Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjaredsimpson | Hacker News Reader

You have to embrace the ambiguity in natural languages. Life and death can be simply considered opposites. In this mode of thinking any risky behavior is trading in death at the peril of life.

However you can also imagine a justification along these lines: There are certain things we humans can do which give us access to unique highly desirable mental states. Some of these are familiar things like falling in love or having children. These are risks but usually perceived as having obvious upsides. There are also other behaviors like drug use or underground fight clubs which also give access to unique mental states but are usually perceived as too risky to encourage. It's easy to put judge free soloing climbing as something like drug use or bareknuckle boxing. But try to imagine that when done correctly and carefully that it could be something much like having a child or working on a math proof for years.

View on HN

> There are certain things we humans can do which give us access to unique highly desirable mental states.

Sure. If cheating death is the path to that state for some people, that's understandable, and not really something new. I'm not judging him, this isn't some roundabout way to say people shouldn't free-solo. I'm literally trying to figure out if there's something else to it I'm missing, because the way it's stated makes it sound like there's something other than risk that's inherently different about free-soloing.

People are responding as if I said I don't understand why someone would do a risky behavior. I understand the high from cheating death. I don't understand doing something as risky as this if you aren't necessarily looking for that high, as the statement implied to me.

The alternative as I see it is that the author is reluctant to admit, or in denial about, some of the real reasons to free-solo. I didn't want to assume that without first checking my own assumptions.

I think there's such a pushback on the term "cheating death" because it sounds like "I should have died, but I didn't", when in reality that's not what the thought process is. The thought process is "of course I'm not going to die because of x y and z".

For me, the best way to describe it is that I strive to feel in control in progressively more difficult environments. That's the mental state I'm looking for. The progression of the mental state goals are easy to follow:

Top Rope (rope already set up above you): "I feel in control despite me being 40' off the ground"

Lead climbing (bring the rope up and clip into the wall as you go): "I feel in control despite me having to take a big fall if I fail"

Outdoor climbing: "I feel control despite me climbing real cliffs outside"

And you can follow this all the way to free soloing, where you can feel in control despite having no safety net at all. I'm not going to pretend that I understand Honnold, and I don't free solo, but this line of thinking makes sense to me.

The other off topic reasons I climb are:

1. Getting better at a sport, just like any other sport/hobby.

2. I like the outdoors and adventure, climbing is a great way to see things from a perspective most can't.

3. Fitness

I'd add to that and say that there are non-death threatening things that are very enjoyable to control and master (a cello, a paintbrush, code). It just so happens that some of those things that are enjoyable to master also involves mastering not killing yourself.

I love driving (shifting with manual transmission, steering, car maintenance, safe driving, etc). Some of that is controlling metal and machine; some of that is controlling your environment and the safety of your life. Same with riding a motorcycle, except I spend a little more on the safety part of it. Some might think I do it for the thrill of cheating death. Yes, staying alive is a goal, but that's not the reason I ride!

It's possible he has a much different view of the world than you or I do. I once met a person who did similarly risky things but from his perspective living a normal life seemed like a nightmarish slow burn death. He was completely fine with the most brazen stunts but the idea of settling down somewhere or having a 9-to-5 desk job gave him cold sweats and in his own words "the feeling as if a hand were wildly grasping at my throat" (sounds better in the original language). No "quiet desperation" for him I guess.

Although I think the simple thrill of it has to factor in at least a little bit, the climber is perhaps mainly motivated by the idea that not living like this is actually a form of death in itself or a very risky behavior (in the sense of wasting your life). It's similar to the ancient idea that a life of servitude is not a life at all. I can't say I necessarily agree but it's not such an outlandish concept either.

I've free soloed easy routes (long 5.4-5.6 routes in tahquitz -- I regularly climb in the 5.12s). Soloing something that you are comfortable with is enjoyable precisely because you _dont_ feel like you are cheating death. It feels like a fun romp -- quickly up and down -- you move faster, you don't have to stop and deal with belays, and often you can downclimb the route and avoid a lengthy walk-off. To the extent that you feel like you accomplished something -- you only really have that feeling if the climbing felt easy and smooth. If it felt hard and scary -- it was probably a _not_ fun experience, and certainly its something you would feel less "proud" about because a "better" climber wouldn't have felt the need to experience the discomfort.

