The Hiker’s Dilemma
acko.net
acko.net
Ability to walk quickly at altitude is in fact a skill one can improve with repetition. Your lungs become acclimated to the practice and it does become easier for you. It's fine to hike with others in the same condition, but to decide that others not in this condition are lazy is a pretty baseless assumption.
I believe this is actually a good metaphor for the other social systems the author mentioned. If you think poor people are just lazy or don't want to work you need to think about the way practicing having means makes your existence much easier IMO. Again, you can decide to leave others behind, but I know my life is better for both helping others and receiving help when I need it.
Is that person ever going to want to cook a meal with you again? I suspect not, and you can't force them to. Instead, show them how to chop that vegetable, maybe discuss general technique, maybe even divide labor in a more reasonable way -- whatever works best for the two of you. It will probably take you longer, but you'll probably also get to do the collaborative activity again.
Your analogy is off : there is no challenge in cooking faster than others and no adrenaline rush either. What if you are a vegan & asked to cook burgers with a group of hunters? That is what the author tries to say : go hike with people of your hiking level, to avoid frustration on both sides.
I'm an athletic guy, and a fast hiker. I go up climbs like an escalator. If someone agrees to hike with me, there's a tacit understanding of what to expect, so if you agree to go, then don't complain when you get exactly what was advertised. I will tell you suck it up, hydrate, and eat a Clif Bar. Furthermore, I won't even agree to take you if there is reason to believe you are overestimating your fitness, and/or underestimating the trail.
Conversely, if they make it clear they want a leisurely hike, and I agree to it, then it is on me to dial down the intensity.
All that has to happen is an honest conversation about the desired intensity from the get-go, and then it's clear who's being a dick because it's whomever is going back on the agreement.
Can't we all just be mature adults about such things? I've never personally had an issue with this in almost two decades of hiking. Maybe it's because I usually avoid random group hikes with strangers?
I think this is why we break into groups like marathon runners, 7-minute milers, car-to-car mountain climbers, etc. In the forming of this group is also an "implicit" social contract about what it takes to belong. The existence of these groups ensures that the lowest common denominator meets a certain criteria in order to join.
Edit: Additionally, the recent moral philosophy is that excluding people from a group is unfair. College, the C-level suites, Everest, marathon running should be accessible to everyone. I think the backlash now is that previously closed groups feel like they are forced to let people in below their standards and thus forced to sink to the lowest common denominator in society.
Agree with your edit too. The logical and natural order of skill progression has somehow become offensive to many people. It's the "I got my karate black belt in 6 months!" mentality. It's denying the very nature of expertise.
Having been the slower rider on climbs as well, I don't mind just rolling over the top and keeping on either - keep the heart rate up, and avoid cramping from stopping.
The bottom line is, etiquette should be established, not assumed or internally debated. I have groups I ride with where the rule is social time until we hit the climbs, then after that, if we regroup we regroup, if not, everyone knows how to get home. I have regroup mandatory rides where we all want to keep an eye on each other as well. All of this is established BEFORE you go, so there is no dilemma involved.
I think this analogy can apply to a lot of the other analogies.
The point is not: you should keep going and leave the slow people behind.
The point is: "It's a perfect example of something that seems to pass for empathetic wisdom, but actually holds very little true empathy: an understanding of people who actually think differently from each other."
The rest of the article is describing ways to actually think more about what is best and most empathetic to do instead of just turning your brain off with a piece of memorizable advice.
My reading of the article is that the author is spending a lot of words on saying "Look, this is why being selfish asshole is actually good! And if you don't let me be selfish, you're actually the asshole! You should award empathy to privileged people first, they deserve it more!" which is terrible message, even if the article was well written, which it isn't.
It was already disgusting message about hiking, the moment the author said "you can also apply this to poverty and obesity" he crossed the moral event horizon.
Both on hike and in society you have duty and responsibility for others - and that includes slowing down for them when necessary, both physically and metaphorically.
Your strong and emotional reaction made me read the article (thanks for that) and it makes your statement even stranger.
What is disgusting in saying that the majority/the average can exercise a moral tyranny on the individual that is above the average by virtue of its sheer number?
The author is right in saying that, by prioritizing the slowest, you penalize the fastest. This is not a moral opinion, just pure logic.
> the moment the author said "you can also apply this to poverty and obesity" he crossed the moral event horizon.
Again, you're getting outraged over what seems, to me, a very practical and healthy reasoning : "If someone is standing on a slope, you don't just offer them your hand and let them hold on indefinitely, wasting both people's energy, because you will soon both fall down. You should instead get them on solid ground instead, and get them to move better on their own. If someone wants sympathy and aid but rejects offers of working on a solution, that means they don't want to expend any effort in solving it themselves."
What did you want him to say? That your duty is to sacrifice yourself for others' well-being even if they don't do most of the work themselves?
The author is proud of not caring about anyone but himself, and he wraps that into layers of disingenuous and faulty logic to prove how that is actually good.
> What did you want him to say? That your duty is to sacrifice yourself for others' well-being even if they don't do most of the work themselves?
I don't know why you would use such loaded (and emotional) word as "sacrifice". But yes. That is how society works.
