5 ms·

"Because I was leading the expedition, I couldn’t have any physical contact with anyone else — zero" Wait, what? I would love to get more details about that be

"Because I was leading the expedition, I couldn’t have any physical contact with anyone else — zero" Wait, what? I would love to get more details about that because that sentence (no matter the rest of the paragraph) makes it sound way too much World War I kind of cold leadership with no rational reason. On the noise aspect of her isolation I think it's quite more nuanced than that IMHO. I've been to Antarctica too and I've been working alone from home for the last 5 years as well, and isolation during pandemics is nowhere similar to the isolation in Antarctica. The silence there is beautiful, not frightening. They are just different beasts and even the noise from the street outside is enough to break the monotony but not actually going out hurts more. I think she tried her best to be empathic but 1 year in the ice is much harsher, kudos to her.

teh_klev 6y ago
> makes it sound way too much World War I kind of cold leadership with no rational reason. The sentence says "physical contact". You can be a warm, friendly and supportive leader without touching people.
- caiobegotti 6y ago
  She made it sound like a supportive side hug or a tap on the should over a difficult season in the south pole of the planet would be a no-no. Did I get it wrong? I am not a native speaker of English, for the record.
  - teh_klev 6y ago
    That's what she writes in the article.
  - jpindar 6y ago
    The reason is in the very next sentence. >I couldn’t afford for a simple gesture of empathy, such as a hug or a placed hand on the shoulder, to be misinterpreted as a sign of romantic interest. It's possible she was a little overcautious, but I certainly understand why she chose not to risk that someone might think either that she was attracted to them, or that she was involved with someone else.
    - usrusr 6y ago
      Is it really overcautious? I'd imagine a group in extreme isolation to be far more sensitive and prone to misinterpretations than the same set of people working together while surrounded by thousands of others to meet and interact with during off hours.
    - lolbrels 6y ago
      I think overcautious is generous, the writing is strange. It seems like a given to me that physical contact in a professional environment would be seen as unwanted or bizarre by most. Yet they make a great deal of it, even going into detail about how others could perceive it with specific thought-out examples. Also we can afford empathy without touching someone. Either she was locked in there with some interesting characters or is an interesting character herself.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    It's worth noting that this is a bit of an unusual, even unnatural situation - where you have people who have been in isolation from any relationships for almost a year, may have a natural desire for romantic relationships and it's part of her specific role and duty to ensure that this stays suppressed throughout the team until the expedition is over. In those circumstances a strict "no-touching" policy for the whole team (not just her) may be quite prudent. You need to ensure that even someone who after many months of loneliness desperately wants to notice and misinterpret something as a sign of romantic affection is unable to do so.
bacon_waffle 6y ago
Everything about living on the Ice is more intense; it often feels like the station and crew is the entire world. Romantic relationships are a perpetual source of tension and conflict, and little squabbles can grow to have truly outsize effects. A silly example (from the US program several years ago) - we had summer-season emergency response drills be completely derailed because the leads of the two main groups were a couple and had squabbled the night before - one had their people simply not show up. Never mind that these two people's main roles were exactly to be in charge, one was completely unqualified for that role, discipline/replacement would be relatively easy for either, and everyone knew what was going on. So, I can see why the rules would stipulate that the leader can't become romantically involved with a crew member over winter. But of course rules like that have no teeth, so it's really up to the integrity and ability of the leader.
- darkarmani 6y ago
  > I can see why the rules would stipulate that the leader can't become romantically involved with a crew member over winter. And i guess some people think a pat on the back is romance. ;) It seems easy to clear up any misunderstandings, but maybe it was because she was tempted?
  - bacon_waffle 6y ago
    This is not about whether the author thinks a pat on the back is romance, nor about her temptation. Imagine a scenario like that emergency response drill, but where higher-ups took notice and decided to make a rule to prevent it from happening again. Since those higher-ups had authority over hiring both individuals, they're not likely to lay blame on the immature (to put it nicely) behaviour of the couple, but instead on the romantic relationship. How do they encode "station managers can't start dating crew members" in bureaucrat? So, a stupid rule gets added to the books, which doesn't really solve the problem, and upstanding managers have to pay attention to it forever more.
jedberg 6y ago
But the rest of the paragraph exactly explains it. She couldn't even hint at romantic interest because of the possible perceptions.

