Dirty Harry--"A man's gotta know his limitations...."
Wayne
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-05-02_D8OSG3A81&show_article=1&cat=breaking
Stormin Mormon
it. That sure doesn't sound like realistic survival training. I'd
think that during a survival event, you'd take every advantage
you could.
--
Christopher A. Young
You can't shout down a troll.
You have to starve them.
.
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5f9_h.4577$st3.3472@trnddc06...
: Man Dies of Thirst During Survival Test
:
:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-05-02_D8OSG3A81&show_article=1&cat=breaking
:
:
john smith
> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-05-02_D8OSG3A81&show_article=1&ca
> t=breaking
I couldn't believe my local newspaper devoted almost an entire page to
this story.
Mary Malmros
news:463de9eb$0$9939$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> So, he's got his water bottle, but the guides won't let him fill
> it. That sure doesn't sound like realistic survival training. I'd
> think that during a survival event, you'd take every advantage
> you could.
That was my thought, too, when I read about the incident. I understand
that they wanted to develop the skill of finding food and water, but
damn, when you find water, why not bring some along? You can continue
to try to find food and water, but if you don't, use what you brought.
That's called planning, and planning is not failure.
I also really, really don't get why the guide who stayed with him when
he collapsed didn't give him water then (although it probably would not
have helped at that point). Hello? A member of your party collapses a
hundred yards from water, and you don't fetch water for him, by any
means you've got? Again, how does that reflect or promote realistic
survival skills?
Eugene Miya
Mary Malmros <mal...@nospam.com> wrote:
>"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:463de9eb$0$9939$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
What's realistic?
>that they wanted to develop the skill of finding food and water, but
>damn, when you find water, why not bring some along? You can continue
>to try to find food and water, but if you don't, use what you brought.
>That's called planning, and planning is not failure.
If you read about Robert Scott, and his #2 Wilson, and the other men on
his polar expedition, they had lots of planning. They had "the best gear
in the world" at that time. And five died, which most people don't
realize is kind of an odd number, especially with Scott's planning (he
had planned 4). This is why most people point to Lansing's Endurance
where in what he wrote, no one died (not on that side of the continent).
>I also really, really don't get why the guide who stayed with him when
>he collapsed didn't give him water then (although it probably would not
>have helped at that point). Hello? A member of your party collapses a
>hundred yards from water, and you don't fetch water for him, by any
>means you've got? Again, how does that reflect or promote realistic
>survival skills?
That's likely more part of the survivalism movement.
--
Mary Malmros
> In article <Xns992975E074D68...@130.81.64.196>,
> Mary Malmros <mal...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:463de9eb$0$9939$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>> That sure doesn't sound like realistic survival training.
>
> What's realistic?
>
>>that they wanted to develop the skill of finding food and water, but
>>damn, when you find water, why not bring some along? You can continue
>>to try to find food and water, but if you don't, use what you brought.
>>That's called planning, and planning is not failure.
>
> If you read about Robert Scott, and his #2 Wilson, and the other men
on
> his polar expedition, they had lots of planning. They had "the best
gear
> in the world" at that time. And five died, which most people don't
> realize is kind of an odd number, especially with Scott's planning (he
> had planned 4). This is why most people point to Lansing's Endurance
> where in what he wrote, no one died (not on that side of the
continent).
That's an interesting anecdote, but it's also a non sequitur. Care to
explain the connection?
>>I also really, really don't get why the guide who stayed with him when
>>he collapsed didn't give him water then (although it probably would
not
>>have helped at that point). Hello? A member of your party collapses
a
>>hundred yards from water, and you don't fetch water for him, by any
>>means you've got? Again, how does that reflect or promote realistic
>>survival skills?
>
> That's likely more part of the survivalism movement.
Right, chest-beating idiots fantasizing in the backcountry. Gotcha.
Stormin Mormon
the guy to push his own limits. Push, hell, they killed the poor
customer.
--
Christopher A. Young
You can't shout down a troll.
You have to starve them.
.
"Mary Malmros" <mal...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns992975E074D68...@130.81.64.196...
: "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in
:
Chris Townsend
writes
>In article <Xns992975E074D68...@130.81.64.196>,
>Mary Malmros <mal...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:463de9eb$0$9939$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>> That sure doesn't sound like realistic survival training.
>
>What's realistic?
>
>>that they wanted to develop the skill of finding food and water, but
>>damn, when you find water, why not bring some along? You can continue
>>to try to find food and water, but if you don't, use what you brought.
>>That's called planning, and planning is not failure.
>
>If you read about Robert Scott, and his #2 Wilson, and the other men on
>his polar expedition, they had lots of planning. They had "the best gear
>in the world" at that time. And five died, which most people don't
>realize is kind of an odd number, especially with Scott's planning (he
>had planned 4).
Isn't that the point? He had a plan but didn't stick to it. There's also
the question of the quality of the planning. Planning per se doesn't
lead to success. Bad planning can lead to disaster. And when plans go
wrong (whether because they were bad plans or through unforeseen
circumstances like more than expected ice in which your ship is crushed)
then ad hoc plans can get you out of trouble. Sticking to a rigid plan
can lead to disaster.
--
Chris Townsend
Mary Malmros
news:r3QkJQJy...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk:
Right, but in the example at hand, the plan was nothing elaborate, just
simply, "I'm in a desert so why don't I CARRY WATER WITH ME rather than
count on being able to find it." Let's not turn this into a self-love
session on the semantics of the verb "to plan" -- clearly, failing to
put water into an available container at the water source was the act of
a numbnuts, and this "survival" program wasn't teaching people to
survive, it was training them to be idjits. Idjits of a burly type with
lots of impressive-sounding stories to tell, for sure, but idjits
nonetheless.
Chris Townsend
<mal...@nospam.com> writes
No disagreement. In a desert if you find water you drink some and carry
some when you move on. It sounds as though the "instructors" had a rigid
plan whereby no one must carry water but must always find it. I'd have
thought the sensible approach would be to always take some water on with
you and to learn how to turn bits of kit or natural objects into
containers if you didn't have one.
Earl J
Naaaaaa, not idiots at all. Allowing this guy to carry water would have
defeated the training approach of the class.
"Tent, matches, compass, sleeping bag, portable stove, watch-all have no
role. Campers are equipped with a knife, water cup, blanket and poncho and
are told they could lose 20 pounds or more. Among the things they learn is
how to catch fish with their hands and how to kill a sheep with a knife."
Few people need (or would pay for) training on how to carry water... any
"idjit" can do that.
It's a tautology that *something* went wrong here, since the guy ended up
dead, but gutting the program, IMO, isn't the proper response.
Eugene Miya
news:463de9eb$0$9939$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>>>>> That sure doesn't sound like realistic survival training.
In message <4640a42f$1@darkstar>, Eugene Miya <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu>
writes
>>>>What's realistic?
All you guys skipped this most important question.
In article <Xns992975E074D68...@130.81.64.196>,
Mary Malmros <mal...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>that they wanted to develop the skill of finding food and water, but
>>>>>damn, when you find water, why not bring some along? You can
>>>>>continue to try to find food and water, but if you don't, use what
>>>>>you brought. That's called planning, and planning is not failure.
Which I noted:
>>>>If you read about Robert Scott, and his #2 Wilson, and the other men
>>>>on his polar expedition, they had lots of planning. They had "the
>>>>best gear in the world" at that time. And five died, which most
>>>>people don't realize is kind of an odd number, especially with Scott's
>>>>planning (he had planned 4).
