Results 76 to 87 of 87
Thread: The Human Factor
-
12-04-2014, 08:45 PM #76
-
12-04-2014, 09:20 PM #77Hugh Conway Guest
As you know, there are fields which are "life and death" that have come up with strategies for coping with human fallibility. Apparently this isn't one. Shit, apparently it took 5-10 years for mainstream finance risk pap to make it to Avys. poor data seets + zero desire for real analysis = not much change and the same shit over and over again. (not counting the continuing influx of nouveau BC skiers. Who are nouveau in their view, not their appearance.
-
12-04-2014, 10:07 PM #78
-
12-06-2014, 09:26 AM #79Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
- Posts
- 66
I think the decision-making tools are there. And the data may not be great, but is there to a surprisingly large extent. The culture is there only on a group by group basis. Using examples from other fields, getting doctors to reliably wash their hands is surprisingly hard to achieve at the level of actual behavior, but ultimately doable. If you use some of the available decision-making tools, the WAH and Grizzly Gulch incidents would have been headed off at the get-go, for instance. Not using them is a choice, and needs to be recognized as a choice. Just like soloing or doing R/X routes in climbing, if everyone's explicit about those choices, and decides to accept a high level of risk, there's not even anything wrong with that, assuming peer pressure and an inability to process what a bad outcome looks like isn't at work (big assumption).
There is, for snow safety, also an odd culture of almost political correctness that I don't see in climbing. For instance, most trad climbers have had the experience of a runout feeling reasonable until all of a sudden it wasn't. So, "gut" or what feels ok at the moment isn't a great gauge. For snow safety, you can hear repeated talk of "listen to your gut," when gut feelings and listening to them lead to things like the Grizzly Gulch incident very easily. The photographer, on the basis of his limited data set, knew in his gut that it was reasonable to get a few quick photos there. So, consciously or not, failed to utilize established analytical tools that would have said this was high-risk even with gear.
-
01-13-2015, 01:51 PM #80
Another link to Powder made me think of this thread and the article. What happened here? Just watch part 5 and the piece never really seemed to go anywhere. Last post was over a month ago and no one posted after part 4.
-
01-13-2015, 09:04 PM #81skin track terrorist
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- Where the chairlifts do double corks
- Posts
- 527
-
01-13-2015, 09:33 PM #82
The two aren't diametrically opposed in "either/or". You present a false dichotomy, from way up there.
It is a spectrum, and the place where the decision comes from likely varies with varying situations, moods, what they had for breakfast, etc..., even though the decision maker may not realize it.
Thus the problem of objectivity.
Gut/intuition provides the least objectivity, and terrain and conditions provide opportunity for mistakes with no consequences, false positives, depending on the level of the decision makers risk aversion as perceived that day...right up until they don't.
Don't confuse gut/intuition with experience/skill either. Anyone can have a gut feeling, or claim intuition. That doesn't necessarily mean its valid. Just as all the numbers in the world added up on the little risk assessment card don't make it okay to go, in a no go situation or a pocket of no go in an area full of go. Just as all the skill and experience can still get you killed.
All of these can also save your ass and show you a good time. Use them all. I'm always looking for a reason not to go. Most of the many friends I had that have died, didn't tend to look at it that way, and didn't make it out of their 20's.
Getting up early, skinning up, digging a hole, and going home because the hole, your intuition, your skill, your experience, talking it over with your crew or partner, and that little card told you to go home, is still a very successful ski day in the mountains IMHO.Last edited by iscariot; 01-13-2015 at 09:59 PM.
-
01-14-2015, 04:31 AM #83
i think it's important to note that experience and skill are not really the same thing ie. experience does not necessarily equal expertise.
-
01-14-2015, 10:29 AM #84Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
- Posts
- 66
They got to protocols and decision-making tools, and then just sort of punted rather than addressing what these tools are. And then went back to emotional story-telling. I can see where the tools are boring and from a casual read perspective it might have been more powerful to circle back to the emotional content instead for the ending. But, since the series seemed intended to have an educational side as well, they could have given a bit more room in part 5 to those tools, and even how they could have led to different results.
The paragraph on the need for feedback I think would have been stronger if they had then explained how decision-making tools and protocols fit into the picture as well. Realistically, the average person will only go trigger a few small slides on no-consequence slopes as a learning experience, so will end up with a very small sample utilizing only one or two kinds of conditions. Better than nothing, but then the natural temptation is to generalize in a way that is bound to be faulty, which is where the tools come in.
-
01-14-2015, 12:45 PM #85
-
01-14-2015, 05:29 PM #86skin track terrorist
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- Where the chairlifts do double corks
- Posts
- 527
not sure i agree with that, but whatever
the two aren't really very similar at all.. but in hopes of contributing something instead of just being a dick, ill propose a theory I have: The majority of avalanche incidents are a result of previous experience (lacking or not) and poor impulse control. when I say impulse, I am thinking of the heuristic traps that one finds themselves victims of right around the time of said [hypothetical] incident.long live the jahrator
-
01-14-2015, 08:37 PM #87
in·tu·i·tion/ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSH(ə)n/
noun
the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
So if there is no need for conscious reasoning, then why teach avy info/skill/courses at all?
If it is simply innate intuition, and anyone can only (diametrically) either listen to their intuition or listen to others, then there are some very simple and universal tests we can use to decide who is or is not allowed in avalanche terrain.
This will end deaths by avalanche. Huzzah!Last edited by iscariot; 01-15-2015 at 09:29 AM.
Bookmarks