[Oldmanmatt]

I appear to have somehow linked into the Driffield weight watchers Facebook page.

Said the actress to the Bishop...

[comPiler]

Risk taking
24 May 2016, 11:29 pm

Risk taking is something that continually fascinates me. It used to occupy my mind mainly in the context of running it out on scary trad routes. These days, more and more, I think of my risk taking in this environment as being quite simple most of the time. I either want to do the climb enough and feel able and willing to commit to it, or I don’t. Risk taking decisions in climbing are often quite formulaic. You put the pieces of information you have through the algorithm, and then churn out the decision. The spaces between the information get filled with intuition borne from experience (of past mistakes). Where you know you are relying on intuition, you must accept its limitations and be ready to escape as best you can if the adventure goes bad. If there is no intuition, no spaces between the data, there isn’t much excitement. Sport becomes robotic and dull.

More interesting are the more complex risks of life. Where the proportion of fragments of useful signal in the noise of unknowns are much scarcer. If I eat this, am I getting slightly more dead, or slightly closer to 8C? Will my life be better if I stay in the European Union? Given that the world is still turning after George W, will the end befall us under Donald Trump?

Still more tricky are parental decisions. My daughter balances along a wall. My head tells me there is only one way to learn about height: landing from a height. Better learning from a 3 foot drop than 30 foot. But learning carries the risk of things not working out well. There is no way around this. Avoiding short term risk during learning creates bigger risks later on. It’s why the rates of kids fractures go up, not down, when they replace the concrete with rubber flooring in play parks. Risky play is a serious business, of learning.

It was a year and a half ago now, but readers of this blog will remember that my take-home message from the referendum campaign for independence here in Scotland was that I resolved to be as fearless as possible in as many areas of my life as I could. I was left with a strong desire to rail against bias for the status quo until you have a path of solid data laid before you (data which can never be got without taking the leap and running the experiment). It colours my approach to many things, in my view in a good way. But I’ll not be offended if you read this and think differently. My perspective is that our norms are way too skewed in the direction of reluctance to experiment and take risks, and by pushing back against this, we get closer to an optimum balance. In other words, the tide of societal norms and especially media economics is constantly dragging us towards fearfulness. While the tide moves in this direction, we have to swim in the other direction, even just to stand still. I’m writing this post as much as anything to remind myself to keep up that resolve. I try every day, sometimes succeeding, sometimes badly failing. Failing is allowed. Failing to try is inexcusable.

As I get older I understand more and more that I have an appetite for taking risks in certain situations, even if the odds are not great. I don’t take stupid risks. You’ll never catch me in a bookmakers, for example. I’m also not that attached to the thrill of taking risks. I still get a wee bit scared to phone people I don’t know and things like that. I get no kick out of random risks, purely taken for the thrill. But if I’m curious about an outcome, I’ll gladly take a calculated risk to find out what will happen. In fact, I’ll find it harder not to take the risk. I find the status-quo an uncomfortable, stressful place. But pure indulgence of curiosity is not the only strand of motivation for risk taking for me. The need for change is another.

I heard an interesting quote the other day that there are only two things that drive significant change in a persons life; abject misery or profound inspiration.

If this is indeed true, then it is interesting because either will do. If you don’t have the inspiration, misery in its various forms will do just fine in its place. Maybe it’s just me but I feel myself getting gradually less tolerant of a part of our culture that is tyrannised by the need for data. I’m all for evidence, and the use of useful data. But life is full of unknowns - incomplete or absent data. Quite often the only way to get data is to go ahead and try, and learn the hard way. This is the rub for me - aversion to exploring areas with little data only succeeds in getting less data. If you are a data fiend, then the places where data does not exist are those that will feed your habit for more data.

If someone says “lets not try this until we have evidence”. The next question should be “can we get the evidence without trying it?” Life is far to short to get stuck in this dilemma all the time.

Dave MacLeod

My book - 9 out of 10 climbers make the same mistakes

Source: Dave MacLeod blog

[andy popp]

Weirdly, climbers almost never manage to talk cogently about risk - that post is a real exception.

[Fiend]

Although it is written from the perspective of someone at the very, very extreme edge of climbing attitude in terms of a rigourous and scientific approach - and also someone who seems, from previous scenarious, to do a vast amount of research (and hence data) before committing to a path of action.

[Tommy]

Risk taking
24 May 2016, 11:29 pm

If you are a data fiend, then the places where data does not exist are those that will feed your habit for more data.