Chris Townsend <Ch...@DELETE.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:r3QkJQJy...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk:
>>> Isn't that the point? He had a plan but didn't stick to it. There's
>>> also the question of the quality of the planning. Planning per se
>>> doesn't lead to success. Bad planning can lead to disaster. And when
>>> plans go wrong (whether because they were bad plans or through
>>> unforeseen circumstances like more than expected ice in which your
>>> ship is crushed) then ad hoc plans can get you out of trouble.
>>> Sticking to a rigid plan can lead to disaster.
The famous quote is "The best laid plans of mice and men..."
You've listed:
bad plans (quality)
staying with plan
and ad hoc plans (STOP: Stop Think Observe Plan).
Plans aren't enough. Scott/Wilson who had a very nice mathematical
plan (with some poor execution, in constrast to Shackleton who turned
around at 97 miles) carried on (they stuck with it like these guys).
"Mary Malmros" <mal...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns992ACC5D838B...@130.81.64.196...
>> Right, but in the example at hand, the plan was nothing elaborate, just
>> simply, "I'm in a desert so why don't I CARRY WATER WITH ME rather than
>> count on being able to find it." Let's not turn this into a self-love
>> session on the semantics of the verb "to plan" -- clearly, failing to
>> put water into an available container at the water source was the act of
>> a numbnuts, and this "survival" program wasn't teaching people to
>> survive, it was training them to be idjits. Idjits of a burly type with
>> lots of impressive-sounding stories to tell, for sure, but idjits
>> nonetheless.
In article <1Pj0i.8265$Ut6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Earl J <bo...@bogus.net> wrote:
>Naaaaaa, not idiots at all. Allowing this guy to carry water would have
>defeated the training approach of the class.
For both of you guys it's much simpler to ask:
What's realistic?
The burley types have some amusing Boy Scoutish type views (Baden-Powell
and Kahn).
>"Tent, matches, compass, sleeping bag, portable stove, watch-all have no
>role. Campers are equipped with a knife, water cup, blanket and poncho and
>are told they could lose 20 pounds or more. Among the things they learn is
>how to catch fish with their hands and how to kill a sheep with a knife."
>
>Few people need (or would pay for) training on how to carry water... any
>"idjit" can do that.
>
>It's a tautology that *something* went wrong here, since the guy ended up
>dead, but gutting the program, IMO, isn't the proper response.
I've never followed the whole BOSS line of reasoning.
--
Eugene Miya
>>>>What's realistic?
In article <cnkpNBPj...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Townsend <Ch...@DELETE.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <Xns992ACC5D838B...@130.81.64.196>, Mary Malmros
><mal...@nospam.com> writes
>>, and this "survival" program wasn't teaching people to
>>survive, it was training them to be idjits. Idjits of a burly type with
>>lots of impressive-sounding stories to tell, for sure, but idjits
>>nonetheless.
>
>No disagreement. In a desert if you find water you drink some and carry
>some when you move on. It sounds as though the "instructors" had a rigid
>plan whereby no one must carry water but must always find it. I'd have
>thought the sensible approach would be to always take some water on with
>you and to learn how to turn bits of kit or natural objects into
>containers if you didn't have one.
Well it sounds like military basic style survival training as practiced
and envisioned by a certain set of guys: you break down and build up.
They use the sports analogies of bearing and sucking up to pain.
These kinds of guys pride themselves on being generalist problem solvers.
Consider (I formatted this for individual points rather than be a monolithic
block of text):
"A human being should be able to change a diaper,
plan an invasion,
butcher a hog,
conn a ship,
design a building,
write a sonnet,
balance accounts,
build a wall,
set a bone,
comfort the dying,
take orders,
give orders,
cooperate,
act alone,
solve equations,
analyze a new problem,
pitch manure,
program a computer,
cook a tasty meal,
fight efficiently,
die gallantly.
Specialization is for insects."
-Lazarus Long character, Time Enough For Love by Robert A. Heinlein
who also wrote:
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe,
and not to make messes in the house. -- Robert Heinlein
No one wants to be a subhuman. It's a plug for generalists, and that's
why it's called "basic" in the army. These guys (and other survivalists)
are trying to consider themselves basic problem solvers (quite English,
but also in other cultures).
--
Eugene Miya
Mary Malmros <mal...@nospam.com> wrote:
>eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote in news:4640a42f$1@darkstar:
>> In article <Xns992975E074D68...@130.81.64.196>,
>> Mary Malmros <mal...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:463de9eb$0$9939$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>>> That sure doesn't sound like realistic survival training.
>> What's realistic?
>>
>>>that they wanted to develop the skill of finding food and water, but
>>>damn, when you find water, why not bring some along? You can continue
>>>to try to find food and water, but if you don't, use what you brought.
>>>That's called planning, and planning is not failure.
>>
>> If you read about Robert Scott, and his #2 Wilson, and the other men
>on
>> his polar expedition, they had lots of planning. They had "the best
>gear
>> in the world" at that time. And five died, which most people don't
>> realize is kind of an odd number, especially with Scott's planning (he
>> had planned 4). This is why most people point to Lansing's Endurance
>> where in what he wrote, no one died (not on that side of the
>continent).
>
>That's an interesting anecdote, but it's also a non sequitur. Care to
>explain the connection?
Sure. You mention planning, and planning commonly results in failure.
Not always but with enough frequency that the quote is:
The best laid plans of...
can be completed by most English speakers.
Sure skill is also involved, but then you leave out a sense of judgment
(maybe they were trying to develop that sense?).
>>>I also really, really don't get why the guide who stayed with him when
>>>he collapsed didn't give him water then (although it probably would not
>>>have helped at that point). Hello? A member of your party collapses a
>>>hundred yards from water, and you don't fetch water for him, by any
>>>means you've got? Again, how does that reflect or promote realistic
>>>survival skills?
>>
>> That's likely more part of the survivalism movement.
>
>Right, chest-beating idiots fantasizing in the backcountry. Gotcha.
I just had this part of a thread with Joan. It's a certain level of
insecurity in a bunch of guys (but not solely confined to guys).
Chris might be for instance because of his cross posts.
While I kind of agree with you, I'm not perhaps quite as dismissive.
My friend Richard Mitchell (who did a PhD thesis in sociology on climbing
[not a great thesis, but was an early application of "flow"]) did write
a book on the survivalism movement (Joan sort of dismisses).
To me it's white guys whom have been somewhat brow beaten by the rise in
power by women and past "minorities" and trying to find their place in life.
--
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----
Eugene Miya
Chris Townsend <Ch...@DELETE.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>plan whereby no one must carry water but must always find it.
If you want to read about examples of rigidity in views, get Bill Putnam's
autobiography of his time in the 10th Mtn. Division. He was on the
periphery of how generals tried to use general infantry. It's not merely
rigidity. These guys think that they are generalists and can adapt
to any circumstance given the tools they have at hand. Sound familiar:?
>I'd have
>thought the sensible approach would be to always take some water on with
>you and to learn how to turn bits of kit or natural objects into
>containers if you didn't have one.
The problem is hierarchy.
--
Pat O'Connell
>>>>>>> That sure doesn't sound like realistic survival training.
>>>>>What's realistic?
>
> In article <cnkpNBPj...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Townsend <Ch...@DELETE.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <Xns992ACC5D838B...@130.81.64.196>, Mary Malmros
>><mal...@nospam.com> writes
>>>, and this "survival" program wasn't teaching people to
>>>survive, it was training them to be idjits. Idjits of a burly type with
>>>lots of impressive-sounding stories to tell, for sure, but idjits
>>>nonetheless.
>>
>>No disagreement. In a desert if you find water you drink some and carry
>>some when you move on. It sounds as though the "instructors" had a rigid
>>plan whereby no one must carry water but must always find it. I'd have
>>thought the sensible approach would be to always take some water on with
>>you and to learn how to turn bits of kit or natural objects into
>>containers if you didn't have one.
