Hiker Dies in the White Mountains

Again, heuristics or mental short cuts can put even the most experienced people into very bad situations, even ones that in hind sight might be called stupid or dumb by their peers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

In this case from the information I have read the commitment heuristic is the one that pops out first. She had this planned for a while I assume. She felt committed and probably had reservations and other pre-planned (time off from work, family commitments taken care of, etc.) parts to this trip and it all revolved around her obtaining her goal. Once we wrap our heads around something like this and mentally commit it's easy psychologically to ignore the obvious red flags that are saying "no, don't go, you will likely die".

The biggest part in back country travel and snow science education now revolves around heuristics and the psychology that gets us killed or keeps us alive.

It's a good thing to read up on and understand, it really helps with decision making in the back country. Yes, there are people that would rather live and take chances but there is no way in hell this woman at the point she realized she fucked up and it was going to cost her everything was happy about the risks she just decided to take. You can be a "risk" taker and make sound good calls, we don't have to choose between being a reckless risk taker or the overly safety obsessed fearful wimp.

A book I highly recommend for anyone that enjoys the outdoors and tapping into their own adrenalin reserves is "Deep Survival" by Laurence Gonzales. It's a fascinating and really fun read.

justamessymedic wrote

It was her first time to the Presidentials.

I had not seen that information yet but it certainly would explain the situation. Surprised more research wasn't done, there is no dearth of information about how bad the Presi's can be, it is quite well documented with ample warnings. But someone that has "been there, done that" on other higher peaks might write off such warnings as being directed at newbie hikers. I have a lot of respect for the Presidential Range. I've turned around at treeline before after not being able to keep my balance in the wind. But I have made bad decisions up there as well. If this was her first time to the Presidential Range, I think inexperience with the range and not understanding just how severe those mountains can be could be a primary factor.

raisingarizona wrote

Again, heuristics or mental short cuts can put even the most experienced people into very bad situations, even ones that in hind sight might be called stupid or dumb by their peers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

In this case from the information I have read the commitment heuristic is the one that pops out first. She had this planned for a while I assume. She felt committed and probably had reservations and other pre-planned (time off from work, family commitments taken care of, etc.) parts to this trip and it all revolved around her obtaining her goal. Once we wrap our heads around something like this and mentally commit it's easy psychologically to ignore the obvious red flags that are saying "no, don't go, you will likely die".

The biggest part in back country travel and snow science education now revolves around heuristics and the psychology that gets us killed or keeps us alive.

It's a good thing to read up on and understand, it really helps with decision making in the back country. Yes, there are people that would rather live and take chances but there is no way in hell this woman at the point she realized she fucked up and it was going to cost her everything was happy about the risks she just decided to take. You can be a "risk" taker and make sound good calls, we don't have to choose between being a reckless risk taker or the overly safety obsessed fearful wimp.

A book I highly recommend for anyone that enjoys the outdoors and tapping into their own adrenalin reserves is "Deep Survival" by Laurence Gonzales. It's a fascinating and really fun read.

OR Ayn Rand is correct i.e. the Fountain Head. I suspect her theory is more widespread, more revealed in people's behavoir these days.

I'll probably regret this, but what are you talking about, Snowballs?

She's the author of the book The Fountainhead. In it, she suggests that it's the ego that drives people to accomplishments... doing/achieving stuff solely for their own glory.

Back to RA's heuristics thought, I think of it this way,,,, Imagine the current conscience thought as a program open on the desktop of a computer. The mind focuses on that program(thought) and resists opening another program(thought) even though it would be beneficial.

Say you're washing dishes and you rinse one off. You then reach for another dish to wash, leaving the water running as your mind is focused on getting the dishes washed even though you should turn off the water first. There's a certain amount of angst involved in changing the open program(thought). It's something we all do to varying degrees. It gets harder, even somewhat impossible as the mind ages. One can witness this in the elderly.

There are other examples of this in life. As someone posted before, target acquisition i.e. someone skis in front of you and instead of thinking about a way around them, the mind stays focused on the first thought (the obstacle) and a crash results. In this example, the resistance to switch programs (thoughts) is accentuated by fear.