Source: Dave MacLeod blog

Fiend, I can't believe Dave is now writing his blogs personally for you!

[tim palmer]

Although it is written from the perspective of someone at the very, very extreme edge of climbing attitude in terms of a rigourous and scientific approach - and also someone who seems, from previous scenarious, to do a vast amount of research (and hence data) before committing to a path of action.

You aren't suggesting a degree of cognitive dissonance in dave's writing are you?

[fatneck]

I find it helps to read Dave's posts in a Glaswegian ascent...

[lagerstarfish]

Risk taking
24 May 2016, 11:29 pm

If you are a data fiend, then the places where data does not exist are those that will feed your habit for more data.

Source: Dave MacLeod blog

Fiend, I can't believe Dave is now writing his blogs personally for you!

he's using "fiend" as a derogatory term for someone who is a bit of a twunt - you know like people used to use "gay" or "faggot"

[fried]

I find it helps to read Dave's posts in a Glaswegian ascent...

Maybe he could get Irvine Welsh to ghost write it

[petejh]

Good post, resonates with my outlook.

Although it's interesting to me to note that in the genre of climbing- trad onsighting - where success is the most heavily relient on what Dave's talking about i.e. calculated risk, optimistic mindset and not being the personality type prone to succumbing to the need for ever more data, isn't Dave Mc's trad onsighting not particularly strong relative to his other strengths? I seem to remember reading he onsights E7 (? someone correct me) which isn't at all extraordinary these days especially compared to his rehearsed level...

Completely agree with his overall point though. The world I inhabit seems to me full to the brim with academics (ukb being no exception) who can convincingly argue a theoretical point to death, back it up with endless data, and give you 101 reasons why what you think may not be entirely 100% correct... all seemingly in pursuit of simply displaying knowledge for no other reason than displaying it. Which is nice as far as it goes but I find myself thinking these people probably won't ever do much extraordinary, progressive, creative, out of the box etc. because they've been immunised by knowledge to revert to the mean (the status quo) and against following their gut.

[shark]

Fiend, I can't believe Dave is now writing his blogs personally for you!

No - he is writing it for me and I now feel vindicated about my intention to vote for Brexit despite everyone else I know (it seems) taking the opposite view

[erm, sam]

because they've been immunised by knowledge to revert to the mean (the status quo) and against following their gut.

Ha! You mean they disagree with you.

[shark]

because they've been immunised by knowledge to revert to the mean (the status quo) and against following their gut.

Ha! You mean they disagree with you.

It happens a lot   

[SA Chris]

No it doesn't

[petejh]

because they've been immunised by knowledge to revert to the mean (the status quo) and against following their gut.

Ha! You mean they disagree with you.

Ha! No. I know what I meant but perhaps didn't say it very well. As long as Shark's disagreeing with me I know I'm on the right path.

[Duncan campbell]

Good post, resonates with my outlook.

Although it's interesting to me to note that in the genre of climbing- trad onsighting - where success is the most heavily relient on what Dave's talking about i.e. calculated risk, optimistic mindset and not being the personality type prone to succumbing to the need for ever more data, isn't Dave Mc's trad onsighting not particularly strong relative to his other strengths? I seem to remember reading he onsights E7 (? someone correct me) which isn't at all extraordinary these days especially compared to his rehearsed level...

I thought the exact same thing. I'm pretty sure you are correct in saying he has onsighted E7 but I don't feel like it is a regular occurence as it is for people like Caff. Maybe in Scotland they are a bit more gnarly/unknown...

[petejh]

And that wasn't meant as any sort of slight toward D.M. in case anyone wondered. It's just one of the obvious things that stands out from that post. It looks as if Dave is happiest in his own comfort zones of rehearsed summer and winter ascents - 'comfort zone' being relative obv and way outside most peoples! Where he seems to apply the theory is more it seems to me in lifestyle choices and less in his climbing - choosing to spend his life earning a living from climbing for e.g. Choosing to write and self-publish books for a living is another.

[Stu Littlefair]

Completely agree with his overall point though. The world I inhabit seems to me full to the brim with academics (ukb being no exception) who can convincingly argue a theoretical point to death, back it up with endless data, and give you 101 reasons why what you think may not be entirely 100% correct... all seemingly in pursuit of simply displaying knowledge for no other reason than displaying it. Which is nice as far as it goes but I find myself thinking these people probably won't ever do much extraordinary, progressive, creative, out of the box etc. because they've been immunised by knowledge to revert to the mean (the status quo) and against following their gut.