There's a Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared. That means (among other thing)
having what would be needed in the environment you're traveling in.
Desert: tweezers are mandatory, as is knowledge about the local
critters. Hiking in the desert without water bottles is stupid.
Wet climates: rain or snow gear.
Mountains: proper gear, possibly including climbing gear.
Anywhere: the Ten Essentials.
> Well it sounds like military basic style survival training as practiced
> and envisioned by a certain set of guys...
The military doesn't send its troops out without water.
The context of those pithy remarks referred to people settling new
planets. While overspecialization might be a problem in that context,
eventually people do specialize in what they know best, as they did in
settling the Western US. Not everyone needs to know how to work metal
and shoe horses if there's a blacksmith/farrier that can do it better
than his neighbors.
I especially don't want to die gallantly. Per Patton, the bad guy's
supposed to do that.
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Earl J
"Eugene Miya" <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in message
news:46420029$1@darkstar...
(snip!)
>>>>>What's realistic?
>
> All you guys skipped this most important question.
>
The most important question is, "what provides the best training?"
Contrived, "unrealistic," academic problems can often provide the best
training, especially when combined with practical application exercises.
(Earl)
mkt
Well that's the key decision, at what point to put the students or
trainees into a "realistic" sink or swim situation. Even astronauts
and test pilots (or maybe I should say *especially* astronauts and
pilots) go through ground school and simulators before they take a
space shuttle into orbit or a jet off the ground.
That this student (or participant or customer or whatever we should
call him) died is prima facie evidence that the outdoor program erred
on the wrong side of the realism side. Th notion of putting people
out there in the desert and having them have to overcome physical
barriers is not a bad one -- but only if the program can make better
decisions about when to be "realistic" and when to intervene and
prevent their patrons from dying.
Chris Townsend
writes
>>>>>>> That sure doesn't sound like realistic survival training.
>>>>>What's realistic?
>
>In article <cnkpNBPj...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk>,
>Chris Townsend <Ch...@DELETE.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <Xns992ACC5D838B...@130.81.64.196>, Mary Malmros
>><mal...@nospam.com> writes
>>>, and this "survival" program wasn't teaching people to
>>>survive, it was training them to be idjits. Idjits of a burly type with
>>>lots of impressive-sounding stories to tell, for sure, but idjits
>>>nonetheless.
>>
>>No disagreement. In a desert if you find water you drink some and carry
>>some when you move on. It sounds as though the "instructors" had a rigid
>>plan whereby no one must carry water but must always find it. I'd have
>>thought the sensible approach would be to always take some water on with
>>you and to learn how to turn bits of kit or natural objects into
>>containers if you didn't have one.
>
>Well it sounds like military basic style survival training as practiced
>and envisioned by a certain set of guys: you break down and build up.
>They use the sports analogies of bearing and sucking up to pain.
>These kinds of guys pride themselves on being generalist problem solvers.
Nothing wrong with generalist problem solving. But this wasn't military
training. And the instructors got it wrong in their assessment of the
guy who died (assuming the stories as published are correct) so their
problem solving went awry?
And how well should a human be able to do all those things?
Plenty of specialists today. Are we becoming insects?
>
>who also wrote:
>
>Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
>At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe,
>and not to make messes in the house. -- Robert Heinlein
Again, what level of mathematics? Pure or applied?
>
>No one wants to be a subhuman. It's a plug for generalists, and that's
>why it's called "basic" in the army. These guys (and other survivalists)
>are trying to consider themselves basic problem solvers (quite English,
>but also in other cultures).
>
I don't think you need to go anywhere near as far as they do to become a
basic problem solver.
I've taught finding water (though not in deserts), producing water (in
snow, surprising how many people end up with burnt pans), navigation
(surprising how many people think they can ski/walk in a straight line
when there's no visibility), snow shelter building (most people have no
idea) and other outdoor skills and I certainly encourage people to work
out what to do rather than just tell them. However the health and
welfare of participants always came first. Of course things can go wrong
and unforeseen accidents can happen but in this case it seems that
people were pushed to a limit where a serious incident was bound to
happen eventually.
Chris Townsend
writes
>In article <cnkpNBPj...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk>,
>Chris Townsend <Ch...@DELETE.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>It sounds as though the "instructors" had a rigid
>>plan whereby no one must carry water but must always find it.
>
>If you want to read about examples of rigidity in views, get Bill Putnam's
>autobiography of his time in the 10th Mtn. Division. He was on the
>periphery of how generals tried to use general infantry. It's not merely
>rigidity. These guys think that they are generalists and can adapt
>to any circumstance given the tools they have at hand. Sound familiar:?
Have a look at the British Army in the First World War too (I guess
other armies then too). A rigid approach to warfare that didn't take
into account the new technology of the day.
>
>>I'd have
>>thought the sensible approach would be to always take some water on with
>>you and to learn how to turn bits of kit or natural objects into
>>containers if you didn't have one.
>
>The problem is hierarchy.
>
Once you have hierarchy you have division. Some people can bridge this.
Many can't. The bridging has to be mainly done by those higher in the
hierarchy to those lower down.
Chris Townsend
>"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:463de9eb$0$9939$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>>>>>> That sure doesn't sound like realistic survival training.
>
>In message <4640a42f$1@darkstar>, Eugene Miya <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu>
>writes
>>>>>What's realistic?
>
>All you guys skipped this most important question.
Which is?
They can be. Amundsens plan worked. John Hunts plan worked.
>Scott/Wilson who had a very nice mathematical
>plan (with some poor execution, in constrast to Shackleton who turned
>around at 97 miles) carried on (they stuck with it like these guys).
That's where ad hoc plans come in. Adaptability. Which means fast
thinking and the right frame of mind.
>
>"Mary Malmros" <mal...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns992ACC5D838B...@130.81.64.196...
>>> Right, but in the example at hand, the plan was nothing elaborate, just
>>> simply, "I'm in a desert so why don't I CARRY WATER WITH ME rather than
>>> count on being able to find it." Let's not turn this into a self-love
>>> session on the semantics of the verb "to plan" -- clearly, failing to
>>> put water into an available container at the water source was the act of
>>> a numbnuts, and this "survival" program wasn't teaching people to
>>> survive, it was training them to be idjits. Idjits of a burly type with
>>> lots of impressive-sounding stories to tell, for sure, but idjits
>>> nonetheless.
>
>In article <1Pj0i.8265$Ut6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>Earl J <bo...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>Naaaaaa, not idiots at all. Allowing this guy to carry water would have
>>defeated the training approach of the class.
>
>For both of you guys it's much simpler to ask:
>What's realistic?
In what circumstances? The guides had seem other people in the same
condition and survived so assumed this person would too. That's
dangerous thinking.
>The burley types have some amusing Boy Scoutish type views (Baden-Powell
>and Kahn).
Both still influential. The Scouts and Outward Bound are going strong. I
was in one and have worked for the other. With OB we took teenagers
who'd never been backpacking and took them on a 2 week hike through the
roughest parts of the Scottish Highlands and the Isle of Skye. We did
river crossings, scrambles, easy roped climbs, navigating steep rocky
mountains in the mist, camping in torrential rain and high winds (and
camping with the midges - the toughest of the lot). But for the leaders
the emphasis was always on the well-being of the participants first and
foremost.
>
>>"Tent, matches, compass, sleeping bag, portable stove, watch-all have no
>>role. Campers are equipped with a knife, water cup, blanket and poncho and
>>are told they could lose 20 pounds or more. Among the things they learn is
>>how to catch fish with their hands and how to kill a sheep with a knife."
