Fast walking vs. slow walking
Ray Aldridge
little side discussion caught my interest: the poster was promoting
high-speed hiking as a way of seeing more of the sights than a slow walker
would see. He contrasted his 20 mile a day pace with that of another
poster who was satisfied with 6 miles a day in the mountains. His feeling
was that he got to see a lot more because he covered more trail in a given
number of days.
I think he's wrong, at the most essential level. Though I wish I were
strong enough to routinely cover 20 miles in the mountains in a day, I
think that kind of pace leads to seeing less of the sights rather than
more. You might be able to see more mountains, numerically, in a week of
20 mile days, but the slower walker will see the mountains in much greater
detail. The experience will be much deeper if you can pause at a pretty
overlook and soak up the sights for a half hour, rather than giving it a
quick glance and pushing on.
If you want to cover as much ground as possible during a week's vacation,
why walk? A car will cover a hundred times as much ground, and you'll be
able to glance at a lot more peaks.
That's not to denigrate those who see hiking as an essentially athletic
event, and want to prove their strength and endurance in that way. That's
a perfectly good reason to go hiking, but I go hiking for other reasons.
Ray
Elliot Richmond
<pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
>A few days ago there was a thread about shoes for fording streams. One
>little side discussion caught my interest: the poster was promoting
>high-speed hiking as a way of seeing more of the sights than a slow walker
>would see. <snip>
>I think he's wrong, at the most essential level. Though I wish I were
>strong enough to routinely cover 20 miles in the mountains in a day, I
>think that kind of pace leads to seeing less of the sights rather than
>more.
This argument has been going on for at least 100 years and we are no
more likely to arrive at a consensus here than any previous
generations of hikers were. Bob Marshall was famous for being able to
cover 50 miles in a day while carrying a huge pack, maybe 80 pounds.
That was long before lightweight gear.
At my age and with my arthritic knees, slow walking is the only option
left. However, even when I could have easily hiked rim-to-rim in the
Grand Canyon, I never saw the point. Others think it's a great
experience and I am happy for them. I prefer a slow amble. In the end,
that's what counts, I think, doing what's right for ourselves.
Elliot Richmond
Freelance science writer and editor
Austin, Texas
Jerry
get the workout but I always take time to "soak in the beauty"! I guess I
hike for both reasons-------for the physical workout and for the natural
experience. On my last hike in the mountains, I stopped over a valley view
and thought how rich I was. What did I mean? I answered the question, "How
many millions of dollars would I take in exchange for my eyes"? My answer
was, "I wouldn't sell my eyes for all the millions of dollars on the
planet". (That makes me a very wealthy man, doesn't it) :-) May you
enjoy your "wealth" as much as I do mine.
Jerry
"Ray Aldridge" <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote in message
news:20020514.154528....@localhost.localdomain...
Bob Gross
There are times when I prefer to cover six miles per day, shoot a lot of
film, see a lot of wildflowers, and relax. Then there are other times when
impatience takes over and I need to burn out 20-30 miles per day. I finished
one 65-mile loop in Yosemite in only two-days, but that is the extreme case,
and I don't recommend that.
Each time I plan a trip, it is something different.
---Bob Gross---
"Ray Aldridge" <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote in message
news:20020514.154528....@localhost.localdomain...
Cricket
Ray Aldridge <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote in message
news:20020514.154528....@localhost.localdomain...
I think it depends on the territory - big vista, you keep the same sights in
view for a while, so can boogie along and not miss much. Deep woods, curvy
trails, most things to look at small plants, rock formations, animals,
whatever, slower lets you catch more. Different strokes.
Brian Sniatkowski
philosophy. But I'm out there to enjoy the outdoors. It's not an
endurance contest to me. My pack is filled with luxuries that would make
an ultra lighter cringe; wine, beer, hammock, tarp, camp shoes, chair
kit for the Thermarest and the Thermarest. We set modest goals, assuming
that we are going to take our time. If we find a particularly beautiful
viewpoint, we are apt to pull out the Thermarests and spend an hour or
two taking in the view and perhaps a nap. We like to make camp early,
pitch the hammock and tent, then lay back with a good book and a glass
of cabernet and still have time make dinner and sit around the fire.
Granted, we only can do 6-10 miles a day, but they are a very enjoyable
6-10 miles. If we take a half hour to examine the insect life in a
stream, or an hour to check out an interesting side trail that's fine
with us. We work hard enough during the week, rushing to meetings and
meeting deadlines. So what if we prefer to take it easy while
backpacking.
I realize that that our style of backpacking isn't for everybody and
those of you who are solely concerned about how many miles you can bag,
that's fine too. Do what makes you happy, but don't denigrate those who
don't think the same way you do.
Gary S.
<pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
>A few days ago there was a thread about shoes for fording streams. One
>little side discussion caught my interest: the poster was promoting
>high-speed hiking as a way of seeing more of the sights than a slow walker
>would see. He contrasted his 20 mile a day pace with that of another
>poster who was satisfied with 6 miles a day in the mountains. His feeling
>was that he got to see a lot more because he covered more trail in a given
>number of days.
>
Chocolate and vanilla. Some people like one, some like the other, some
like Chunky Monkey. There may be as many reasons and styles of hiking
as there are people hiking.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
Bill Siler
In fairness to the ultalighters, much of what I've read emphasizes
more hours on the trail, as opposed to a faster pace, as well as less
fatigue with a lighter pack. These could lead to a quality
experience. Even so, the few times I've pushed a fast pace or long
day, I've lost out in appreciation. I enjoy moseying along, checking
out the flowers and tracks, using the walking as a tool.
Mile an Hour Bill
Robert L. Taylor
"answer".
I you go slower, you may see more details.
I you go faster, you may see a greater variety of bigger things.
We all walk in the backcountry for varying reasons.
If you run six minute miles, perhaps 26.5 of them in row, and enjoy making
backpacking an endurance athletic trial - great! Hike 20 or 30 miles a day.
If you enjoy walking slowly for 3 hours a day and taking lots of photographs
or fishing or writing in a journal or watching the flora and / or fauna -
great! Hike 3 miles a day.
Or whatever variation of the above that you enjoy.
Bob
"Cricket" <cc...@quixnet.net> wrote in message
news:absev3$5g3$2...@newstest.laserlink.net...
King Pineapple
"Ray Aldridge" <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote in message
news:20020514.154528....@localhost.localdomain...
> The experience will be much deeper if you can pause at a pretty
> overlook and soak up the sights for a half hour, rather than giving it a
> quick glance and pushing on.
After hiking for nearly 40 years, I have concluded that the only major
determining factors for my hiking speed are where I'm going, and the
weather. Since I do all of my hiking in the White Mountains where the
weather can play a major factor in whether I survive or not, I have to take
that into consideration when timing a hike. Mainly, this basically entails
planning to turn back at a pre-determined time on a day hike, to insure
reaching the trailhead before dark. Other than that, as the great Martin
Mull once sang, "I'm Flexible".
Craig
Meredith, NH USA
jeff
> "Ray Aldridge" <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote in message news:<20020514.154528....@localhost.localdomain>...
> > A few days ago there was a thread about shoes for fording streams. One
> > little side discussion caught my interest: the poster was promoting
> > high-speed hiking as a way of seeing more of the sights than a slow walker
> > would see. He contrasted his 20 mile a day pace with that of another
> > poster who was satisfied with 6 miles a day in the mountains. His feeling
> > was that he got to see a lot more because he covered more trail in a given
> > quick glance and pushing on.
anybody what did it get me ?, sprained ankles and buggered up knees
and I couldn't tell anybody about what I'd seen and no time to take
photos,now I tramp [hike as you call it} with my wife at her pace have
far more fun and enjoyment lots of photos to look thru and a better
marriage from spending more time together.
Jeff
Ray Aldridge
wanted to examine was _not_ whether it's "better" (whatever that means) to
walk fast or to walk slow. The question is: do you see more of the
country and all the things in it, if you walk fast or you walk slow?
It seems obvious to me that you see more while moving slowly than while
moving quickly. Almost any course of action is a compromise of
conflicting goals. I think if you move fast, you're giving something up:
intensity of sensation and vision. When you walk slow you give other
things up, I'm sure.
Ray
Bob Gross
see lots more country in the sense of magnitude. I see lots of mountains,
passes, valleys, and rivers. When I hike short and slow, I get to see more
micro-detail. I see more flowers, rocks, and wildlife.
Sometimes you want to see big stuff, and sometimes you want to see small
stuff. That's why each outdoor trip is different.
---Bob Gross---
"Ray Aldridge" <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote in message
news:20020515.150425....@localhost.localdomain...
Andrew Bading
I find that mileage is dependant on many variables. Alone, I'm up and
on the trail earlier than if I'm with someone, fewer and shorter stops,
etc. When alone 12+ miles a day is typical. I've hiked over 20 miles a
day a number of times, but usually enjoy the trip less.I'm out there to
enjoy myself
With kids, 3-8 miles a day is usual, although in summer with lighter
packs, that edges upward. On one trip with my 16-year old this winter we
had a heavy sloppy wet snow, stopped 3 times a day to make hot
chocolate, rolled snowballs down a hillside, boiled lots of water,cooked
lunch, set up camp early. We only hiked half as far as we'd planned,
with days of 4, 4, and 8 miles, the trip was no less enjoyable.
If you've planned a weekend hike, and its 45 miles from point A to B,
with no bail out options in between, obviously, time constraints require
that you do 20+ miles a day, regardless of conditions. Having to stick
to a grueling schedule. Again, it's not why I go out there. For longer
trips, or alpine treks I usually give myself 1-2 days leeway.