teh_klev 6y ago

> makes it sound way too much World War I kind of cold leadership with no rational reason. The sentence says "physical contact". You can be a warm, friendly and supportive leader without touching people.

caiobegotti 6y ago
She made it sound like a supportive side hug or a tap on the should over a difficult season in the south pole of the planet would be a no-no. Did I get it wrong? I am not a native speaker of English, for the record.
- teh_klev 6y ago
  That's what she writes in the article.
- jpindar 6y ago
  The reason is in the very next sentence. >I couldn’t afford for a simple gesture of empathy, such as a hug or a placed hand on the shoulder, to be misinterpreted as a sign of romantic interest. It's possible she was a little overcautious, but I certainly understand why she chose not to risk that someone might think either that she was attracted to them, or that she was involved with someone else.
  - usrusr 6y ago
    Is it really overcautious? I'd imagine a group in extreme isolation to be far more sensitive and prone to misinterpretations than the same set of people working together while surrounded by thousands of others to meet and interact with during off hours.
  - lolbrels 6y ago
    I think overcautious is generous, the writing is strange. It seems like a given to me that physical contact in a professional environment would be seen as unwanted or bizarre by most. Yet they make a great deal of it, even going into detail about how others could perceive it with specific thought-out examples. Also we can afford empathy without touching someone. Either she was locked in there with some interesting characters or is an interesting character herself.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- PeterisP 6y ago
  It's worth noting that this is a bit of an unusual, even unnatural situation - where you have people who have been in isolation from any relationships for almost a year, may have a natural desire for romantic relationships and it's part of her specific role and duty to ensure that this stays suppressed throughout the team until the expedition is over. In those circumstances a strict "no-touching" policy for the whole team (not just her) may be quite prudent. You need to ensure that even someone who after many months of loneliness desperately wants to notice and misinterpret something as a sign of romantic affection is unable to do so.

bacon_waffle 6y ago

Everything about living on the Ice is more intense; it often feels like the station and crew is the entire world. Romantic relationships are a perpetual source of tension and conflict, and little squabbles can grow to have truly outsize effects. A silly example (from the US program several years ago) - we had summer-season emergency response drills be completely derailed because the leads of the two main groups were a couple and had squabbled the night before - one had their people simply not show up. Never mind that these two people's main roles were exactly to be in charge, one was completely unqualified for that role, discipline/replacement would be relatively easy for either, and everyone knew what was going on. So, I can see why the rules would stipulate that the leader can't become romantically involved with a crew member over winter. But of course rules like that have no teeth, so it's really up to the integrity and ability of the leader.

darkarmani 6y ago
> I can see why the rules would stipulate that the leader can't become romantically involved with a crew member over winter. And i guess some people think a pat on the back is romance. ;) It seems easy to clear up any misunderstandings, but maybe it was because she was tempted?
- bacon_waffle 6y ago
  This is not about whether the author thinks a pat on the back is romance, nor about her temptation. Imagine a scenario like that emergency response drill, but where higher-ups took notice and decided to make a rule to prevent it from happening again. Since those higher-ups had authority over hiring both individuals, they're not likely to lay blame on the immature (to put it nicely) behaviour of the couple, but instead on the romantic relationship. How do they encode "station managers can't start dating crew members" in bureaucrat? So, a stupid rule gets added to the books, which doesn't really solve the problem, and upstanding managers have to pay attention to it forever more.

jedberg 6y ago

But the rest of the paragraph exactly explains it. She couldn't even hint at romantic interest because of the possible perceptions.