>>
>>Few people need (or would pay for) training on how to carry water... any
>>"idjit" can do that.
>>
>>It's a tautology that *something* went wrong here, since the guy ended up
>>dead, but gutting the program, IMO, isn't the proper response.
>
>I've never followed the whole BOSS line of reasoning.
>
--
Chris Townsend
Peter Clinch
>> plan an invasion,
>> butcher a hog,
>> conn a ship,
>> design a building,
>> write a sonnet,
>> balance accounts,
>> build a wall,
>> set a bone,
>> comfort the dying,
>> take orders,
>> give orders,
>> cooperate,
>> act alone,
>> solve equations,
>> analyze a new problem,
>> pitch manure,
>> program a computer,
>> cook a tasty meal,
>> fight efficiently,
>> die gallantly.
>> Specialization is for insects."
>> -Lazarus Long character, Time Enough For Love by Robert A. Heinlein
>
> And how well should a human be able to do all those things?
Well, quite. Reading the whole book is quite instructive, as then
it becomes evident that the author is preaching at you in the form
of an alter ego who humbly dismisses many charcters description of
him as wise, but it's pretty clear he likes to think he is. In a 4
figure page count he never really gets much past being a backwoods
philosopher, however.
The book's quite an entertaining meander, but Profound or Great
Literature it ain't...
Why the hell do I need to be able to plan an invasion? I can solve
quite a few equations, history doesn't record if the Buddha was
any good at it, so maybe he wasn't much of a human?
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Ed Huesers
> I've taught finding water (though not in deserts)
I just got back from a desert trip and didn't see any water other
than a couple stock ponds that had a bit in them.
Funny, now I am looking for hot water.
> producing water (in snow, surprising how many people
> end up with burnt pans)
I hope you don't judge me by my pan. :)
> navigation (surprising how many people think they can ski/walk
> in a straight line when there's no visibility)
Dairy farmers in ND used to tie a rope from the house to the barn.
I've never been in complete white out as most places I go have trees.
The lake crossings sometimes get a bit blurred but not complete whiteout.
> snow shelter building (most people have no idea)
I've experimented with using a ski to dig the snow. Heh, many people
think they'll just dig a snowcave with their skis if they need to. Maybe
cut blocks but then you need to know what to do with them.
It ain't rocket science but you can bet an inexperienced snowshelter
builder will be soaked to the bone when he is ready to go to bed.
> I certainly encourage people to work
> out what to do rather than just tell them.
Same here but then there is igloo building. So much to do, so little...
> However the health and welfare of participants always came first.
Yeah, you can only take the school of hard knocks so far.
> Of course things can go wrong
> and unforeseen accidents can happen but in this case it seems that
> people were pushed to a limit where a serious incident was bound to
> happen eventually.
If equipment is available, they should be monitoring the customer's
vital signs.
Just observing ones actions isn't going to do it, people are too
different and they are traveling to close to the edge for guess work.
Why do they push them self so far? To know one's own limits.
Ed Huesers
Http://www.grandshelters.com
Chris Townsend
<e...@grandshelters.com> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>> I've taught finding water (though not in deserts)
>
> I just got back from a desert trip and didn't see any water other
>than a couple stock ponds that had a bit in them.
I've drunk out of many stock ponds.
> Funny, now I am looking for hot water.
Much harder to find!
>
>> producing water (in snow, surprising how many people
>> end up with burnt pans)
>
> I hope you don't judge me by my pan. :)
There are other ways to end up with burnt pans :-). I don't remember
yours as particularly burnt.
>
>> navigation (surprising how many people think they can ski/walk
>> in a straight line when there's no visibility)
>
> Dairy farmers in ND used to tie a rope from the house to the barn.
>I've never been in complete white out as most places I go have trees.
>The lake crossings sometimes get a bit blurred but not complete whiteout.
I've been in many complete white outs in Scotland and Scandinavia. I've
done the trick of throwing a snowball to see whether the ground ahead
slopes up or down (if the snowball vanishes back away!). I've fallen
over due to trying to continue skiing downhill when the slope turned
upwards. White outs really are weird. I've been with people who've
become completely disorientated and suffered motion sickness.
>
>> snow shelter building (most people have no idea)
>
> I've experimented with using a ski to dig the snow. Heh, many people
>think they'll just dig a snowcave with their skis if they need to.
>Maybe cut blocks but then you need to know what to do with them.
I've had people try and build snow shelters with skis and ice axes to
show why a snow shovel is a good idea. Pans and plates are better tools
if you haven't a shovel.
> It ain't rocket science but you can bet an inexperienced snowshelter
>builder will be soaked to the bone when he is ready to go to bed.
Getting people to wear the right clothing is difficult. Digging
snowholes is hard work and snow will get everywhere. Base layers and
waterproofs are all that's needed.
>
>> I certainly encourage people to work out what to do rather than just
>>tell them.
>
> Same here but then there is igloo building. So much to do, so little...
Specific tools do need advice.
>
>> However the health and welfare of participants always came first.
>
> Yeah, you can only take the school of hard knocks so far.
>
>> Of course things can go wrong and unforeseen accidents can happen
>>but in this case it seems that people were pushed to a limit where a
>>serious incident was bound to happen eventually.
>
> If equipment is available, they should be monitoring the customer's
>vital signs.
> Just observing ones actions isn't going to do it, people are too
>different and they are traveling to close to the edge for guess work.
That seems to have been the problem.
> Why do they push them self so far? To know one's own limits.
I think some of the people on my ski trips thought they were being
pushed to their limits.
Mary Malmros
Yeah, Heinlein wrote a whole lot of crap. There's a reason why it's
called fiction.
Mary Malmros
That's like saying that wearing shoes commonly results in murder, since
most murderers are wearing shoes.
> Not always but with enough frequency that the quote is:
> The best laid plans of...
> can be completed by most English speakers.
> Sure skill is also involved, but then you leave out a sense of
> judgment (maybe they were trying to develop that sense?).
By having them NOT fill a bottle with water when the opportunity
presented itself? I'm sorry, perhaps I'm exceptionally dense this week,
but please explain in tiny words: how does it _promote_ good judgment
and common sense, how does it expose students to a _realistic_
situation, how does it illustrate _good planning_, to arbitrarily
prevent students from taking the common-sense action of filling a water
bottle? Until that question is answered, I'm sorry, but all the rest of
this argumentation about "realistic training" and "planning leads to
failure" is mental masturbation.
>>>>I also really, really don't get why the guide who stayed with him
>>>>when he collapsed didn't give him water then (although it probably
>>>>would not have helped at that point). Hello? A member of your
>>>>party collapses a hundred yards from water, and you don't fetch
>>>>water for him, by any means you've got? Again, how does that
>>>>reflect or promote realistic survival skills?
>>>
>>> That's likely more part of the survivalism movement.
>>
>>Right, chest-beating idiots fantasizing in the backcountry. Gotcha.
>
> I just had this part of a thread with Joan. It's a certain level of
> insecurity in a bunch of guys (but not solely confined to guys).
> Chris might be for instance because of his cross posts.
> While I kind of agree with you, I'm not perhaps quite as dismissive.
> My friend Richard Mitchell (who did a PhD thesis in sociology on
> climbing [not a great thesis, but was an early application of "flow"])
> did write a book on the survivalism movement (Joan sort of dismisses).
> To me it's white guys whom have been somewhat brow beaten by the rise
> in power by women and past "minorities" and trying to find their place
> in life.
