Excessive Conservatism

[miahw2828]

point well taken...I suppose I am just exercising plain old run of the mill conservatism ...damn I was hoping at least my conservatism was EXTREME!!!

If you feel that your knowledge is lacking to make proper decisions in avalanche terrain, then how exactly is sticking to low angled low consequence terrain excessive???? I'd call it being smart and knowing that you don't know enough, not excessive.

[The Gnarwhale]

If you feel that your knowledge is lacking to make proper decisions in avalanche terrain, then how exactly is sticking to low angled low consequence terrain excessive???? I'd call it being smart and knowing that you don't know enough, not excessive.

Well, in that instance, I wouldn't call that excessive. Erring on the side of making it home that afternoon is never a bad call.

I think the question is directed more towards someone who thinks they're pushing the envelope of safety when, to other eyes, they're far back from that edge. When it comes to recreational skiing, I'm having a hard time justifying why I'd want to talk someone into "going big" when they don't think it's wise.

My personal experience has been that I'm willing to change plans as objections to the proposed route surface. Even if objections don't seem based on snow or terrain characteristics they may still be valid reasons to re-route. Following an accident my significant other and I were involved in several years ago, we bailed on what I felt were reasonable plans a number of times. My impression was that she was making decisions based on some post-traumatic stress emotions. Ultimately her emotional safety outweighed my emotional desire to ski and we'd turn back, regardless of stability. And fair enough: this is supposed to be fun and if ratcheting back terrain choices is what it takes to achieve that goal then that's okay.

Where radical conservatism is not okay is when the goals for the group extend beyond simply having fun and being safe. In outdoor ed settings there's typically a number of other objectives, often involving development of leadership and teamwork skills, character development and self-awareness, and wilderness travel hard skills like cooking and map reading.

Every program that I'm familiar with facilitates development of those skills by gradually transferring responsibility to the participants. Course leaders who are radically conservative have a hard time letting go of the reins, even when it's safe to do so. In the end, the participants leave without having the chance to develop new skills. Of course if I'm given the choice of either working with a dangerously cavalier instructor or one who's radically conservative, I'd prefer to be with the conservative one. Easy choice. But not an ideal choice either.

[The Gnarwhale]

Yeah, the more I think about this the more sure I feel that for frontcountry recreational skiing, the Big Picture goals are really simple. Be safe & have fun. That's about it.

Radical conservatism may be a drag if you tend to be an optimist and a risk-taker like I tend to be. Maybe I'll tour less with that conservative friend in the future and adjust my expectations accordingly when I do.

One close friend is fond of saying "I think Chuting Gallery is a wonderful desk reference. I know not to ski anything described in it." Yet I still tour with him and have a great time every time, because backcountry skiing is a great venue for social interaction. I don't see the conservatism of these friends as threatening on the kind of jaunts we go on together, but we're not skiing extreme terrain or big distances either.

On the other hand, I'd be very concerned about inviting a person like him on an expedition. As one travels further from the road there will be higher consequences to either over- or under- forecasting the risk, in part because of goals we add: Set up camp before dark. Cover xx distance per day in order to have adequate food and fuel. Plan travel to coincide with lowest objective hazard during the day and stay on schedule. If decisions based on radical conservatism begin to interfere with these goals we'll be adding avoidable risk to our predicament rather than mitigating it.

The example Summit mentioned, traveling one at a time through non-avalanche terrain, can suck up a lot of time. Where the extra hour probably wont make a difference in a front country setting it just might add some real risk on a bigger trip.

[Trackhead]

I got rolled this year, so as of late, my confidence in my ability to make assessments has been altered. I'm finding I'm second guessing myself, or steering clear of having to make the decision at all. I did it yesterday in our tour, took a silly way up a narrow couloir to avoid a "potential" wind slab.

My thoughts are, admittedly, a little irrational towards hyper conservatism, mostly because I'm second guessing myself. I'm not sure it's a bad thing. Yesterday I waited for Gnarwhale to give me a second opinion on a little collection of snow that I knew was fine, but I wanted someone else to at least confirm my thoughts.

My confidence has been somewhat mutilated.

[LeeLau]

Hey D - same here

[homemadesalsa]

I got rolled this year, so as of late, my confidence in my ability to make assessments has been altered. I'm finding I'm second guessing myself, or steering clear of having to make the decision at all. I did it yesterday in our tour, took a silly way up a narrow couloir to avoid a "potential" wind slab.

