What do you think of this study ?

[kmac]

"natural high"

I think that there is a definite "high" when you are being physically challenged. Whether your running a marathon, climbing or doing the presi-traverse, you are testing your physical abiliities, and all along, our endorphins are being produced to give us that "natural high" we feel when we reach that peak or cross that finish line. That's what keeps us coming back for more, and it seems to me we challenge ourselves a little bit more, with maybe just a degree higher of difficulty, when we return. kmac

 

[JJD]

No offense to any psychology types here, but I think that guy just wasted a boatload of time doing that study. What's the point?

 

[linehant]

I'm with JJD.

Even Freud was reputed to have said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (ie. sometimes we do things just because we enjoy the thing itself).

No doubt there's very real benefit to be derived from knowing which neural pathways are stimulated by the auditory pleasure that accompanies the solid "thawk" emitted by a solid ice axe plant (using BD carbon fibre tools, of course).

Sometimes we do a thing for no other reason than... it's enjoyable. Like Freud's cigar.

 

[kmac]

what's the point?

No offense to any psychology types here, but I think that guy just wasted a boatload of time doing that study. What's the point?

What's the point of any study? I think it's to stimulate discussion and the exchange of opinions and ideas with one another, as we have with this particular thread. Isn't that why this thread was posted in the first place--to get a reaction from the readers?

 

[Neil]

What's the point?

What's the point of any study?

To answer questions. All you have to do is come up with a good question and a reasonable experiment/study to answer that question and there's a good chance someone will give you a grant.

Why explore space? Why hike?
Why why?
And so on.

 

[J&A]

Did anyone else get the feeling that the purpose of this article was to subtly imply that in the controversial debate between "nature versus nurture", the nurture trumps all? It sounds to me, at least, that this study was another attempt to say that criminals are simply a product of their environment, and that something so innocent as rock-climbing serves as an otherwise completely effective deterrent. I think a good historic correlation study would be to look at rock-climbers who were former criminals, or criminals who became rock-climbers. It might be true that this type of brain chemistry is NECESSARY in developing individuals of the type 'climber' or 'criminal', but I certainly would not consider it sUFFICIENT! That is, most criminals are also driven by other pathologies (antisocial personality disorder for example, which creates sociopaths). It is well documented that many mob bosses, gang members, and dictators demonstrated sociopathic behavior. Sociopathic behavior is something that is apparent even in young children, despite their "environment" or "socialization." Were they also risk-takers? Maybe, maybe not, it's probably not that relevant anyway. This study does nothing more than try to hitch a ride on the coat-tails of already well-established, much more responsible research.

 

[Neil]

I think we need to find a study population of rock climbers who were seperated from an identical twin sibling at birth who then went on to become a criminal.

 

[DougPaul]

I think we need to find a study population of rock climbers who were seperated from an identical twin sibling at birth who then went on to become a criminal

Make sure you put blindfolds on them (or use only blind twins) so that it will be a proper double blind study.

Doug





Just in case anyone doesn't know what a double blind study is:
a double blind study is one where both the subjects and the experimenters don't know which subject is getting what. This is important to prevent human biases from affecting the result. Used, for instance, in drug testing.

 

[Stan]

I came across this timely quote last night while doing some reading. This quote is from a bereaved father at his son's memorial service. His son, a deaf/mute, through training and accomodation became part of the rescue service in WWII England. He died in 1941 in a tunnel collapse.

"Anyone of us may at some time have sufficient reason to risk his life - even to certain death - but I do not believe it can be pleasing to God that we should throw away our lives to no purpose. Trying, for instance, to climb a rock face that is too hard for us, just to be able to boast that we have done it; therefore, do not imagine that in order to be brave and enterprising it is also necessary to be reckless. The bravest man is the one who weighs all the risks and when they become greater than the object is worth, has the courage to turn back and face that other risk of being called a coward."

 

[Dugan]

I wonder if people are more drawn to physically risky/challenging sports because every day life (or so it seems to me) is inherently less physically challenging than in the past.

For example: if you had to get out before dawn to begin plowing the back 20 behind a mule, I'm guessing you probably wouldn't have hiked "for fun" very often.

 

[VFTTop'r]

"In general, Zuckerman's research shows, people born with a predisposition toward risk tend to engage in activities and associate with people who affirm that need. 'They tend to seek out friends who are high sensation seekers, too.' "

Gee, I guess that's why we have Views From The Top, huh?

 

[Pete_Hickey]

I wonder if people are more drawn to physically risky/challenging sports because every day life (or so it seems to me) is inherently less physically challenging than in the past.

Or the illusion of risk.

Note that the true risk does not equal the rush factor. I'm guessing that bungee jumping is a fairly safe activity, yet being a farmer is an very high risk activity.