The author isn't willing to perform even basic functions of person living in society - like walking slower when hiking in a group. Is walking slower a sacrifice? Is paying taxes to fund roads a sacrifice? Is paying taxes that fund social safety net a sacrifice? Where exactly does cooperation and consensus becomes a sacrifice?
If you are hiking the Appalachian Trail with a group of people, it is impossible for everyone to hike the same pace. You will always end up splitting off, either with one or two people, or by yourself. Later on you will meet up with the larger group. But besides pace, it would also drive you insane to hike for 6 months next to the same people. Different people also need food, water, and rest in different amounts. Maybe you just want to stop and smell the flowers more often.
These [among other] reasons are the inspiration for the phrase "Hike your own hike." This same principle applies at events like Burning Man, where it is expected that people will wander off and do their own thing, because the whole purpose is to practice self-reliance. Hiking is another place to practice self-reliance. Yes, you may want someone to stick around and wait for you, but don't push that expectation on them. On the other hand, if you feel unsafe and need someone to stick around, tell them that before you begin hiking, because they may rather not hike with you.
> If you don't want to wait for others, then ... go hiking by yourself.
That's literally what's happening when you start with a group but don't want to wait for others........... If the others are slow and have no intent to speed up, you should be perfectly free to speed off, without judgement from the group. Otherwise it's just a frustrating experience for everyone.
This entire debate is solved by mutual agreement of expectations. Communication solves these problems, and even if unexpected situational changes occur that might change the plan, communicating those changes helps everyone to help each other. This whole pseudo-philosophical debate can be boiled down to "discuss and be honest with each other and be willing to adapt"
Phrases like "full stop" make it sound like you have no room to question your own assertions, when in fact there are enough people with contrary opinions that it might help you to do so.
I'm curious what you need to judge in advance that's worth getting beyond line-of-site of "newcomers"? I suppose if you're preparing routes which take time this makes sense but I'm struggling to think of examples.
Things change awfully quick and it's a nightmare when you lose a group member and have a vast and potentially densely foliaged area to search with rescue teams many hours from responding.
As long as everyone's aware of the situation and properly prepared then it's certainly their choice to make.
We also don't have "foliage" in Iceland :)
From my limited experience with Iceland's terrain I think I'd be worried about "newcomers" behind me losing the trail so I think I'd be even more wary but perhaps it depends on the group, equipment, etc. While there isn't much dense foliage out here in the Rocky Mountains I've seen many people get separated even in alpine terrain. Especially in boulder fields where groups routinely get separated and I've seen several called for rescue independently after searching for hours.
> unless you're hiking in dangerous wilderness, there is no hard reason to prefer larger numbers.
This is simply untrue. Many people hike in groups because it is drastically safer than hiking solo. There are plenty of stories where separated hikers simply disappear after going off-trail in thick brush to use the restroom. THIS is the primary reason why the stigma exists and the author completely brushes it aside.
If you're a person hiking in "non-dangerous" wilderness you probably need the group even more since you likely failed to bring a map and compass, much less any survival gear. You may very well not know which trail you're on nor have planned for features and junctions to expect. The bare minimum you can do is stay with a few extra people who can help carry you out when you sprain your ankle or worse.
This was a dead giveaway for me that the author has little experience hiking. So many comments here about socializing, politeness, etc, not even mentioning the danger. But people plugged into the community and reading about incidents know how quickly things can turn from routine to crisis, and how many of them could have been prevented or mitigated by following these simple rules. Just one of many, many examples: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/06/17/new-hampshire-o...
For whoever needs to hear it: HIKING IS DANGEROUS!!! Respect the wilderness, prepare, and take care of each other.
After we finished, one of the slower ones was talking about how much harder it must have been for me, since I was going faster the entire time. I pointed out it was probably a lot easier since we were having pauses every now and then and they just had to keep on going.
I think at that point they realised they should have ran up front with us.
What was the answer? I read the article, and didn't see a conclusion.
This article is a dumpsterfire
https://slowerhiking.com/skills-techniques/the-fu-stop-or-ho...
Something that gives the "pro FU stop" side ammunition is less nuanced takes on them, such as "If you ever do a slinky stop, you're an asshole" or "Always have the slowest hiker lead." It then becomes easy for non-assholes to end up sympathizing or siding with the assholes just because the absolutist claims have gone too far.
Assholes also weaponize this to garner sympathy. A statement of "I'm called an asshole just because I do slinky stops" when the actual truth is they have refused to calmly discuss other options for hiking.
Yeah, my wife and I kept hiking up through month 8 of her pregnancy. As she started slowing down, I'd take the dog ahead and hike back to her, always keeping her in eyesight. Eventually we got to the point where we were literally running circles around her as she plodded along.
Worked great for everyone.
This is every hike I've ever taken with my family on vacations. I'd always lag behind and finally catch up—out of breath—and the second I'd arrive the family would continue.
This conditioned me to hate hiking and physical activity. Then I started hiking with good friends who didn't even make it a problem to just casually hike with me, even if they could go faster. They're good folks.
This is something thay many people from the former communist countries understand. There was a saying in Poland that went something like: „no matter if you stand up or lie down you are owed 2000PLN” that was about just that happening in the communist times.
A version of "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be mowed down".
The fact that many in the West were lucky enough not to live on other side of iron curtain is the only reason I can see for this growing push towards making people equal in every way.