Brian Sniatkowski
Chateau Petrus). Do you gulp it to get the burst of flavor and alcohol,
or do you sip it to tastes every nuance. I guess its personal
preference. As my preference, I'll take the latter.
Pete Hickey
Ray Aldridge <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
> The question is: do you see more of the
>country and all the things in it, if you walk fast or you walk slow?
No difference. Slow hikers (incapable of going fast) claim that
just to make themselves feel better. ou know, just like it's
the little guys who say, "size doesn't matter."
-Pete (what, me troll?)
--
--
LITTLE KNOWN FACT: Did you know that 90% of North Americans cannot
taste the difference between fried dog and fried cat?
Eugene Miya
Ray Aldridge <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
>little side discussion caught my interest: the poster was promoting
>high-speed hiking as a way of seeing more of the sights than a slow walker
>would see. He contrasted his 20 mile a day pace with that of another
>poster who was satisfied with 6 miles a day in the mountains. His feeling
>was that he got to see a lot more because he covered more trail in a given
>number of days.
Thoreau covered some of this in the 19th Century. (Different drummer....)
>I think he's wrong, at the most essential level. Though I wish I were
>strong enough to routinely cover 20 miles in the mountains in a day, I
>think that kind of pace leads to seeing less of the sights rather than
>more. You might be able to see more mountains, numerically, in a week of
>20 mile days, but the slower walker will see the mountains in much greater
>detail. The experience will be much deeper if you can pause at a pretty
>overlook and soak up the sights for a half hour, rather than giving it a
>quick glance and pushing on.
One has to know how to use numbers appropriately.
And there are also separate issues of perception.
Independent of citing Fletcher's comment below.
I had two observations, both of which took place in Yosemite.
The first, but the later in time took place while sitting on the can
at the Ostrander ski hut over 20 years ago. It was a great quote,
better than Thoreau in my opinion by John Ruskin (whom I had barely
heard, he was a lesser English contemporarily). I wish I had written
this really neat quote down (since gone). But this lead me into a
search of various fun writings and ideas by Ruskin (he was against
outdoor trips but for the outdoors [he used the Alps as his example])
and other fine authors like Mike Cohen (Mike has friends who used to
read r.b.). Basically Ruskin said care not whether one goes fast or
slow over an area and look more to the quality of the observation.
I've still yet to find that quote again (even asking Howard who no
longer remembers).
People hiking, for instance, engaged in conversation are less likely
to see their environment. Others have fast powers of observation and
good memories and only need a short glance (Ruskin's quote).
The second observation actually happened when I was living in the Valley
about 5 years before that ski trip. Sometimes I would finish work early
and take a bike ride (this was before Mtns bikes; on the Valley hiway)
at dawn. There was this great cool quiet and golden light bathed the
rock walls which I climbed. Walking the length of the Valley to
experience this would take 2 hours, but the bike was the perfect speed
and lack of walls to really take in the light.
It depends on one's background. My entomologist mentor and my botanist
friends (who can be quick) like variable speed paces, but my rock buddies
(mostly not minerologists) can go fast, too.
>If you want to cover as much ground as possible during a week's vacation,
>why walk? A car will cover a hundred times as much ground, and you'll be
>able to glance at a lot more peaks.
This is Fletcher's law of inverse appreciation.
Excerpts from The Complete Walker:
There is a cardinal rule of travel, all too often overlooked,
that I call "The Law of Inverse Appreciation."
It states: "The less there is between you and the environment,
the more you appreciate the environment."
Every walker knows, even if he has not thought about it, the law's
most obvious application: the bigger and most efficient your means of
travel, the further you become divorced from the reality through which
you are travelling. A man learns a thousand times more about the sea from
the "Kon Tiki" than from the "Queen Mary;" euphorically more about space
at the end of a cord than inside a capsule. On land, you remain closer
in touch with the countryside in a slow moving old open touring
car than in a modern, air-conditioned, tinted-glass-window,
80-miles-per-hour-and-never-notice-it behemoth. And you come closer
in touch on a horse than any car; in closer touch on foot than on any horse.
But the law has a second and less obvious application:
your appreciation varies not only according to what you travel "in"
but also according to what you travel "over." Drive along a
freeway in any kind of car and you are in almost zero contact with the
country beyond the concrete. Turn off onto a minor highway and you are
a notch closer. A narrow country road is better still.
When you bump slowly along a jeep trail you begin at last to sense those
vital details that turn mere landscape into living countryside. And not
long ago, on the East African savanna -- where it was at
the time not considered destructive to drive cross-country over the pale
grasslands -- I discovered an extending corollary to my law:
"The further you move away from any impediment of appreciation,
the better it is."