Which one gives the biggest rush?

In a way I suspect you have the right idea, yet in another way, I think you're way off. I know some people that have BORING jobs, and sit around on their off time watching beer and drinking TV. If what you say were true in general, I would suspect that these people do cordless bungee jumping in their spare time.

 

[dave.m]

I think Dugan might be headed in the right direction.

I'm not sure if it was Roderick Nash or Eugene Miya (who quotes him a lot) but somebody pointed out that modern recreational use of wild places was tied to the emergence of the Romantic movement and the industrial revolution, which at the same time distanced daily life from the natural world and created something new called leisure time. Another issue is post WW spikes of healthy vets coming home with gear and missing adventure.

The (excellent) history of skiiing in the US by Allen "From Ski Sport to Skiing" suggested that nordic countries may have a different basis for recreational use in the outdoors in their notion of individual health and citizenship called "Ididerat" (sp?).

Finallly, Susan Power Bratten in "wilderness, Wildlife and Christianity" (another excellent book) notes that the New Testement use of wild places was very much as a (spiritual) retreat away from an otherwise "suburban" life in Jerusalem and similar cities.

I think what may be misleading here is the notion of risk and adrenilin.

 

[Neil]

Very interesting stuff guys...Made me think.
My winter camping buddy and I started winter camping while we were university students in the 70's. At that time we were very badly in need of challenge and stimulation. We have gone winter camping almost every winter since those early days. A couple of years ago we realized that now we go winter camping because we need a break from the challenges and stimulation of our careers and family lives.

 

[JJD]

What's the point of any study? I think it's to stimulate discussion and the exchange of opinions and ideas with one another, as we have with this particular thread. Isn't that why this thread was posted in the first place--to get a reaction from the readers?

Maybe it's the engineer in me, but to me the purpose of a study is improve or gain a better understanding of something. I just don't see what is gained from this study.

 

[sp1936]

Wait a while, and a new study will be released with the opposite results:

Click here

Steve

 

[SAR-EMT40]

Maybe it's the engineer in me, but to me the purpose of a study is improve or gain a better understanding of something. I just don't see what is gained from this study.

I too am an engineer. I always appreciate pure research. You never know what it is going to lead to.

Wait a while, and a new study will be released with the opposite results

That is why one study is never enough.



Keith

 

[DougPaul]

I too am an engineer. I always appreciate pure research.

I'm a research engineer. I appreciate good research. There is a lot of crap out there.

This report had a bit of the smell of one who "knows the answer" and selected the research to support it.

Social and psychological "research" has lots of theories and speculation but is often weak on real evidence.

Doug

 

[KZKlimber]

I ice climb all winter and spent a week glacier climbing near Denali in June. I'm currently planning a trip to Ranier and perhaps Denali after that.

Why? - It's fun and I just don't get the same feeling of excitement and satisfaction doing anything else. When you are ice climbing your entire world is within arms reach. Nothing else matters, nothing else occupies your thoughts. You are in a Zen like state of total focus. We are so interdependent in our carreers and other pursuits there a few opportuniteis to test your own limits and abilities in such a way. Your decisions have meaning, urgency, and relevance. You are accountable only to yourself.

It is the ultimate escape. As soon as you are done you start thinking about the next climb, the next expedition.

A man's best moments seem to go by before he notices them; and he spends a large part of his life reaching back for them, like a runner for a baton that will never come. In disappointment, he grows nostalgic; and nostalgia inevitably blurs the memory of the immediate thrill, which, simply because it had to be instantaneous, could not have lasted. Now that our whole expedition has passed, now that I sit in a warm room with a pencil and blank paper before me, instead of rock and snow, I feel our vanished moments forever lost.

-David Roberts, Mountain of my Fear

And if I don't feel this way after a climb......I knock off a convenient store on the way home.

 

[Puma concolor]

At the risk of sounding psycho-babblish, it has been my experience in a 14 year law enforcement career that "criminals" are not that different from the Average Joe. People across the human spectrum have essentially the same internal drives. Well-adjusted folks (unlike myself ) just know how to channel things better. To me, it is not that strange to hear a comparison between thrill-seekers/endorphine junkies of different stripes.

Having spent literally thousands of hours talking to members of the seedier-side of society, it is amazing how similar they are to the rest of us in many respects. True, some folks are just way out there, but most just never quite figured out how to master the rules of society and do things right. Not an excuse, just a statement of fact.

So when I hear someone contend that thrill-seeking "criminals" bear similarites to climbers, it's not that shocking. I've heard more than a few heroin junkies state that they became junkies trying unsuccessfully to replicate that first high ... which is apparently quite something. Similarly, I've climbed many mountains (increasingly further away from home) trying to match my first mountain experience. So how different are we really?