If you listen to Alex talk -- he climbs a huge amount of "easier" terrain and he often describes those experiences in similar terms. It's just for him "easy" is waaaaaaay harder. I can indeed imagine how cool it would be to run up 5.11 (or in honnolds case more like 5.12) with the same fun casualness that I have experienced when running up 5.4 -- and it really does sound like it feels that way for him often.

Pushing the difficulty of his soloing as he has is partially about the specific challenge of doing a harder route and partially about moving up his comfort zone so that he increases the range of "easy" terrain that he can go casually solo. His expanding comfort over time has given him access to a huge range of terrain that he could comfortably free solo - which is a huge part of the reason why Caldwell asserts that Honnold has probably climbed more technical rock mileage than anyone else ever.

I think one thing that's interesting (mystifying?) about the way Honnold treats risk -- he doesn't really acknowledge that the longer he solos the more likely he is to have an accident. Instead he focuses on how fear in some of the situations he pursues can only ever have a detrimental effect on performance -- and that setting aside that fear is actually a required part of the task of minimizing the risk involved for what he wants to pursue. I think this is probably true though the mathematician in me still struggles with the first part -- and actually if you look at Alex talk, it sounds like he's starting to change his tune a bit too. Free rider was one of his top life goals related to soloing -- and it sounds from his interview that his next goal at least is more focused on climbing harder routes than on pursuing harder soloing.

> Soloing something that you are comfortable with is enjoyable precisely because you _dont_ feel like you are cheating death. It feels like a fun romp..

Up until that slightly exposed bit where you suddenly get buffeted by some wind and spend 30 seconds panting slightly whilst re-organising your thoughts. It is, without question, the most pure/fun form of climbing. To my simple brain staying calm and on point for a 4 hour free solo is just inconceivable

Completely agree -- however if it wasnt inconceivable it would be very cool for reasons other than the grandparents postulated satisfaction of defying death.

I used to climb, but didn't really have a handle on the difficulty of this due to the American grades used, so I looked into it a little more. It's utterly mind-blowing. This article [0] was helpful for anyone more used to UK climbing. This conversion chart is also handy. [1]

To put it into perspective, if you went to a busy indoor climbing gym, there'd maybe be one or two guys climbing at that level. And they'd probably be "working" a route, falling off it repeatedly, resting on the rope and learning the moves.

The idea of climbing at that technical level, for that length of time, with that level of risk just defies belief. I can't wrap my head around it.

[0] http://danmcmanus.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/a-guide-to-freeride... [1] https://www.rockfax.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/trad_grad...

I know a lot of people who engage in dangerous sports, and I have done so myself. None of them do it because of some sense of cheating death - they do it because it is enormously fun and fulfilling. They walk away when the conditions are not right. If they wanted to cheat death, they would not.

The fact that it happens to be extremely dangerous means you take more care, but that is not the source of the pleasure. It's the cost of admission. Some won't pay it. Some will.

I really like that you are not judging him. I have seen people dismissed as stupid, as if they don't understand the risks. That's like calling a person stupid if they smoke. They aren't cheating death, they are enjoying cigarettes (and they are addicted, probably). But not stupid or ignorant.

I don't think smoking is a fair analogy. Free climbing is an awe inspiring sport, while smoking is a deadly and addictive habit with zero advantages whatsoever.

I first read about free climbing in an issue of National Geographic almost a decade ago. I never once recall thinking that it was "stupid": on the contrary, it quickly jumped up my list of interesting sports (below chess boxing).

Minor correction but a lot of people make the mistake, free climbing is what Ondra did on El Capitan's Dawn Wall last year. Where you climb with ropes but do not use it for any aid in climbing.

What Honnold has done is free soloing which is climbing without rope for protection.

They sound similar but are significantly different.