It is less obvious that these same discrepancies persist when
you are travelling on foot. Any blacktop road holds the scrollwork of the
country at arm's length: the road itself keeps stalking along on stilts or
grubbing about in a trough, and your feet travel on harsh and
sterile pavement. Turn off onto a dusty jeep trail and the detail moves
closer. A foot trail is better still. But you do not really
have to break free until you step off the trail and walk through waving
grass or woodland growth or across rock or smooth sand or (most perfect
of all) virgin snow. Now you can read all the details,
down to the print. Drifting snow crystals barely begun to blurr the
four footed signature of the marten that padded past this lodgepole pine.
Or a long-legged lizard scurries for cover, kicking up
little spurts of sand as it corners around a bush. . .And always, in
snow or sand or rock or seascape grass there is, as far as you can see in
any direction, no sign of man.
That, I believe, is being in touch with the world.
--Colin Fletcher
>That's not to denigrate those who see hiking as an essentially athletic
>event, and want to prove their strength and endurance in that way. That's
>a perfectly good reason to go hiking, but I go hiking for other reasons.
Same here, but I will ignore the athletic aspects as uninteresting.
Eugene Miya
Ray Aldridge <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
>Clearly I did a poor job of communicating my question. The question I
>wanted to examine was _not_ whether it's "better" (whatever that means) to
>walk fast or to walk slow. The question is: do you see more of the
>country and all the things in it, if you walk fast or you walk slow?
More important is the rate and quality of perception.
>It seems obvious to me that you see more while moving slowly than while
>moving quickly. Almost any course of action is a compromise of
>conflicting goals. I think if you move fast, you're giving something up:
>intensity of sensation and vision. When you walk slow you give other
>things up, I'm sure.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
--Franklin or whoever
Ed Huesers
> > do you see more of the country and all the things in it, if you walk fast
> > or you walk slow?
Pete Hickey wrote:
> No difference. Slow hikers (incapable of going fast) claim that
> just to make themselves feel better.
Yeah, I've seen em, they walk into the woods a hundred yards and sit
there "just enjoying the day".
> ou know, just like it's the little guys who say, "size doesn't matter."
Aren't you the ultralighter?
> Pete (what, me troll?)
Well, I needed a slurp.
Ed Huesers
Pete Hickey
>In article <20020515.150425....@localhost.localdomain>,
>Ray Aldridge <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
>>Clearly I did a poor job of communicating my question. The question I
>>wanted to examine was _not_ whether it's "better" (whatever that means) to
>>walk fast or to walk slow. The question is: do you see more of the
>>country and all the things in it, if you walk fast or you walk slow?
>
>More important is the rate and quality of perception.
Yep. I cycle commute... One might think that I would notice
more than motorists. I had been commuting down a certain street
for several months. Then one day, I drove down it. I noticed
that there was a new building... Now, buildings don't (usually)
pop up overnight, so I must have passed it many times (on bicycle)
while it was being built. I never noticed it.
-Pete
Darren S.
"Brian Sniatkowski" <bria...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3CE347C5...@att.net...
> OK, for an analogy. You have a bottle of very good red wine (say
> Chateau Petrus). Do you gulp it to get the burst of flavor and alcohol,
> or do you sip it to tastes every nuance. I guess its personal
> preference. As my preference, I'll take the latter.
If its a decent vintage of Petrus you can do both. I've had the '89, and the
finish lasts more than a minute and a half :)
Darren
oli_v_ier
> 20 mile days, but the slower walker will see the mountains in much greater
> detail.
First of all, sorry for my accent (mistakes)!
I think you confuse speed and distance... You can hike fast and do
only 5 miles a day, and hike slowly and do 25 miles a day. It depends
how much TIME you walk.
Since my girlfriend and I have reduced our pack weight, we are able to
walk 10 or 12 hours a day...slowly! Before making the sorting in our
pack, after 5 or 6 hours hiking, our shoulders and hips were sore and
we had to stop. Now we walk as slow as before but walk further because
we can walk longer without pain. So we both: advantages of walking
slowly (see details) and advantages of going far.
Olivier.
Eugene Miya
Pete Hickey <pe...@bitman.uottawa.ca.DELETE.ME> wrote:
>In article <3ce3fcde$1...@news.ucsc.edu>, Eugene Miya <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>In article <20020515.150425....@localhost.localdomain>,
>>Ray Aldridge <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
>>>Clearly I did a poor job of communicating my question. The question I
>>>wanted to examine was _not_ whether it's "better" (whatever that means) to
>>>walk fast or to walk slow. The question is: do you see more of the
>>>country and all the things in it, if you walk fast or you walk slow?
>>More important is the rate and quality of perception.
>LITTLE KNOWN FACT: Did you know that 90% of North Americans cannot
> taste the difference between fried dog and fried cat?
It's because of Western methods of of frying and cooking.
Try dog and cat sushi.
Eugene Miya
Pete Hickey <pe...@bitman.uottawa.ca.DELETE.ME> wrote:
>>More important is the rate and quality of perception.
