Lost Hiker on Isolation - Not a nice night to be out

[TCD]

Well now dude you should smarten up. I like your posts. But seat belts are beneficial, and the benefit / cost ratio is very high.

 

[JoshandBaron]

Thank you for responding in the manner you did! If one is part of a forum of any kind, the goal should be to contribute positively.

It got a very positive reaction every year!

 

[TEO]

You mean like the time you criticized my method of packing for a hike, calling me lucky to have never been in trouble? You cant have it both ways.

In defense of B the Hiker—Brian—he never said you were lucky to have never been in trouble. He said that your reasoning was a logical fallacy and he stated why. If there is one mistake Brian made, it's that he assumed that you had never been in a life-threatening, worst-case situation with your kit. That however, is a relatively safe assumption to make, because if you had faced a worse-case-scenario, you either wouldn't have survived or it is likely that you would have stated that your kit allowed you to survive a life-threatening situation. Unless his assumption was incorrect, then your reasoning was a logical fallacy. Pointing out a logical fallacy is not personal attack, it's the opposite, it's a tool used in civil discourse and debate. Civil discourse is how you maintain a civil forum or community that is a positive contribution. Your calling Brian arrogant was not civil and you may have noticed that he did not respond. Pro move.

It is also perfectly reasonable, in fact it is a positive contribution, for someone who has WFA certification to state that if your winter kit doesn't include certain items, then it is inadequate for survival of worst-case scenarios. A reasonable counter argument would be to admit that your kit isn't adequate for a worst-scenario, but it should allow you to survive a less-than-worse case scenario, and by carrying less weight, you reduce the risk of a worst-case scenario.

Go ahead and disagree with Brian, it's a reasonable discussion to have, but do so civilly. FWIW, while my winter hiking is limited, I have backcountry skied for decades. In a concession to save weight, and thus increase my speed and stamina, my kit does not include a stove, sleeping bag, or sleeping pad, though maybe it should.

 

[maineguy]

This could be interesting...

 

[dug]

Boy I started to read that and just lost interest....

 

[skiguy]

Boy I started to read that and just lost interest....

No worries. The next lecture will be an ideological discussion about your belief system.

 

[jfb]

You mean like the time you criticized my method of packing for a hike, calling me lucky to have never been in trouble? You cant have it both ways.

He didn't say you were lucky, just that your gear was completely inadequate. "Your "system" (or lack thereof) is completely inadequate; it's just you have never needed to use it."

 

[Grey J]

He didn't say you were lucky, just that your gear was completely inadequate. "Your "system" (or lack thereof) is completely inadequate; it's just you have never needed to use it."

I'm not taking sides here, I'm just trying to break this down logically. If Sierra, who admits to being in his 50s and has probably been hiking at least 30 years, has never needed to use his "system" to survive, then doesn't it prove that his system is and has been perfectly adequate for him given his ability level and his experience? How many tragedy-free hikes would he have to do to prove the point? A hundred? A thousand?

 

[jfb]

I'm not taking sides here, I'm just trying to break this down logically. If Sierra, who admits to being in his 50s and has probably been hiking at least 30 years, has never needed to use his "system" to survive, then doesn't it prove that his system is and has been perfectly adequate for him given his ability level and his experience? How many tragedy-free hikes would he have to do to prove the point? A hundred? A thousand?

I think it boils down to the definition of risk and how much risk individuals are willing to take. If risk is defined as "probability x consequences," then a competent hiker has a low probability of getting into danger and needs less emergency equipment than a novice. However, the consequences of an accident could still be quite serious.

 

[TEO]

I'm not taking sides here, I'm just trying to break this down logically. If Sierra, who admits to being in his 50s and has probably been hiking at least 30 years, has never needed to use his "system" to survive, then doesn't it prove that his system is and has been perfectly adequate for him given his ability level and his experience? How many tragedy-free hikes would he have to do to prove the point? A hundred? A thousand?

No, it doesn't. Tragedy-free hikes neither validate nor invalidate the adequacy of a system or kit. Most of hopefully will never be in a life-threatening situation, so our kit for that scenario is never tested. If your system is never put to a true test then you don't know if it will be adequate—that's why it is a logical fallacy.

I think it boils down to the definition of risk and how much risk individuals are willing to take. If risk is defined as "probability x consequences," then a competent hiker has a low probability of getting into danger and needs less emergency equipment than a novice. However, the consequences of an accident could still be quite serious.

No! Experience does not change the need for emergency equipment. Plenty of experienced hikers have accidents.

 

[maineguy]

Hmmmmmmmmm

 

[sierra]

In defense of B the Hiker—Brian—he never said you were lucky to have never been in trouble. He said that your reasoning was a logical fallacy and he stated why. If there is one mistake Brian made, it's that he assumed that you had never been in a life-threatening, worst-case situation with your kit. That however, is a relatively safe assumption to make, because if you had faced a worse-case-scenario, you either wouldn't have survived or it is likely that you would have stated that your kit allowed you to survive a life-threatening situation. Unless his assumption was incorrect, then your reasoning was a logical fallacy. Pointing out a logical fallacy is not personal attack, it's the opposite, it's a tool used in civil discourse and debate. Civil discourse is how you maintain a civil forum or community that is a positive contribution. Your calling Brian arrogant was not civil and you may have noticed that he did not respond. Pro move.

It is also perfectly reasonable, in fact it is a positive contribution, for someone who has WFA certification to state that if your winter kit doesn't include certain items, then it is inadequate for survival of worst-case scenarios. A reasonable counter argument would be to admit that your kit isn't adequate for a worst-scenario, but it should allow you to survive a less-than-worse case scenario, and by carrying less weight, you reduce the risk of a worst-case scenario.

Go ahead and disagree with Brian, it's a reasonable discussion to have, but do so civilly. FWIW, while my winter hiking is limited, I have backcountry skied for decades. In a concession to save weight, and thus increase my speed and stamina, my kit does not include a stove, sleeping bag, or sleeping pad, though maybe it should.

I've been climbing and hiking in the backcountry for 43 years, I'm 57 do the math. I taught myself to rock climb, ice climb and have logged more time in the Wilderness then you would care to guess at. I drove out West by myself and soloed the biggest peaks in this country for years. The arrogance I mentioned in Brian's case, is quite evident in you as well, it's a theme in this particular group. Maybe that's why the membership is so stagnant, nobody needs a bunch of self righteous old climbers preaching to them how to tie their boots. I have no desire to justify or regale you my tales of my mishaps and adventures, you don't deserve it quite frankly. I'll tell you what, when I need advice from a skier, I'll look you up. The one good thing to come out of this, I'm 100% sure if Brian gets sick and needs a kidney, he can count on you.

 

[TEO]

. . . nobody needs a bunch of self righteous old climbers preaching to them how to tie their boots.

No, we need mechanical engineers. At least I did. It turns out that I'd not properly learned how to tie my shoelaces as a child, and was using the granny knot instead of the square knot.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/science/why-shoelaces-undone-untied.html

(OTH, I did teach myself how to properly tie a bowtie, which just so happens to be the same variation of a square knot that you use to tie your shoes. Unlike with shoelaces, you can't get away with tying a granny knot.)

 

[jfb]

One thing this mechanical engineer learned at work was to not criticize how others were doing their jobs, but to provide suggestions about how they could improve their performance. For example, instead of saying someone is tying his shoelaces wrong, I'll show him a cool new knot and suggest he try it sometime: https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/betterbowknot.htm

 

[skiguy]

Some or all of the below?

https://climbingzine.com/the-spray-dictionary/