Whilst that may be what you feel, it wasn't Dave's overall point. Dave is musing over what the correct course of action is when there's little evidence either way. You seem to be ranting against people who have an opinion and "back it up with endless data".

I get desperately sick in the real world of people who choose to ignore strong evidence and argument because it doesn't fit with their world view. Adjusting your world view in the face of compelling argument is not reverting to the mean. And it hardly inhibits creativity it just stops you wasting your time on dead ends.

 

[Stu Littlefair]

Weirdly, climbers almost never manage to talk cogently about risk - that post is a real exception.

I've noticed this as well but I've always thought it natural. An inability to think coherently about risk is either a vital asset (or a crippling impediment) for a climber.

[andy popp]

You might have a point Stu. I used to take pretty large amounts of risk but was very good at thinking I wasn't taking much at all - all reinforced by experience (for as long as nothing went wrong).

[John Gillott]

It's always struck me that there aren't that many serious incidents (say breaks with long term consequences and deaths) involving climbers at the higher end of trad climbing (or any kind of rock climbing). Taking an empirical approach, aggregating experience, perhaps most rock climbers become very good at controlling risk and aren't in fact therefore taking as big a risk as some think they are?

[Nutty]

I get desperately sick in the real world of people who choose to ignore strong evidence and argument because it doesn't fit with their world view. Adjusting your world view in the face of compelling argument is not reverting to the mean. And it hardly inhibits creativity it just stops you wasting your time on dead ends.

I agree whole-heartedly with this: when the data is there to demonstrate that what people assume with their gut instinct is wrong, and people argue against using the data because they'd rather not have their assumptions challenged, it's incredibly frustrating.

[petejh]

Completely agree with his overall point though. The world I inhabit seems to me full to the brim with academics (ukb being no exception) who can convincingly argue a theoretical point to death, back it up with endless data, and give you 101 reasons why what you think may not be entirely 100% correct... all seemingly in pursuit of simply displaying knowledge for no other reason than displaying it. Which is nice as far as it goes but I find myself thinking these people probably won't ever do much extraordinary, progressive, creative, out of the box etc. because they've been immunised by knowledge to revert to the mean (the status quo) and against following their gut.

While that may be what you feel, it wasn't Dave's overall point. Dave is musing over what the correct course of action is when there's little evidence either way. You seem to be ranting against people who have an opinion and "back it up with endless data".

I get desperately sick in the real world of people who choose to ignore strong evidence and argument because it doesn't fit with their world view. Adjusting your world view in the face of compelling argument is not reverting to the mean. And it hardly inhibits creativity it just stops you wasting your time on dead ends.

A strong argument and compelling evidence is great and I don't disagree with you. But you're mistaking what I wrote as a rant against this. I'm not. I'm talking about there being too much data in general.  Today there is so much data, much of it 'compelling' backing up competing viewpoints that it's common for arguments to get mired in trading competing data. The Eu referendum, Scottish referendum, NHS contracts are three recent examples of there being a distinct lack of clear strong arguments, but lots of seemingly compelling data from either side - sounds great in theory but as has been discovered in various studies (see...) people in general aren't wired to intuitively understand data where lots of figures/stats are  involved - why the term 'follow your gut' still has meaning in this tech age.
It's been mentioned a lot recently by various commentators - the sense of information overload in recent debates. There's too much conflicting data. Hence my 'full to the brim with people eager to explain via 101 reasons why you aren't correct' comment.

You search for planets so obviously data is king. Most of life isn't that clear cut. And where studies in social sciences show something, what about the view that so much research is being published for the wrong reasons. You must be aware of that?

[jwi]

I've noticed this as well but I've always thought it natural. An inability to think coherently about risk is either a vital asset (or a crippling impediment) for a climber.

I've always assumed that's because very good and experienced climbers are better at, well... climbing, and almost never fall on iffy gear. In Elbsandstein e.g. there are lots of routes where if you fall you probably die. People die from leader falls all the time there (see http://db-sandsteinklettern.gipfelbuch.de/gipfel.php?sektorid=131 for just one sector in Elbsandsteingebirge [a cross for every death, a nurse for every hospitalisation]), but rarely very good climbers.

[Fiend]

It's always struck me that there aren't that many serious incidents (say breaks with long term consequences and deaths) involving climbers at the higher end of trad climbing (or any kind of rock climbing). Taking an empirical approach, aggregating experience, perhaps most rock climbers become very good at controlling risk and aren't in fact therefore taking as big a risk as some think they are?