Not exactly the school where you want to learn about realistic survival,
in other words.
y_p_w
> eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote innews:46421400$1@darkstar:
>
>
>
> > In article <Xns992A80AB566Amalmrosnospam...@130.81.64.196>,
> > Mary Malmros <malm...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote innews:4640a42f$1@darkstar:
> >>> Mary Malmros <malm...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>>"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
I don't think it was really about survival techniques per se, but more
about pushing the limits of the human body. Fraternity initiation
rituals have often involved the same things, with the extreme results
being death from alcohol poisoning or hypernatria.
I mean - 100°F without carrying water? That's just ridiculous. This
stuff is just macho chest-thumping exercise.
Eugene Miya
>>>>>What's realistic?
I had to go to the archives as this went off my expires.
Mary Malmros <malm...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>it was training them to be idjits. Idjits of a burly type
>>>with lots of impressive-sounding stories to tell, for sure, but
>>>idjits nonetheless.
Chris:
>>No disagreement.
> Well it sounds like military basic style survival training as
> practiced and envisioned by a certain set of guys: you break down and
> build up. They use the sports analogies of bearing and sucking up to
> pain. These kinds of guys pride themselves on being generalist problem
> solvers.
>
> Consider (I formatted this for individual points rather than be a
> monolithic block of text):
> "A human being should be able to change a diaper,
...
> Specialization is for insects."
> -Lazarus Long character, Time Enough For Love by Robert A. Heinlein
>Yeah, Heinlein wrote a whole lot of crap.
He sure did.
>There's a reason why it's called fiction.
I think Heinlein is the tip of an old cultural berg who goes back before
chivalrous K-niggots at a round table. I'm not defending Heinlein, but
he's a curosity to me for this quote is cited by many others (I've even
seen a poster).
You are part of this. The whole social fabric which among other things
keeps women out of combat positions. But it's not merely that.
That's merely one factor why these "idiots" carry on. Sure it's macho.
OK: we have a handle on that, a word, but that still doesn't answer my
basic question.
Now: What's realistic?
--
Eugene Miya
>> plan an invasion,
>> butcher a hog,
>> conn a ship,
>> design a building,
>> write a sonnet,
>> balance accounts,
>> build a wall,
>> set a bone,
>> comfort the dying,
>> take orders,
>> give orders,
>> cooperate,
>> act alone,
>> solve equations,
>> analyze a new problem,
>> pitch manure,
>> program a computer,
>> cook a tasty meal,
>> fight efficiently,
>> die gallantly.
>> Specialization is for insects."
>> -Lazarus Long character, Time Enough For Love by Robert A. Heinlein
> > And how well should a human be able to do all those things?
Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Well, quite.
Well, I would have said "adequately."
> Reading the whole book is quite instructive, as then
> it becomes evident that the author is preaching at you in the form
> of an alter ego who humbly dismisses many charcters description of
> him as wise, but it's pretty clear he likes to think he is. In a 4
> figure page count he never really gets much past being a backwoods
> philosopher, however.
8^)
> The book's quite an entertaining meander, but Profound or Great
> Literature it ain't...
I suspect so.
> Why the hell do I need to be able to plan an invasion?
I suspect to prepare you for his bug invasion in Starship Troopers.
> I can solve quite a few equations, history doesn't record if the Buddha was
> any good at it, so maybe he wasn't much of a human?
Hey Superman was almost always shown for superstrength, but there were a
few scenes where he used super brain powers.
Acting alone is nicely ambiguous, and Milton might have few comments on that.
--
Eugene Miya
>>>>>>>> That sure doesn't sound like realistic survival training.
>>All you guys skipped this most important question.
Chris Townsend <C...@DELETE.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Which is?
What's realistic?
>>>>>>>. That's called planning, and planning is not failure.
>>>>>>If you read about Robert Scott,
>>>>>>on his polar expedition, they had lots of planning. They had "the
>>>>>>best gear in the world" at that time. And five died, which most
>>>>> Isn't that the point? He had a plan but didn't stick to it.
>>>>> also the question of the quality of the planning. Planning per se
>>>>> doesn't lead to success. Bad planning can lead to disaster. And when
This is commonly hindsight.
>>>>> plans go wrong (whether because they were bad plans or through
>>>>> unforeseen circumstances like more than expected ice in which your
>>>>> ship is crushed) then ad hoc plans can get you out of trouble.
>>>>> Sticking to a rigid plan can lead to disaster.
>>The famous quote is "The best laid plans of mice and men..."
>>You've listed:
>> bad plans (quality)
>> staying with plan
>> and ad hoc plans (STOP: Stop Think Observe Plan).
>>Plans aren't enough.
>
>They can be. Amundsens plan worked. John Hunts plan worked.
Enough? (necessary and sufficient condition)
Amundsen had prior polar experience.
Hunt had the brute force of the British Army behind it, but failure
was still a possibility.
Scott apparently figured that they could learn along the way
(Birthday Boys and even Mallory had some of this).
>>Scott/Wilson who had a very nice mathematical
>>plan (with some poor execution, in constrast to Shackleton who turned
>>around at 97 miles) carried on (they stuck with it like these guys).
>
>That's where ad hoc plans come in. Adaptability. Which means fast
>thinking and the right frame of mind.
Generally.
But then what's the right frame of mind? (I know context...)
The issue is the algorithm, solution, heuristic or the thinking process
which goes into fast thinking. Some is experience, some judgment, some
other factors......
>>>> simply, "I'm in a desert ...
>>What's realistic?
>
>In what circumstances? The guides had seen other people in the same
>condition and survived so assumed this person would too. That's
>dangerous thinking.
I'd agree with the latter: you get too used to seeing a norm or average.
History (call them stats) are one basis; the problem is how to handle the
exceptional cases.
>>The burley types have some amusing Boy Scoutish type views (Baden-Powell
>>and Kahn).
>
>Both still influential. The Scouts and Outward Bound are going strong. I
>was in one and have worked for the other. With OB we took teenagers
>who'd never been backpacking and took them on a 2 week hike through the
>roughest parts of the Scottish Highlands and the Isle of Skye. We did
>river crossings, scrambles, easy roped climbs, navigating steep rocky
>mountains in the mist, camping in torrential rain and high winds (and
>camping with the midges - the toughest of the lot). But for the leaders
>the emphasis was always on the well-being of the participants first and
>foremost.
Certainly true.
But the whole theory of outdoor education is still up in the air after
decades. Occasionally participants and instructors still die. The Scouts
pride themselves on Merit Badges (Badges being a joke for Fred C. Dobbs).
OB has a number of consistent ideas which don't vary as you are aware but
also leave out like the necessity of "The Solo", a Marathon (of sorts),
and various physical, social/group challenges, and like military training
it presumes breakdown and build up.
Jon
>> ["survival training"]
>
> Now: What's realistic?
Theory and practice. There's training and there's testing.
Some engineering/design/material tests are destructive ("test to failure")
to establish tolerances and practical safe upper limits. In the case of
this individual, the "survival testing" exceeded his tolerance and limits...
The question of "realistic" depends in part on what you're measuring.
What were they trying to measure? Ability to find water? Ability to
judge whether you can make it to "next" water without carrying any?
Ability to perform takes while dehydrated? Ability to self diagnose
and request help?
Or maybe they were testing their ability to monitor client's condition?
For most commercial concerns, it's generally not a good thing to kill
your customer. Bad for repeat business, to say the least.
Maybe the question should be what's realistic enough? Pilots are
trained and tested in part on simulators. Of course, they also have
performance evaluation and testing actually flying.
But also consider how swimming is taught and tested. Sink or swim?
Usually swimming instruction and testing is done in more gradual
practical and less theorectical ways with large safety margins. Few
would undertake to "swim the channel" without significant prior
training and experience.