OR sometimes while we're speaking, we mentally chose a word to use then try to switch to another word while in midsentence but instead the original word choice is spoken.

Snowballs wrote

She's the author of the book The Fountainhead. In it, she suggests that it's the ego that drives people to accomplishments,,, doing/achieving  stuff solely for their own glory.

I know. I've read it. I just was wondering what a book about architecture and her weird, selfish philosophy had to do with someone dying in the White Mountains. It's clear that you took something different from the book than I did. Interesting.

Well no, I never read it. What I posted was on Jeopardy!.  

Ahhh, so you heard something on a show in passing, rearranged it in your mind, and then mentioned it twice in this thread as a reason that she acted in the way she did?

This is an enlightening window into how you take in information and formulate your opinions.

mattchuck2 wrote

Ahhh, so you heard something on a show in passing, rearranged it in your mind, and then mentioned it twice in this thread as a reason that she acted in the way she did?

This is an enlightening window into how you take in information and formulate your opinions.

See, your behavior proves she is right !

You might be a better thinker and person if you weren't such a self-acknowledged pud.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I am thoroughly confused.

Maybe you could, I don't know, read the book or look it up on Wikipedia or something? Seems that citing a book's message as a reason for a death would be more effective if you have actually Knew anything about it, but what do I know?

Now I'm questioning everything you've ever said. Have you ever actually been boating before, or was that just an answer to a Wheel of Fortune puzzle? Do you actually have a problem with me, or do you really have a problem with the Whammies from Press Your Luck?

Snowballs wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

Ahhh, so you heard something on a show in passing, rearranged it in your mind, and then mentioned it twice in this thread as a reason that she acted in the way she did?

This is an enlightening window into how you take in information and formulate your opinions.

See, your behavior proves she is right !

You might be a better thinker and person if you weren't such a self-acknowledged pud.

Confused ? Please re-read grasshopper....

Snowballs wrote

You might be a better thinker and person if you weren't such a self-acknowledged pud.

Your very fragile ego makes you lash out at others when you have no provocation. That urge also inhibits your logic leading you to false conclusions and false accusations to sooth your infantile ego needs. All of this is exacerbated by the fact that you're a dink.

mattchuck2 wrote

 but what do I know?

Not much. See above^^^.

EPIC  analysis  

Sorry , my bad , couldn't resist dammit .  Must resist the troll . Must resist the troll

I was also curious about Snowballs comment.

I'm not much of a reader since the NYT is no longer free. But I am a googler.

I googled "what is the meaning of Ayn Rand's Fountainhead." This came up at the top:

'In Ayn Rand’s words, the theme is “individualism vs. collectivism, not in politics but in men’s souls.” The story opposes two different methods of approaching reality, including other people: using one’s own mind to the conscientious best of one’s ability—or surrendering one’s mind, in various forms, to the beliefs and wishes of others; being cognitively and psychologically independent—or being dependent on others for one’s ideas and values; seeking truth in nature, in the facts and laws of reality—or in society, in the opinions and unsubstantiated claims of others. The Fountainhead dramatizes the life-promoting nature of the virtue of independence—of guiding every aspect of one’s life by one’s own mind—and, as a corollary, the inevitable destruction wrought by abandoning one’s mind.'

Harvey wrote

I was also curious about Snowballs comment.

I'm not much of a reader since the NYT is no longer free. But I am a googler.

I googled "what is the meaning of Ayn Rand's Fountainhead." This came up at the top:

'In Ayn Rand’s words, the theme is “individualism vs. collectivism, not in politics but in men’s souls.” The story opposes two different methods of approaching reality, including other people: using one’s own mind to the conscientious best of one’s ability—or surrendering one’s mind, in various forms, to the beliefs and wishes of others; being cognitively and psychologically independent—or being dependent on others for one’s ideas and values; seeking truth in nature, in the facts and laws of reality—or in society, in the opinions and unsubstantiated claims of others. The Fountainhead dramatizes the life-promoting nature of the virtue of independence—of guiding every aspect of one’s life by one’s own mind—and, as a corollary, the inevitable destruction wrought by abandoning one’s mind.'

