, I still look both ways when crossing the street...

[denalidave]

When your number comes up, your number comes up. Stats be damned...

[ivan]

"trust in allah, but tether your camel"

[denalidave]

When your number comes up, your number comes up. Stats be damned...

The older I get, the more I try to stack the odds from coming up...

 

Never the less, if my card is pulled, fate is fate...

 

[denalidave]

Let it ride! : )

 

[JasonG]

It may feel like it, but we're not rolling dice. There is a more logical explanation to why shit happens.

 

Really? What's the logic of which you speak? Gravity?

[ivan]

Mighty Bog and the Magic 8-Ball

[tvashtarkatena]

Some climbers fall a lot, some almost never. Depends on how far you push it and other factors.

 

Similarly, some drivers have a lot of accidents and some never do. Depends on how far you push it and other factors.

 

Both can be modeled statistically in the aggregate - as can anything you can measure. An aggregate model's predictive capability erodes with granularity, however. You may not be able to assign a probability of falling during your next move - but you do continually estimate it on the fly.

 

You're really doing a risk analysis, though - chance x consequences of falling. If consequences = decking, even a relatively easy move can sketch you out.

 

You can probably predict how many times you'll fall in the next year based on last year's data if you climb - and fall - enough to create a large enough statistical sample, but that prediction will come with a statistical margin of error. The sparser or more clumpy your data, or changes in conditions (change of climbing habits, health, gear...) the larger that margin will be.

 

They really are givin you a numbuh, and takin 'way yo name.

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2014 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"trust in allah, but tether your camel"

 

Stay frosty.

[jared_j]

Thinking along the lines of Tvash's stats equation, and maybe trying to rationalize my own dumb decision making: If the chance of not making moves successfully was enough to accumulate a greater than 50% chance of failure then you would expect to fall on roped climbs (because I doubt anyone solos as much as they roped climb) and this would let you know you were playing too much of a probability game to solo that grade, or type of move. I've never fallen on anything less than 5.10 but I've felt shaky on some 5.9s, therefore I have chosen to solo several 5.5 and 5.6 routes, some 5.7 routes I'd climbed before, and one 5.8 I'd climbed many times. I guess I feel like at this level the stats have nothing to do with the moves and their difficulty. It's that rare hold breaking that will get you, and that has less to do with stats and more to do with the science of what, when and where that rock is. It may feel like it, but we're not rolling dice. There is a more logical explanation to why shit happens.

 

This might be the most foolhardy example of "sh** climbers in their early 20s say" I've ever read. Stay safe out there!

 

 

Edited March 14, 2014 by jared_j

[JasonG]

Looking back, it's easy to see how our attitudes have changed over time, but a recent study in Science shows how much harder it is for young people to predict how significantly their lives/attitudes/hobbies will change.

 

I am certainly not immune either, even though I am peeking over the hill. Kids/marriage changed things in ways I did not expect.

[ivan]

i've proven too dumb n' angry to evolve

[tvashtarkatena]

Some organisms require nothing short of a motivational asteroid.

[bedellympian]

It may feel like it, but we're not rolling dice. There is a more logical explanation to why shit happens.

 

Really? What's the logic of which you speak? Gravity?

 

I'm just saying that some rock are loser and more likely to fail based on what they are made of, how they have weathered and connected to other rock, etc. I'm not saying we can just know which rock is going to kill us, just pointing out that it is possible to make a logical guess as to whether or not the rock will break. We may guess wrong but we don't get F'd because the grim reaper rolls snake eyes.

[bedellympian]

This might be the most foolhardy example of "sh** climbers in their early 20s say" I've ever read. Stay safe out there!

 

 

I guess you have me all figured out. Maybe you could explain what is so foolhardy? Wait that was rhetorical...

 

I saw a friend get hurt, evaluated the situation and decided that it was POSSIBLE to still do the activity within my accepted safety tolerance. Mainly I was just trying to word why a simple stats equation does not provide me with a satisfactory explanation for climbing accidents.

 

Is every climber who witnesses an accident and still participates foolhardy? What about drivers who see a wreck? Statistically we're all gonna die so maybe you should lock yourself in a sterile bubble and wait for the end? I'd rather not. I cragged 3 days this weekend, had a blast, no soloing but I did on-sight two awesome routes that pushed me mentally and physically. Maybe we should all stop spraying and go climbing, our cool TRs might rejuvenate this website! ::

[jared_j]

I was referring to your post about how things aren't totally random, that there's a reason why things happen. I read this (and still do) as an at-best optimistic assessment of the activity of climbing and/or soloing. Taking the view that there isn't randomness/Knightian uncertainty in the system when you're climbing leads to a dangerous paradigm (in my opinion). It reads like something a person who feels invincible would say. So I put those words in your mouth in my head, perhaps unfairly.

 

BTW I'm coming from the opposite end of what you think. I took a lead fall on an ice climb in the Ruth a few years back, got away super lucky with only a tib/fib fracture; the whole thing felt slow-mo enough that I thought I was gonna buy the farm (pitched off after a short traverse, fell over ledge into unknown terrain that was fortunately overhanging so I didn't splatter on a bunch of rocks). So I empathize with your plight (see my post much earlier in the thread).

[tvashtarkatena]

Analyzing a data set statistically does not speak to the randomness of its origins.

 

Just sayin...

[keenwesh]

if you climb every day for a month or two eventually you realize that you just will not fall on anything up to around 5.9 (at least that's what happens for me, others have a higher or lower threshold) At that point I usually solo up to that level, at a high volume, if I scare myself I dial it back a bit until I feel comfortable.

 

The hard part is when you haven't been climbing every day for 2 months. It's easy to overestimate your ability, which can be dangerous.

[Water]

i dont want to come down criticizing (for the record I like your TR's and adventures!!) but i think that you're talking about solo'ing and saying it's not rolling the dice is what jared says sounds foolhardy.

Every fall, roped or otherwise, will certainly have science behind it...biology of muscles, psychological state, environmental conditions, geology, physics. Sure probability stats won't explain an accident, they're just a number.

You can quantify all sorts of factors but without frankly acknowledging that 50ft up soloing a 5.6 is much more dangerous position than 50ft up with your last clip 10ft below, it doesn't seem like an honest assessment.

 

Comparing to driving isn't appropriate, unless it is to on average driving faster than the speed limit or conditions would indicate, or, driving with a very low-level buzz, or without a seatbelt maybe is an even better example.

 

by solo'ing alone it seems like that is rolling the dice--you never know when a few wasps could swarm you on a 5.7, or the day you develop a slight allergy to the fennel seed bagel you tried for lunch, causing you to feel faint or dizzy. is solo'ing not undue risk?

 

id post a TR but hey, i hurt myself climbing... haha