Jon Meinecke
Eugene Miya
Jon <jon...@none.non> wrote:
>"Eugene Miya" <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote
>>> ["survival training"]
>> Now: What's realistic?
>
>Theory and practice. There's training and there's testing.
Ah! Now see Jon is pointed in the right direction.
>Some engineering/design/material tests are destructive ("test to failure")
>to establish tolerances and practical safe upper limits. In the case of
>this individual, the "survival testing" exceeded his tolerance and limits...
OK, so we have our relation to Harry C. and some generalizations
for a field (engineering) which most people are not familiar.
Good direction.
>The question of "realistic" depends in part on what you're measuring.
>What were they trying to measure? Ability to find water? Ability to
>judge whether you can make it to "next" water without carrying any?
>Ability to perform takes while dehydrated? Ability to self diagnose
>and request help?
I am not clear measurement is the right idea. I think you are looking
for a different word. I think the word you mean is "what's the objective?"
>Or maybe they were testing their ability to monitor client's condition?
> For most commercial concerns, it's generally not a good thing to kill
>your customer. Bad for repeat business, to say the least.
>
>Maybe the question should be what's realistic enough? Pilots are
>trained and tested in part on simulators. Of course, they also have
>performance evaluation and testing actually flying.
Simulation is an interesting issue.
In the past it was a bigger joke. "How many jumps have you done LT?"
"43." "How many real jumps have you done?" "2 including this one."
You look for the telling question? "What's this button <reads 'Chemical
Option'>?" "Oh just your usual non-persistent nerve agent."
But simulation has gotten considerably more realistic as time has
progressed (except to some on the political right). Realism is in the
eye of the beholder. Novices tend to have a considerably less practiced
eye than experienced people.
There ultimately comes the time in every pilot's life when they solo.
Even OB and NOLS do this.
>But also consider how swimming is taught and tested. Sink or swim?
>Usually swimming instruction and testing is done in more gradual
>practical and less theorectical ways with large safety margins. Few
>would undertake to "swim the channel" without significant prior
>training and experience.
Every body cites gradual progressions: graduate length method (GLM) for skiing,
The Channel has other problems beside floating and forward motion.
--
Jon
> Jon <jon...@none.non> wrote:
>>
>>The question of "realistic" depends in part on what you're measuring.
>
> I am not clear measurement is the right idea. I think you are looking
> for a different word. I think the word you mean is "what's the
> objective?"
Objective is probably better choice. One presumes this survival course
featured some training and some testing. I haven't read the report.
What objective was served by not carrying water after found? Surely
a sound survival course wouldn't train people *not to collect* a scare
resource once they locate a source... Was the objective to increase
stress during the practical test?
If you have a device or material that you want to "test", but it is too
valuable (intrinsic or by scarity) to test destructively, then your testing
procedures must have adequate feedback, controls and safety margins.
Did this survival course have these? Does having these alter the reason
people might take the course (machismo)? Maybe safety aspect of this
course was entirely prudent and reasonable and it was simply this client's
"time to go".
> Novices tend to have a considerably less practiced
> eye than experienced people.
Which is why often the best way to learn is to apprentice.
> There ultimately comes the time in every pilot's life when they solo.
> Even OB and NOLS do this.
In the case of pilots (doing it by the book), they solo only after they have
a number of hours training, written testing and logged required direct
observation. And commercial pilots commonly have periodic retraining
and observed reviews to retain certification.
>>[...] Few would undertake to "swim the channel" without significant
>> prior training and experience.
>
> Every body cites gradual progressions: graduate length method (GLM) for
> skiing,
> The Channel has other problems beside floating and forward motion.
Channel swimming is an iconic benchmark.
"[There] is little to gain -and much to lose - by doing battle
with the Tides [...]
Adequate and appropriate nourishment is vital [...]
[There] are ferries, hovercraft, sea cats, and jetfoils [...]
There are hazards such as jellyfish, seaweed, flotsam
and jetsam. [...]
[There] is an element of luck involved "
-- http://www.hughtucker.co.za/challenge.htm
Jon
Eugene Miya
>> for a different word. I think the word you mean is "what's the
>> objective?"
In article <46518b7a$0$9287$8826...@news.teranews.com>,
Jon <jon...@none.non> wrote:
>Objective is probably better choice.
The perfection of means and the confusion of aims seems to be our problem.
--A. Einstein
The elevation of ends and the simplification of means is the goal.
--Thoreau
>One presumes this survival course
>featured some training and some testing. I haven't read the report.
>What objective was served by not carrying water after found? Surely
>a sound survival course wouldn't train people *not to collect* a scare
>resource once they locate a source... Was the objective to increase
>stress during the practical test?
Well the macho, hard man goal seen by many (not unique to the outdoors)
is to tough out and adapt.
The climbing example was John Salathe and Allen Steck (who both lived to
be old guys) when they did climbs in Yosemite for 5 days on 1 pint of
water per day. That's why these guys were call Hard-men. Others wilted
away and you never heard of them. They went above and beyond.
There was also Hermann Buhl holding snow balls in his hands during
winter for long periods of time (he was poor and could not afford mitts).
It's seen as "Salvation through suffering." I'm not condoning this; I'm
merely pointing out a long history in our culture which goes back to
Calvanism and Protestantism, etc. And some guys eat this stuff up.
>If you have a device or material that you want to "test", but it is too
>valuable (intrinsic or by scarity) to test destructively, then your testing
>procedures must have adequate feedback, controls and safety margins.
That's a possibility.
>Did this survival course have these? Does having these alter the reason
>people might take the course (machismo)? Maybe safety aspect of this
>course was entirely prudent and reasonable and it was simply this client's
>"time to go".
Well, you can second guess a lot.
It could be like a breathe holding contest.
People have some incredibly competitive views.
>> Novices tend to have a considerably less practiced
>> eye than experienced people.
>
>Which is why often the best way to learn is to apprentice.
Internships are comparatively expensive. A mentor is a fine amazing
thing to have if you can find one.
>> There ultimately comes the time in every pilot's life when they solo.
>> Even OB and NOLS do this.
>
>In the case of pilots (doing it by the book), they solo only after they have
>a number of hours training, written testing and logged required direct
>observation. And commercial pilots commonly have periodic retraining
>and observed reviews to retain certification.
True. Novice outdoors people have a fair amount to learn and there is
no certification much less consistency. Most of what you do is routine.
Most of what pilots and climbers do is practice for emergencies (which
I've found most eager idealistic backpackers have no interest).
>>>[...] Few would undertake to "swim the channel" without significant
>>> prior training and experience.
>> Every body cites gradual progressions: graduate length method (GLM) for
>> skiing,
>> The Channel has other problems beside floating and forward motion.
>
>Channel swimming is an iconic benchmark.
Well it could be Bryan Allen (who used to lurk) pedalling the Gossamer
Albatross over the Channel. I went by the airport yesterday where he
flew the G. Condor.
> "[There] is little to gain -and much to lose - by doing battle
> with the Tides [...]
That could be Mallory saying that.
> Adequate and appropriate nourishment is vital [...]
>
> [There] are ferries, hovercraft, sea cats, and jetfoils [...]
> There are hazards such as jellyfish, seaweed, flotsam
> and jetsam. [...]
>
> [There] is an element of luck involved "
> -- http://www.hughtucker.co.za/challenge.htm
I'd rather not have to count on luck.
--
Jon
> Jon <jon...@none.non> wrote:
>>Objective is probably better choice.
>
> The perfection of means and the confusion of aims seems to be our problem.
> --A. Einstein
> The elevation of ends and the simplification of means is the goal.