I don't think your analogy is on point here. This is more akin to playing football without a helmet, or driving a race car without a roll cage. Playing the sport is one thing, but I agree with the parent; what reason aside from tempting fate is there to climb without safety gear?

You are still racing cars, you are still playing football with the safety gear on (although football players in Australia do not wear helmets, and F1 cars don't have roll cages nor even roofs). Perhaps your analogies are off also ;)

However, you can climb mountains in different ways and people want to explore the possibilities. Some climbers think bolts are OK, some don't. It's their personal philosophy. They don't get the satisfaction they want if they use bolts, and think they desecrate the climb. So they don't use them. Not because they want to tempt fate, but because they would prefer not to climb things in that way.

The reason you ask for is: It's what they want to do. Reinhold Messner climbed mountains without oxygen, without seige tactics, because that's how he thought mountains should be climbed. Not because he wanted to tempt fate by eschewing "safety gear".

Wingsuit BASE is much more dangerous than regular BASE. Putting on a wingsuit is the opposite of safety gear - it's dangerous gear. However, it's not done to tempt fate, it's done to gain a different experience. That's what I think Honnold is doing here. He thinks it can be done, he thinks he can do it, and he turns out to be right. Same as Messner.

>You are still racing cars, you are still playing football with the safety gear on (although football players in Australia do not wear helmets, and F1 cars don't have roll cages nor even roofs). Perhaps your analogies are off also ;)

Sure... I wasn't implying that taking part in dangerous sports is something only adrenaline junkies do; I meant to say that doing so _without taking simple safety precautions_ puts you into that category.

I am trying to explain that there are different classes of climbing philosophically, not just one activity with or without certain safety related items.

"Motor racing without a helmet" = "stupid and pointless", we can probably agree on that.

"Climbing Everest without oxygen" != "Climbing Everest as an adrenaline junkie as I have deliberately foregone a safety related item".

"Free solo" != "Free climbing as an adrenaline junkie as I have deliberately foregone a safety related item".

My family have different risk tolerances and desires than me, but they know me and don't consider me an "adrenaline junkie".

I guess we just disagree :)

>"Free solo" != "Free climbing as an adrenaline junkie as I have deliberately foregone a safety related item".

That's the part I don't get though. That said, I'm not a climber and I'm trying to logic my way through it as an outsider with zero experience, so I fully admit I may be wrong.

Taking risks is not the same as cheating death.

Driving a motorcycle is not something you do to get an adrenaline high, yet from a strictly transportation perspective, it's a bigger risk than driving a car.

I think it has to do with priorities. Death is not the worst that can happen to me, hence I don't chose the safest option in every decision, because even though a long life is desirable, it's not the most important thing.

The sense of freedom is often worth more than the safest option.

> Driving a motorcycle is not something you do to get an adrenaline high

As a rider who's done a fair bit of social riding over the years, I have only met one rider for whom the thrill of it is not a factor.

Perhaps there's an athletic nuance as well - a roped-in climber can rest at any point during the climb by just hanging there, whereas a free-soloer can only rest at certain ledges along the way that naturally let him do that. It takes crazy stamina and self-discipline.

Overall I agree with you that most of the feat seems to be about the risk, but there may be more to it (I'm not a climber).

Isn't the type of resting already distinguished from non-supported resting in competitive or high-level climbing? I know that the term "free climbing" means that you use ropes and supports for safety, but not to aid you in any way.

From reading other comments, it sounds like the programming equivalent to coding a product without any tests, validation, exception handling. Risky and very likely to lead to a unrecoverable spaghetti mess, but we've all been in that state where the ideas are just free flowing unimpeded by caution.

Considering that Honnold completed the free solo in around 4 hours, I would suppose it is an experience of a similar nature, albeit with greater personal risk involved.

"War is the most dangerous fun you'll ever have"

– My old squad leader on NPR

Interviewer was aghast.

We're like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

An orgasm isn't called a little death (la petite mort) for nothing. I didnt know what it meant to live till I almost died. I'm definitely not a thrill seeker compared to free solo climbers. So call it what you will, I'm happier feeling life through the new senses I now have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com