9 ms·

The Hiker’s Dilemma

39 points by doitLP 4y ago

dumpsterlid 4y ago
If you agree to hike in a group, become the pace setter in front, and don't let the slower people in the group take a good rest after you rest to let them catch up you look like and ARE functionally an asshole. All it takes is a little self-awareness to treat group hiking as a group activity instead of an activity where you get to as fast as you possibly can go. This article is a dumpsterfire
- CottonMcKnight 4y ago
  It's affectionately known as a Fuck You stop, and the easiest solution is to put the slowest people up front, instead of writing lengthy blog posts about why it's a noble thing. https://slowerhiking.com/skills-techniques/the-fu-stop-or-how-to-become-a-solo-hiker https://slowerhiking.com/skills-techniques/the-fu-stop-or-ho...
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    I mean, one of the first rules of hiking that I learned was to have the slowest person lead the group... this shouldn't be rocket science.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    That article is a very reasonable take on it; it specifically defines FU stops as not-agreed-upon-in-advance slinky stops. It also doesn't mandate any specific style of hiking together (other than to say stay together in dangerous conditions). Applying the lessons from that article to just about any group activity is a great lesson in "how to not be an asshole." 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.
- jackbravo 4y ago
  I agree :-p. If you want to exercise, and are going in a group, you can simple hike forward and backward in the trail, to make sure everyone is doing ok. When hiking in groups, for example with families, we do that, either some adult or a kid with a lot of energy is asked to go forward and then backwards to tell us how we are doing, and they enjoy the explorer role, while at the same time the little kids, or the grandparents in the group are also kept the loop and accompanied the whole way.
  - mason55 4y ago
    > If you want to exercise, and are going in a group, you can simple hike forward and backward in the trail 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.
  - b3morales 4y ago
    Good idea, but needs to be someone with a little bit of self awareness or experience doing this. A preadolescent has no sense of rationing their own energy and will burn themselves out long before the end and make themselves and their caretakers miserable. Speaking from experience with my nephews :)
- ajkjk 4y ago
  The article is about how the advice is bad and myopic because it pretends like the optimal solution is averaging everyone and ignores that there is actually some subtlety to choosing the right thing to do, not about how it's not-ever-rude to do that.
- cptcobalt 4y ago
  > and don't let the slower people in the group take a good rest after you rest to let them catch up you look like and ARE functionally an asshole. 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.
- russdill 4y ago
  A bit of devil's advocate here, but the slower people in the group are willing and able to rest at any point that the fast hiker is ahead and the fast hiker would never even know.
  - b3morales 4y ago
    Depends on the hike. There can be a safety issue with getting too far apart. There can also be the opportunity for further friction: on a dayhike if the fast person gets to the end or the turnaround point and then is or feels compelled to wait. As said elsewhere, setting expectations would be the key.
Bouncingsoul1 4y ago
I live in mountains pretty much my whole life and do regular hiking.My advice, you start together, you walk together, you return together. Full stop.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  What if someone doesn't want to stop?
  - ARandumGuy 4y ago
    Then they shouldn't have joined the group in the first place. If you don't want to wait for others, then find a different group or go hiking by yourself. This isn't that complicated.
    - xenocratus 4y ago
      I genuinely don't understand all these replies about "sTaY iN tHe GrOuP". Sure, if you keep stopping, waiting for others then going straight away that's kinda assholey, but so is demanding that others stop and carry on with you when they don't want to. Starting as a group shouldn't mean ending as a group. I mean, read what you just wrote. > 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.
      - bbarn 4y ago
        Or just set expectations before you start. 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"
      - 4y ago
draw_down 4y ago
DEADMEAT 4y ago
- Joker_vD 4y ago
  > The author seems to be arguing that a societal focus on helping disadvantaged people is harmful to those who are the most advantaged. Not even sure why something so self-evidently true needs to be argued. The time and resources spent on helping the disadvantaged by the very nature is not spent on the advantaged ones. Which means that they get less than they otherwise could have. Yes. And?
  - mtVessel 4y ago
    In a zero-sum game, sure. But assuming we all live in a society, helping the disadvantaged raises the mean level of, er...advantage for all. The advantaged ones get the further benefit of living in a society that's better off as a whole. A rising tide lifts all boats, as they say. And that's without even getting into the morality of inherent advantage.
    - moolcool 4y ago
      I wish I could upvote this a thousand times. The amount of this kind of objectivist discourse I see in tech circles is really disturbing (and telling), considering how much power tech has over society today.
    - Joker_vD 4y ago
      > helping the disadvantaged raises the mean level In the future. And even then, not necessarily. So for those advantaged it looks a lot like a forced investment of dubious profitability. Of course they oppose it. > A rising tide lifts all boats It has been shown several times that no, this doesn't necessarily work in economics, it is entirely possible that the rising tide will only lift the boats of the rich.
      - mtVessel 4y ago
        Sure, it's tricky to get it right, and we've already discovered a lot of ways to get it wrong. I still think it's a worthy goal. Directing resources to those already best-placed to use them is tempting, but taking it to its logical conclusion only perpetuates "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." That, by itself, is a recipe for collapse over the long-term. Again, without even touching on the moral aspects.
1970-01-01 4y ago
>How to take care of your tribe What was the answer? I read the article, and didn't see a conclusion.
- jackbravo 4y ago
  Wow! Didn't notice that was the subtitle!
- the_omegist 4y ago
  By pushing them and expecting them to give their best.
moolcool 4y ago
This article is just a bunch of mental gymnastics trying to justify being an asshole. Imagine going on a hike with your grandparents, leaving them in the dust, and then using this kind of twisted Ayn Rand logic to justify it to yourself. Also, find me one person on the planet who uses the term "typical virtue peddlers" unironically who isn't an asshole.
alex_young 4y ago
If you don't intend on waiting for those you are traveling with, you should just take a separate hike and enjoy your own company. 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.
- amalcon 4y ago
  Quite so. Imagine agreeing to do any other activity together with someone else, and then immediately separating yourself from them because you decide that is more efficient. Agree to, say, cook a meal with someone -- but you decide to just prepare your own portion, and then go do something else while they are still trying to figure out how to chop some unusual vegetable. 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.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - the_omegist 4y ago
    Yes, as the author stated, what is considered "average" depends of the group, so I guess he won't be hiking with beginners or overweight people... 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.
that_guy_iain 4y ago
When I did tough mudder I was with a group from my gym. Some of us were fitter than the others. There was a group of 3-4 guys running up front and every now and then we would stand and wait for the rest and carry on. 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.
guyzero 4y ago
This is a lot of words for HYOH
stevesearer 4y ago
In my community we have a courtesy rule for hiking, running, and cycling where if you organized the outing and invited people slower than you, you're not allowed to go ahead of them.
ajkjk 4y ago
I feel like nobody in the comments here so far actually understood the article? 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.
- glogla 4y ago
  I'm sure people understand the message. They just don't agree. 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.
  - the_omegist 4y ago
    > It was already disgusting message about hiking 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?
poszlem 4y ago
„The original "lesson" is not actually about respecting people's needs, or about ensuring accessibility for all. It's mainly about disregarding some people's preferences entirely in favor of certain others, holding up some arbitrary level of preference and skill as the norm. What's too far ahead is considered unreasonable. But if you take the advice to its logical conclusion, it would mean that everyone has to perform at the lowest common level, even if someone obviously doesn't belong there, and would be happier elsewhere.„ 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.
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  Except nobody is forced to go on a group hike. If you agree to go on a group hike with friends and you leave them behind, you're an asshole.
0xbadcafebee 4y ago
If you are day-hiking with a random Meetup group, you are going to get a lot of variation in experience, and some people will fall behind. It's up to the group leader to decide what to do next. Did we decide to have a sweeper? Is this a vigorous or easy hike? Should we split up into smaller groups? Should we set a waypoint? Does everyone have a trail map? Are we making good time? 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.
bbarn 4y ago
Interestingly enough, as an experienced cyclist, many of the group rides I go on are "stay at the pace of the slowest rider, other than on climbs". On climbs of any reasonable difficulty it can actually feel worse to go slower than your comfortable pace. Waiting at the top of a half hour or longer climb for your friends is also not a particularly enjoyable thing to do either. You start to cool off right after sweating and can get chills, so even with this rule of regrouping at climbs, it's still better to stay within a certain skill band. A great cyclist and a beginner can enjoy hours together on flats, but on climbs, at some point neither will really have fun. 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.
dehrmann 4y ago
The moving background. Looks cool, but it's horrible for reading.
bwanab 4y ago
I'm old and often hike with younger people who are much faster than I am. When I catch up with them if I need a break, I ask for one. So far, I've never hiked with anybody who refused that request. If I did, it would be the last time. It's just not that hard.
JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Way overthinking it. Everybody else in your hiking group does not have some social agenda that they're marshalling against you, dude.