>
>Yep. I cycle commute... One might think that I would notice
>more than motorists. I had been commuting down a certain street
>for several months. Then one day, I drove down it. I noticed
>that there was a new building... Now, buildings don't (usually)
>pop up overnight, so I must have passed it many times (on bicycle)
>while it was being built. I never noticed it.
A building is a large scale orthogonal geometric form.
Cycling also requires balancing as well as a visual focus.
An analogy was the thread years ago about knowledge of words for things
like species.
So knowing, and seeing on one scale will influence what you know and
understand the smaller scale. So to you, I give the example that not
all X-mas cards should be at a human recognizeable scale, but things
like minerology might not be what they appear.
Very difficult to teach people how to see. We don't teach observation skills.
BTW: Had sushi with J. on Saturday.
It is often the case that the laws of physics do not have an obvious
direct relevance to experience, but that they are abstract to varying degrees.
In this particular case, the fact that the laws are reversible although
the phenomena are not is an example.
There are often great distances between the detailed laws and the
main aspects of real phenomena. For example, if you watch a glacier from
a distance, and see the big rocks falling into the sea, and the way ice moves,
and so forth, it is not really essential to remember that it is made out
of little hexagonal ice crystals. But it takes quite a while to understand
all the behaviour of the glacier (in fact nobody knows enough about ice yet,
no matter how much they've studied the crystal). However, the hope is that
if we do understand the ice crystal we shall ultimately understand the glacier.
--R. P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law
I HAVE a friend who's an artist,
and he sometimes takes a view which I don't
agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say,
"Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree.
But then he'll say,
"I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is.
But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull."
I think he's kind of nutty.
First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people
and to me, too, I believe. Although I might not be quite as
refined aesthetically as he is,
I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.
But at the same time, I see much more
in the flower than he sees. I can imagine
the cells inside, which also have a
beauty. There's beauty not just at the
dimension of one centimeter; there's
also beauty at a smaller dimension.
There are the complicated actions of the cells, and other processes.
The fact that the colors in the flower have evolved in order to
attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; that means insects
can see the colors. That adds a question:
does this aesthetic sense we have also exist in lower forms of life?
There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from
a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and
mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds.
I don't understand how it subtracts.
R. P. Feynman
Eugene Miya
Darren S. <no...@nodomain.com> wrote:
>"Brian Sniatkowski" <bria...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:3CE347C5...@att.net...
>> OK, for an analogy. You have a bottle of very good red wine (say
>> Chateau Petrus). Do you gulp it to get the burst of flavor and alcohol,
>> preference. As my preference, I'll take the latter.
>
>If its a decent vintage of Petrus you can do both. I've had the '89, and the
>finish lasts more than a minute and a half :)
First, it's the extent of the surface area of the tongue which gets it.
That depends on the size of the complete sample of drink.
And it depends on the sensory taste buds which vary widely among people.
We drink to replenish fluids and we don't sip to do that, and we drink
to taste.
But it helped to take a class on wine.
Ray Aldridge
> In article <20020515.150425....@localhost.localdomain>, Ray
> Aldridge <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
. The question is: do you see more of the
>>country and all the things in it, if you walk fast or you walk slow?
> More important is the rate and quality of perception.
Ok then. Is there no quantifiable relationship between the speed at which
one walks, and "the rate and quality of perception?" I think there must
be, though perhaps I'm an insufficiently skilled hair-splitter.
I think it's interesting to observe the vigor with which backpackers
reject any attempt to deduce generalizations about their pursuit. I guess
this is due to our somewhat romantic belief that we're the last of the
rugged individualists, and can't bear to think that any aspect of our
pastime is vulnerable to cold hard-headed analysis.
If I say: "Suppose two backpackers of the same size, age, and physical
attributes were to walk ten miles over the same trail, taking the same
time, in the same weather and time of day. One carries a pack of 30
pounds; the other carries a pack of 60 pounds. Who will be more fatigued
at the end of the hike?"
I bet I'd still get 6 different answers to the question, all coming down
to the same bottom line: "It depends."
I'm not complaining, by the way. I enjoy the answers, no matter how
divergent.
Eugene Miya
Ray Aldridge <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
>In article <3ce3fcde$1...@news.ucsc.edu>, "Eugene Miya" <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu>
>wrote:
>> In article <20020515.150425....@localhost.localdomain>, Ray
>> Aldridge <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
>. The question is: do you see more of the
>>>country and all the things in it, if you walk fast or you walk slow?
>> More important is the rate and quality of perception.
>
>Ok then. Is there no quantifiable relationship between the speed at which
>one walks, and "the rate and quality of perception?" I think there must
>be, though perhaps I'm an insufficiently skilled hair-splitter.
Practice.
It will improve your perception and your hair-splitting.
I think the issue is somewhat independent of walking.
This goes against what I posted quoting Fletcher.