> --Thoreau
or as referenced by the DW,
To live only for some future goal is shallow.
It's the sides of the mountains which sustain life, not the
top...
-- Pirsig
> It could be like a breathe holding contest.
Self limiting?
> People have some incredibly competitive views.
Self challenge/growth need not be competitive, of course.
>>Which is why often the best way to learn is to apprentice.
>
> Internships are comparatively expensive. A mentor is a fine amazing
> thing to have if you can find one.
Growing up in a "culture" some "skills" become second nature
(nurture), e.g., finding water is a way of life for people who
have lived in arid regions for many generations.
But for learning by observation and doing, there are opportunities
to associate with people who "know the ropes" and share
generously. It isn't always expensive.
> Most of what pilots and climbers do is practice for emergencies (which
> I've found most eager idealistic backpackers have no interest).
Which is testament to the fact that few of them ever need it.
[dispense with obligatory discussion of cellphones, rescue, etc...]
A friend relates that the gist of a required first aid training class
for team coaches for an amatuer cyclist charity group consists
mainly of "dial 911". Makes sense, I guess for people near
civilization centers.
>>Channel swimming is an iconic benchmark.
>> [...]
>> [There] is an element of luck involved "
>> -- http://www.hughtucker.co.za/challenge.htm
>
> I'd rather not have to count on luck.
One presumes most "unlucky" channel swimmers simply "bail out"
to the support boat.
Jon Meinecke
Eugene Miya
In article <4652d4ee$0$9234$8826...@news.teranews.com>,
Jon <jon...@none.non> wrote:
>or as referenced by the DW,
> To live only for some future goal is shallow.
> It's the sides of the mountains which sustain life, not the top...
> -- Pirsig
While I read Zen comparatively late in life, Pirsig's emphasis on the
long haul (marathons over sprints) and necessary maintenance makes his
book the 60s icon for mentorship.
>> It could be like a breathe holding contest.
>
>Self limiting?
Only as a generalization. There are complex reflexes and other conditioned
behaviors working against cognition. Some of these work on the
physiology of erotic behaviors as those kids who experiment with plastic
bag and hanging learn. It goes beyond simple characterization.
The kid level stuff works by cognition. Deep divers and others work
against gag reflexes and drowning, etc. It's what you do with your 3 minutes.
>> People have some incredibly competitive views.
>
>Self challenge/growth need not be competitive, of course.
Climbing was much a more fun thing before climbing walls and Soviet
sport climbing and the West's failed athletes looking for new territory
to conquer. We will then start to have backpack races (only the day
stretches are filmable). Of course we have survival game shows.
Extreme this and battle that.
This, is of course to them, social Darwinism; and they plan to survive.
>>>Which is why often the best way to learn is to apprentice.
>> Internships are comparatively expensive. A mentor is a fine amazing
>> thing to have if you can find one.
>
>Growing up in a "culture" some "skills" become second nature
>(nurture), e.g., finding water is a way of life for people who
>have lived in arid regions for many generations.
>
>But for learning by observation and doing, there are opportunities
>to associate with people who "know the ropes" and share
>generously. It isn't always expensive.
The expense isn't merely monetary. I spent ten minutes last evening
talking to my main outdoor mentor of 37 years. He has major changes in
his life to help his son. What's expensive is that the idea starts:
1:1.
Well if you got 1:2: you get twice the student benefit. That works to a
point with some people (pause to consider each phrase). About 1:30,
that's a common classroom (you can see where mass education came from).
That's 30 + or - 10 or more. Look at physician's training where you
might have on resident with 5-6 students.
1:5 or 1:6 might not ordinarily work because the testing process
has weeded out the slow, the less observant, the less smart.
Same goes for outdoor stuff. You really do ideally want 1:1;
it's something similar to old style parenting.
>> Most of what pilots and climbers do is practice for emergencies (which
>> I've found most eager idealistic backpackers have no interest).
>
>Which is testament to the fact that few of them ever need it.
>[dispense with obligatory discussion of cellphones, rescue, etc...]
>
>A friend relates that the gist of a required first aid training class
>for team coaches for an amatuer cyclist charity group consists
>mainly of "dial 911". Makes sense, I guess for people near
>civilization centers.
Well that's why it's called first aid. A physician w/o a hospital is
somewhat limited.
Cycling is easy compared to the other parts of life. The icky thing
about starting out in the outdoors is knowing what to weed out.
>>>Channel swimming is an iconic benchmark.
>>> [...]
>>> [There] is an element of luck involved "
>>> -- http://www.hughtucker.co.za/challenge.htm
>>
>> I'd rather not have to count on luck.
>
>One presumes most "unlucky" channel swimmers simply "bail out"
>to the support boat.
Good editing.
Well channel swimmers progress up and know when they can do it.
I've a co-worker who swims across Lake Tahoe (this is pretty non
trivial). She didn't get there by just walking down to the water.
Ditto Herzog, Mallory, Scott, and the John Does who accomplish all kinds
of seemingly amazing things w/o having books written by or about them.
I'm going to split early on Thursday.
--
Ed Huesers
>>>>Objectives
>>>People have some incredibly competitive views.
>>Self challenge/growth need not be competitive, of course.
Well, I think our friend Chris is off on a selfsatisfaction trip
here: http://www.tgochallenge.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/aboutthechallenge.htm
> I'm going to split early on Thursday.
I can wait til Sat morning. The trailhead is 15 miles from home.
Ed Huesers
Http://www.grandshelters.com
Chris Townsend
<e...@grandshelters.com> writes
>Eugene Miya wrote:
>>>>>Objectives
>>>>People have some incredibly competitive views.
>>>Self challenge/growth need not be competitive, of course.
>> We will then start to have backpack races
>
> Well, I think our friend Chris is off on a selfsatisfaction trip
>here: http://www.tgochallenge.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/aboutthechallenge.htm
Just back from the TGO Challenge! Not a race of course, as everyone
plans their own route. A pleasant wander coast-to-coast across the
Highlands and meeting with like-minded people at the finish.
Chris Townsend
writes
>
>>>>>>>>> That sure doesn't sound like realistic survival training.
>>>>>>>What's realistic?
>>>All you guys skipped this most important question.
>
>Chris Townsend <C...@DELETE.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Which is?
>
>What's realistic?
That's variable.
>
>>>>>>>>. That's called planning, and planning is not failure.
>>>>>>>If you read about Robert Scott,
>>>>>>>on his polar expedition, they had lots of planning. They had "the
>>>>>>>best gear in the world" at that time. And five died, which most
>>>>>> Isn't that the point? He had a plan but didn't stick to it.
>>>>>> also the question of the quality of the planning. Planning per se
>>>>>> doesn't lead to success. Bad planning can lead to disaster. And when
> This is commonly hindsight.
>>>>>> plans go wrong (whether because they were bad plans or through
>>>>>> unforeseen circumstances like more than expected ice in which your
>>>>>> ship is crushed) then ad hoc plans can get you out of trouble.
>>>>>> Sticking to a rigid plan can lead to disaster.
>>>The famous quote is "The best laid plans of mice and men..."
>>>You've listed:
>>> bad plans (quality)
>>> staying with plan
>>> and ad hoc plans (STOP: Stop Think Observe Plan).
>>>Plans aren't enough.
>>
>>They can be. Amundsens plan worked. John Hunts plan worked.
>
>Enough? (necessary and sufficient condition)
>Amundsen had prior polar experience.
>Hunt had the brute force of the British Army behind it, but failure
>was still a possibility.
I guess failure is always a possibility. You just minimise the
likelihood.
>Scott apparently figured that they could learn along the way
>(Birthday Boys and even Mallory had some of this).