I think if you dig a little deeper into the main character of the book you will find Snowballs parallel to be appropriate. There are several messages in this work, the most apparent one is the value of the independent creative genius as you have quoted, the other is that these personalities are driven to extreme acts by egotism and driven by blind faith in their own abilities. Looking at it that way - Snowballs analysis is appropriate but without first hand knowledge is only speculative.

PeeTex wrote

 Looking at it that way - Snowballs analysis is appropriate but without first hand knowledge is only speculative.

Correct PT. As with all the other speculations about the hiker's motives and competence we all lack first hand knowledge.

Snowballs wrote

pud....fragile...infantile... dink....

It's sad that you're attacking me for "lashing out" when that seems to be exactly what you're doing.

But it's even more sad that Warp is on the same side. I've respected Warp for a long time since I admired his inspirational posts like this way back on EPICski, 10 years ago (I just searched for threads that we both commented on):

You guys are ON TARGET . Too many folks focus on making a living instead of making a LIFE . Passion in anything requires committment . BIG $ are at best a SHORT TERM satisfier: read the research Hertzberg et al .

You need enough but excess and STUFF MGMT will not make Jack a HAPPY BOY!

As a young grad student 800 yrs ago, i set some $ and career goals but MORE importantly i set some LIFE goals and determined i'd stay in shape and be out of the rat race by 50 yrs of age but would stay active with all my interests all thru my life journey . Luckily a career in Higher Education supplemented by consulting provided degrees of freedom to allow pursuit of LIFE

I am VERY Lucky iam a fit and happy 62 yrs young , married the right woman who today @ 61 is a young- spirited, very fit , beautiful , intelligent and caring ski / golf/ run / and bike pardner as well as confidant . She has always let me be me and do all my hobbies .sports etc . Our adult kids and our grandchildren are following their old mans/grandpa's example since together we all ski 25-30 days a yr

Make time for LIFE , collect people and most importantly Make memories withthose you care about --ENJOY!!!

 
That was the Warp I liked an enjoyed for the past 10 years, there, AlpineZone, and here. I feel like now him and Snowballs are just Stadler and Waldorf type characters that attack me for no reason, then laugh about it (but at least Stadler and Waldorf were funny. Snowballs is just petty and catty. And Warp is getting a little too much mileage out of his A.S.S. Material).

I mean, do what you guys want. I have thick skin, I can take it, but know that it's really a better place with more inspiration and less childish taunting.

PeeTex wrote

I think if you dig a little deeper into the main character of the book you will find Snowballs parallel to be appropriate. There are several messages in this work, the most apparent one is the value of the independent creative genius as you have quoted, the other is that these personalities are driven to extreme acts by egotism and driven by blind faith in their own abilities. Looking at it that way - Snowballs analysis is appropriate but without first hand knowledge is only speculative.

The worst part about the book (and all of her books) is that it celebrates these "geniuses" no matter what heinous and stupid acts they commit, because it's an expression of their rugged individualism or whatever.

The main character in the Fountainhead literally rapes a girl, but is forgiven (he eventually ends up marrying her, if I remember correctly) because he is one of the exceptional ones.

It does create a dangerous world full of people acting purely in their own self interest with no regard for how their actions affect others and the world around them. But I don't think it has much to do with a woman who got in way over her head in the White Mountains.

mattchuck2 wrote

It does create a dangerous world full of people acting purely in their own self interest with no regard for how their actions affect others and the world around them. But I don't think it has much to do with a woman who got in way over her head in the White Mountains.

It could.  Hey, we don't know the woman, other than that she made a pretty big decision to proceed with a treacherous winter ascent in potentially (ultimately) deadly conditions.  Whether is was some heuristic process, hubris, ego, misplaced overconfidence.....she made a decision acting on her own self interests (desire to make the climb) with no regard to how that decision could affect others, including SAR and her family.  It cost her her life, jeopardized the lives of others, and left her family mourning.