My thoughts are, admittedly, a little irrational towards hyper conservatism, mostly because I'm second guessing myself. I'm not sure it's a bad thing. Yesterday I waited for Gnarwhale to give me a second opinion on a little collection of snow that I knew was fine, but I wanted someone else to at least confirm my thoughts.

My confidence has been somewhat mutilated.

I know what you guys mean, but it's natural. You got a billboard beat-down, and are looking for some outward sign your judgment is still ok. I think it's the dialectic, to be fancy, but really just thesis/ antithesis/ synthesis- refining your pattern recognition and the behavior that didn't work in that situation (since you are smart) goes into the "avoid" set. Reminds me of the graph in Trempers book about confidence and experience over time...

[sfotex]

Thoughts on a couple of threads of though I see here:

I think you need some experience before excessive conservatism could come into play. If you just took your avy one class and it's your first season in the backcountry then erring on the side of conservatism is a good thing as you build your experience. But, if you never get into avy terrain you'll never learn too. Likewise, if you decide that your happy skiing low angle trees and never venture into avy terrain, that's a valid choice too.

So it seems like excessive conservatism would be a drag in a few situations: group decisions (but this can be explored beforehand) but this could also become a problem when people become complacent and start to ignore the person in the party when they do have important stuff to say (Yeah, yeah, you don't want to ski that, sure whatever when that person just saw a similar aspect slide a few minutes ago, etc.) or when other aspects of safety are traded due to this (we got benighted because Jim was uncomfortable skiing the direct line to the car).

I guess there's the issue too of why is someone being too conservitive. Could the person just be clueless but not know it?

[stalefish3169]

This seems excessively conservative. Oh, wait I thought this was polyass.

Seriously though, some of the best advice I've ever heard:

"Nothing is safe in the mountains, but some things are safer."

In order to progress in the mountains, a conservative approach is required to balance uncertainty across a number of levels. I think if we've been out of the hills for a little bit, when we return, we must take a very conservative approach momentarily. While at the lowest levels of complexity, we can assimilate a large amount of data rather rapidly. Therefore, stepping up into a relatively more complex scenario can be quick for experienced parties. As we move up the ladder, questions get harder and excessive conservatism may impede our ascension, preventing us from reaching our potentials sometimes. If we have been putting our time in though, we're patient for the right conditions, and are on top of our games, balancing risk, conservatism, and uncertainty well, we can create experiences that we'll remember forever. The potential of getting old and realizing I never 100% went for what I'm capable of scares me.

On another related note, some researchers at Stanford University conducted a study suggesting that when people perform poorly at something, they are also robbed of the ability to recognize their own ability levels. Students who scored lowest on exams, overestimated their scores by the greatest margins beforehand. While students receiving the highest scores generally underestimated their scores before exams.

[AltaPowderDaze]

Most of the conversations in the Slide Zone revolve around excessive risk-taking. Excessive conservatism is the other side of the coin, and it can be dangerous as well

well, in both your sentences you use the adjective excessive and that is where the problems happen. all of the examples you gave can be remedied by having good situational awareness, which is simply making your perception match reality. it may take a combination of education and experience but in the end aren't we all trying to make our decisions based on what the reality is before us? if you can't see the reality for what it is, then you can't make good decisions. it doesn't matter if you are in the backcountry, the resort or at home.

being humans, even knowing the reality, we all can still make poor decisions any given day and that is what makes us individuals. when it's all said and done, hopefully we're still around to learn from those mistakes.

[sfotex]

On another related note, some researchers at Stanford University conducted a study suggesting that when people perform poorly at something, they are also robbed of the ability to recognize their own ability levels. Students who scored lowest on exams, overestimated their scores by the greatest margins beforehand. While students receiving the highest scores generally underestimated their scores before exams.

The study was at Cornell -- The Dunning-Kruger effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

I do a lot of hiring at work - this manifests itself sometimes during the interview process. Typically it's big fish-small pond or the person with the PHD that's clueless.

[stalefish3169]

The study was at Cornell -- The Dunning-Kruger effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

I do a lot of hiring at work - this manifests itself sometimes during the interview process. Typically it's big fish-small pond or the person with the PHD that's clueless.

Thanks for the correction.