Scott did have prior polar experience and did do some training.
>
>>>Scott/Wilson who had a very nice mathematical
>>>plan (with some poor execution, in constrast to Shackleton who turned
>>>around at 97 miles) carried on (they stuck with it like these guys).
>>
>>That's where ad hoc plans come in. Adaptability. Which means fast
>>thinking and the right frame of mind.
>
>Generally.
>But then what's the right frame of mind? (I know context...)
>The issue is the algorithm, solution, heuristic or the thinking process
>which goes into fast thinking. Some is experience, some judgment, some
>other factors......
Exactly. It's complex and can't be reduced to simple sound bites.
>
>>>>> simply, "I'm in a desert ...
>>>What's realistic?
>>
>>In what circumstances? The guides had seen other people in the same
>>condition and survived so assumed this person would too. That's
>>dangerous thinking.
>
>I'd agree with the latter: you get too used to seeing a norm or average.
>History (call them stats) are one basis; the problem is how to handle the
>exceptional cases.
How to stay open-minded and flexible enough to cope with the unexpected
and unusual. Difficult to plan for this.
>
>>>The burley types have some amusing Boy Scoutish type views (Baden-Powell
>>>and Kahn).
>>
>>Both still influential. The Scouts and Outward Bound are going strong. I
>>was in one and have worked for the other. With OB we took teenagers
>>who'd never been backpacking and took them on a 2 week hike through the
>>roughest parts of the Scottish Highlands and the Isle of Skye. We did
>>river crossings, scrambles, easy roped climbs, navigating steep rocky
>>mountains in the mist, camping in torrential rain and high winds (and
>>camping with the midges - the toughest of the lot). But for the leaders
>>the emphasis was always on the well-being of the participants first and
>>foremost.
>
>Certainly true.
>But the whole theory of outdoor education is still up in the air after
>decades. Occasionally participants and instructors still die. The Scouts
>pride themselves on Merit Badges (Badges being a joke for Fred C. Dobbs).
>OB has a number of consistent ideas which don't vary as you are aware but
>also leave out like the necessity of "The Solo", a Marathon (of sorts),
>and various physical, social/group challenges, and like military training
>it presumes breakdown and build up.
I think "outdoor education" covers many ideas. "Adventure" and
"challenge" are only some of them.
>
>>>>any "idjit" can do that.
>>>>It's a tautology that *something* went wrong here, since the guy ended
>>up
>>>>dead, but gutting the program, IMO, isn't the proper response.
>>>I've never followed the whole BOSS line of reasoning.
--
Chris Townsend
Ed Huesers
> Just back from the TGO Challenge! Not a race of course, as everyone
> plans their own route.
I'd imagine deciding what one wants to get out of the event and then
planning around one's own limitations to achieve the proper results.
> A pleasant wander coast-to-coast across the
> Highlands and meeting with like-minded people at the finish.
You had good weather then?
Ed Huesers
http://www.grandshelters.com
Chris Townsend
<e...@grandshelters.com> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>> Just back from the TGO Challenge! Not a race of course, as everyone
>>plans their own route.
>
> I'd imagine deciding what one wants to get out of the event and then
>planning around one's own limitations to achieve the proper results.
I like to plan an interesting high level route with scenic camps and
leave socialising until the finish. Some people like to arrange to meet
others regularly - a sort of party on the move,
>
>> A pleasant wander coast-to-coast across the Highlands and meeting
>>with like-minded people at the finish.
>
> You had good weather then?
For the Highlands! A blizzard on one hill, hail on a couple of others,
heavy rain and storm force winds for two days. Oh, and some sunshine as
well.
Ed Huesers
>>> Just back from the TGO Challenge! Not a race of course, as everyone
>>> plans their own route.
> Ed Huesers writes:
>> I'd imagine deciding what one wants to get out of the event and then
>> planning around one's own limitations to achieve the proper results.
Chris Townsend wrote:
> I like to plan an interesting high level route with scenic camps and
> leave socialising until the finish.
Are you required to stick to a preplanned route or can you wander a bit?
> Some people like to arrange to meet
> others regularly - a sort of party on the move,
Something for all then, sounds fun for everyone.
>>> A pleasant wander coast-to-coast across the Highlands and meeting
>>> with like-minded people at the finish.
>> You had good weather then?
> For the Highlands! A blizzard on one hill, hail on a couple of others,
> heavy rain and storm force winds for two days. Oh, and some sunshine as
> well.
Ah, interesting times. Wouldn't want to get bored.
Still getting some white stuff here at altitude and now I see
Australia is getting snow already.
We were up for the three day holiday last weekend and had very light
afternoon showers with it being clear until mid day. It was T-shirt
weather for the most part. It did cool down in the evening enough though
that it put the skeets where they belong.
Ed Huesers
http://www.grandshelters.com
Chris Townsend
<e...@grandshelters.com> writes
>>> Chris Townsend wrote:
>>>> Just back from the TGO Challenge! Not a race of course, as everyone
>>>>plans their own route.
>
>> Ed Huesers writes:
>>> I'd imagine deciding what one wants to get out of the event and then
>>>planning around one's own limitations to achieve the proper results.
>
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>> I like to plan an interesting high level route with scenic camps and
>>leave socialising until the finish.
>
> Are you required to stick to a preplanned route or can you wander a bit?
Oh, you can wander more than a bit! My final routes are often very
different from the planned one. All the organisers ask is that you phone
them four times during the walk so they know where you are and that
everything is okay. As, very rarely, people have become ill or got into
difficulties and needed rescuing this is a wise precaution. This being
Scotland people aren't usually out for more than 4-5 days at most
without passing through a village where there's a phone (cell phones can
be used but don't work in the hills in many places).
>
>> Some people like to arrange to meet others regularly - a sort of
>>party on the move,
>
> Something for all then, sounds fun for everyone.
>
>>>> A pleasant wander coast-to-coast across the Highlands and meeting
>>>>with like-minded people at the finish.
>>> You had good weather then?
>
>> For the Highlands! A blizzard on one hill, hail on a couple of
>>others, heavy rain and storm force winds for two days. Oh, and some
>>sunshine as well.
>
> Ah, interesting times. Wouldn't want to get bored.
> Still getting some white stuff here at altitude and now I see
>Australia is getting snow already.
> We were up for the three day holiday last weekend and had very light
>afternoon showers with it being clear until mid day. It was T-shirt
>weather for the most part. It did cool down in the evening enough
>though that it put the skeets where they belong.
>
Scotland has gone from torrential rain, temperatures in the thirties F
and light snow on the summit to T-shirt weather in 24 hours.
Ed Huesers
> Ed Huesers writes
>> Are you required to stick to a preplanned route or can you wander a
>> bit?
>
> Oh, you can wander more than a bit!
There are many times here that I don't know where I'm going until I
get there. Even the drive into the hills isn't always to a particular
trailhead until I get to where it feels good for that day.
> My final routes are often very different from the planned one.
Heh, consider my record in Jellystone! But yeah, the days weather,
the snow conditions and even wet swampy areas after rains all make a
difference in what one wants to do.
There are times when I do like to stick to a strict agenda just to
know I can still do it but I seem to back off soon enough when needed.
> All the organisers ask is that you phone
> them four times during the walk so they know where you are and that
> everything is okay.
Reasonable with that many involved.
> Scotland has gone from torrential rain, temperatures in the thirties F
> and light snow on the summit to T-shirt weather in 24 hours.
Had to start watering my lawn last weekend and now we are getting
light showers. The bit of spring camping I've been able to squeeze in
this spring has been nice with sunshine and showers.
Ed Huesers
http://www.grandshelters.com