What he says, and what you are trying to say is a generalization, but
all generalizations have their limits. Some work fine (Newtonian
calculus is a useful tool even if it is wrong on certain scales).
>I think it's interesting to observe the vigor with which backpackers
>reject any attempt to deduce generalizations about their pursuit. I guess
>this is due to our somewhat romantic belief that we're the last of the
>rugged individualists, and can't bear to think that any aspect of our
>pastime is vulnerable to cold hard-headed analysis.
Oh there are probably others attempting to be individualists.
I was asked to attend a book signing last evening given by Lynn Hill
(you might or might not know whom she is). She used the term
"non-conformists", but that was climbers (who would say that they are
the last of the rugged individualists who would be in opposition to
cross country truck drivers or Alaskans).
One might consider it like herding cats.
If you are attempting to create a 1-dimensional model of appreciation
solely based on speed, you are likely to lose. You will need a another
variable or 2 or even more. That's the nature of models.
But Fletcher got away with it.
>If I say: "Suppose two backpackers of the same size, age, and physical
>attributes were to walk ten miles over the same trail, taking the same
>time, in the same weather and time of day. One carries a pack of 30
>pounds; the other carries a pack of 60 pounds. Who will be more fatigued
>at the end of the hike?"
>
>I bet I'd still get 6 different answers to the question, all coming down
>to the same bottom line: "It depends."
Oh, a twins experiment!
Do a search on that phrase in this group and you will see that phrase a lot.
It is something of a cop out like "Because it's there."
I have seen this twins experiment. The 60 lbs was carrying his wife's 30 lbs.
Yeah, he was probably more tired, but he also kept better martial bliss.
>I'm not complaining, by the way. I enjoy the answers, no matter how
>divergent.
Sit back an enjoy it, then.
I'm off to take some girl friends ballooning.
Bob Gross
or cat sushi?
inquiring minds want to know
:-)
---Bob Gross---
"Eugene Miya" <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in message
news:3ce51614$1...@news.ucsc.edu...
Pete Hickey
>In article <ESZE8.5616$as4.2...@weber.videotron.net>,
>Pete Hickey <pe...@bitman.uottawa.ca.DELETE.ME> wrote:
>>In article <3ce3fcde$1...@news.ucsc.edu>, Eugene Miya <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>>More important is the rate and quality of perception.
>>
>>Yep. I cycle commute... One might think that I would notice
>> I never noticed it.
>
>A building is a large scale orthogonal geometric form.
>Cycling also requires balancing as well as a visual focus.
You missed my main point. You're so analytical. You
*can't* appreciate a flower!
The point is that the mind/mood plays a large part in it.
Commuting is rote. You are in a mood where perception
of your environment is not important. Commuting isn't
much more than sleeping except you aren't in a bed.
>Very difficult to teach people how to see.
Funny you should say that ... I almost have my vision completely
restored after a hiking accident a couple months ago.
> We don't teach observation skills.
See "A Study in Scarlet".. A Conon Doyle. chapter 3-ish. Holmes
gives a good schpeel on that.
>BTW: Had sushi with J. on Saturday.
I know.
Brian Sniatkowski
woods.
Ray Aldridge wrote:
>
> A few days ago there was a thread about shoes for fording streams. One
> little side discussion caught my interest: the poster was promoting
> high-speed hiking as a way of seeing more of the sights than a slow walker
> would see. He contrasted his 20 mile a day pace with that of another
> poster who was satisfied with 6 miles a day in the mountains. His feeling
> was that he got to see a lot more because he covered more trail in a given
> number of days.
>
> I think he's wrong, at the most essential level. Though I wish I were
> strong enough to routinely cover 20 miles in the mountains in a day, I
> think that kind of pace leads to seeing less of the sights rather than
> more. You might be able to see more mountains, numerically, in a week of
> 20 mile days, but the slower walker will see the mountains in much greater
> detail. The experience will be much deeper if you can pause at a pretty
> overlook and soak up the sights for a half hour, rather than giving it a
> quick glance and pushing on.
>
> If you want to cover as much ground as possible during a week's vacation,
> why walk? A car will cover a hundred times as much ground, and you'll be
> able to glance at a lot more peaks.
>
> That's not to denigrate those who see hiking as an essentially athletic
> event, and want to prove their strength and endurance in that way. That's
> a perfectly good reason to go hiking, but I go hiking for other reasons.
>
> Ray
Ray Aldridge
wrote:
>>> Ray Aldridge <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
>>. The question is: do you see more of the
>>>>country and all the things in it, if you walk fast or you walk slow?
>>> More important is the rate and quality of perception.
>>Ok then. Is there no quantifiable relationship between the speed at
>>which one walks, and "the rate and quality of perception?" I think
>>there must be, though perhaps I'm an insufficiently skilled
>>hair-splitter.
> Practice.
> It will improve your perception and your hair-splitting.
It's true! There was actually a time when inexplicable condescension
didn't make me laugh out loud.
I think the
> issue is somewhat independent of walking. This goes against what I
> posted quoting Fletcher. What he says, and what you are trying to say is
> a generalization, but all generalizations have their limits.
Yes, of course. However, the fact that the vast majority of our decisions
are reached on the basis of "generalizations" suggests that they are
rather more useful than any number of theoretical exceptions, no matter
how entertaining they may be to those who dream them up. (And I should
know a bit about entertaining theoretical exceptions, since these are the
basis of fiction.)
I remain unconvinced that fast walkers see more of the country through
which they move so swiftly, except in the crudest measure of such sight--
miles walked. You may, if you wish, accuse me of excessively concrete
thinking, but I've rarely been so accused. I just haven't seen a
plausible rationale for the counter-generalization implicit in your
remarks: that fast walking can mean better observation.
Eugene Miya
Ray Aldridge <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
>>>. The question is: do you see more of the
>>>>>country and all the things in it, if you walk fast or you walk slow?
>>>which one walks, and "the rate and quality of perception?" I think
>>>there must be, though perhaps I'm an insufficiently skilled
>>>hair-splitter.
In article <3ce57732$1...@news.ucsc.edu>, "Eugene Miya" <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu>
wrote:
>>>> More important is the rate and quality of perception.
>> Practice.
>> It will improve your perception and your hair-splitting.
>
>It's true! There was actually a time when inexplicable condescension
>didn't make me laugh out loud.
Humor can be very important.
The NG can always use another good joke and not yet-another-already-told-
bear-joke.
>> I think the
>> issue is somewhat independent of walking. This goes against what I
>> posted quoting Fletcher. What he says, and what you are trying to say is
>> a generalization, but all generalizations have their limits.
>
>Yes, of course. However, the fact that the vast majority of our decisions
>are reached on the basis of "generalizations" suggests that they are
>rather more useful than any number of theoretical exceptions, no matter
>how entertaining they may be to those who dream them up. (And I should
>know a bit about entertaining theoretical exceptions, since these are the
>basis of fiction.)
A useful approximation is better than a perfect, unattainable theory.
Theoreticians attempted to design a competing set of network protocols
(X.25) to the ones we use these days (NNTP on top of TCP/IP).
Rough consensus and working code wins.
But every since the first time I received emailing lists a couple
decades ago, I learned the nature of network discussions, you cannot but
help only talk about gross generalizations. No sense in fighting it.
>I remain unconvinced that fast walkers see more of the country through
>which they move so swiftly, except in the crudest measure of such sight--
>miles walked. You may, if you wish, accuse me of excessively concrete
>thinking, but I've rarely been so accused. I just haven't seen a
>plausible rationale for the counter-generalization implicit in your
>remarks: that fast walking can mean better observation.
I didn't say that. I said perception was generally important.
It says more of the walker than the terrain. Your thinking is not
excessively concrete.
Showing pictures to people for varying lengths of time and recording
the observations can show some limits of perception.
Eugene Miya
Lobster Grrrl <lobste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I had several classes in college on developing observation and
>assessment skills. It's important in my profession that I notice
>congruency , or incongruency between what I'm seeing and what I'm
>hearing.
I had teachers who spent summers in fire look outs. It's very important
to train rather than assume that people see things.
A good counter example is professional camoflage. Done poorly, it can
highlight a target rather than obscure it (notice that I don't use the
word "hide" here). It's important to empirically test some of these
things like dazzle camo.
>I tend to notice more things in everyday life because of it though. I
>can often describe something in pretty good detail after seeing it
>only one time.
Remember that Sherlock Holmes carries a magnifying glass for a reason.
Then does that mean that hikers w/o magnifying glasses are at a disadvantage?
Sure. The trick is to admit it.
Ed Huesers
Pete Hickey wrote:
> I noticed that there was a new building...
> Now, buildings don't (usually) pop up overnight
Wasn't an igloo... was it?
Ed Huesers
Patricia J. Hawkins
>>>>> "PH" == Pete Hickey <pe...@bitman.uottawa.ca.DELETE.ME> writes:
PH> In article <3ce3fcde$1...@news.ucsc.edu>, Eugene Miya <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>> In article <20020515.150425....@localhost.localdomain>,
>> Ray Aldridge <pbwr...@fwb.gulf.net> wrote:
>>> Clearly I did a poor job of communicating my question. The question I
>>> wanted to examine was _not_ whether it's "better" (whatever that means) to
>>> walk fast or to walk slow. The question is: do you see more of the
>>> country and all the things in it, if you walk fast or you walk slow?
>>
>> More important is the rate and quality of perception.
PH> Yep. I cycle commute... One might think that I would notice
PH> more than motorists. I had been commuting down a certain street
PH> for several months. Then one day, I drove down it. I noticed
PH> that there was a new building... Now, buildings don't (usually)
PH> pop up overnight, so I must have passed it many times (on bicycle)
PH> while it was being built. I never noticed it.
This may not be cycling versus driving, but cycling on autopilot
versus driving not on autopilot -- you cycle every day, autopilot
takes over; when you drive, it's novel, so you notice things you don't
normally notice.
There was an interesting article recently about a scientist at MIT who
researchs the brain structures involved in autopilot behaviour --
she's shown that behaviour that gets repeated many, many times gets
learned by one of the more primitive brain areas, leaving the rest of
the brain free for other tasks.
Which is why you sometimes find you've driven to work when you meant
to go somewhere else -- the route to someplace else started on your
commute route, autopilot took over, and there you are.
--
Patricia J. Hawkins
Eugene Miya
Patricia J. Hawkins <phaw...@connact.com> wrote:
...
>researchs the brain structures involved in autopilot behaviour --
>she's shown that behaviour that gets repeated many, many times gets
>learned by one of the more primitive brain areas, leaving the rest of
>the brain free for other tasks.
Cell phones and driving.
>Which is why you sometimes find you've driven to work when you meant
>to go somewhere else -- the route to someplace else started on your
>commute route, autopilot took over, and there you are.
Wow, not wonder why there are so many dangerous drivers on the roads!
Gary S.
wrote:
This all assumes, of course, that there is enough brain to go around
for multiple tasks.
If some have trouble walking and talking, then many more would have
trouble with driving and phoning.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
Jerry M. Wright
>On 19 Jun 2002 14:44:52 -0800, eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <wkbsa72...@mail.connact.com>,
>>Patricia J. Hawkins <phaw...@connact.com> wrote:
>>...
>>>researchs the brain structures involved in autopilot behaviour --
>>>she's shown that behaviour that gets repeated many, many times gets
>>>learned by one of the more primitive brain areas, leaving the rest of
>>>the brain free for other tasks.
>>
>>Cell phones and driving.
>>
>>
>>>Which is why you sometimes find you've driven to work when you meant
>>>to go somewhere else -- the route to someplace else started on your
>>>commute route, autopilot took over, and there you are.
>>
>>Wow, not wonder why there are so many dangerous drivers on the roads!
>>
>This all assumes, of course, that there is enough brain to go around
>for multiple tasks.
There isn't. Work was published about several months ago on splitting
attention between 2 tasks like phoning and driving. Basically you
can't unless one of them requires absolutely no judgement - like
deciding to swerve to miss a car that's pulled out in front of you.
Takes too long to switch gears and make decisions. Much of driving is
below that level so you can get away with it for a long time. That's
why accident rates on cell phone calls is about the same as have 1
drink. Statistically significant but difficult to make a strong
cause-effect statement in most specific instances. Using a hands free
item will not change the accident rate much, underlying problem is
switching attention between unrelated critical tasks.
[snip]
Gary S.
(Jerry M. Wright) wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 01:59:44 GMT, Idontwantspam@net (Gary S.) wrote:
>
>>This all assumes, of course, that there is enough brain to go around
>>for multiple tasks.
>
>There isn't. Work was published about several months ago on splitting
>attention between 2 tasks like phoning and driving. Basically you
>can't unless one of them requires absolutely no judgement - like
>deciding to swerve to miss a car that's pulled out in front of you.
Makes sense.
I think that some people can learn to multitask like that, some have
inherent abilities. In both cases, far fewer people than those who
think they can.
Of course, driving only can be too much for some.
Bri
"Jerry M. Wright" <Jerry.M...@remove.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3d12369e...@news.verizon.net...
Actually it is worse than that--much. It gets worse when you start pressing
buttons on the phone and are not looking at the road.
>
> [snip]
Martin Thornquist
> I think that some people can learn to multitask like that, some have
> inherent abilities. In both cases, far fewer people than those who
> think they can.
I've heard that women multitask better than men. Makes sense
evolutionary -- the men out hunting mammoth needed full attention on
the single task of killing the mammoth while not being killed by the
mammoth, while the women back in the cave had to watch the fire, make
sure the kids were fed and didn't kill each other, and beat off
hungry scavengers.
> Of course, driving only can be too much for some.
I think having a driver's license is seen as too much of a human
right. Some people clearly shouldn't be let anywhere near motorized
vehicles. This is based on my experience both driving and biking.
Martin
--
"An ideal world is left as an exercise to the reader."
-Paul Graham, On Lisp
dh
trail
and my foot interaction therewith,
so I get more out of walking to my natural cadence (pretty fast uphill, much
slower
downhill) and stopping to look around...
I hike with people who have iron ankles and knees, who take longer on the
uphills but blow me away on the downhill!
Depends on you, as an individual.
Dan
--
+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -
+ - + - + -
"Science finds, Industry applies, Man conforms."
motto of the 1933 Chicago World's Fair
+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -
+ - + - + -