39 points by doitLP 4y ago

If you agree to hike in a group, become the pace setter in front, and don't let the slower people in the group take a good rest after you rest to let them catch up you look like and ARE functionally an asshole. All it takes is a little self-awareness to treat group hiking as a group activity instead of an activity where you get to as fast as you possibly can go. This article is a dumpsterfire

CottonMcKnight 4y ago
It's affectionately known as a Fuck You stop, and the easiest solution is to put the slowest people up front, instead of writing lengthy blog posts about why it's a noble thing. https://slowerhiking.com/skills-techniques/the-fu-stop-or-how-to-become-a-solo-hiker https://slowerhiking.com/skills-techniques/the-fu-stop-or-ho...
- jcranmer 4y ago
  I mean, one of the first rules of hiking that I learned was to have the slowest person lead the group... this shouldn't be rocket science.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  That article is a very reasonable take on it; it specifically defines FU stops as not-agreed-upon-in-advance slinky stops. It also doesn't mandate any specific style of hiking together (other than to say stay together in dangerous conditions). Applying the lessons from that article to just about any group activity is a great lesson in "how to not be an asshole." 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.
jackbravo 4y ago
I agree :-p. If you want to exercise, and are going in a group, you can simple hike forward and backward in the trail, to make sure everyone is doing ok. When hiking in groups, for example with families, we do that, either some adult or a kid with a lot of energy is asked to go forward and then backwards to tell us how we are doing, and they enjoy the explorer role, while at the same time the little kids, or the grandparents in the group are also kept the loop and accompanied the whole way.
- mason55 4y ago
  > If you want to exercise, and are going in a group, you can simple hike forward and backward in the trail 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.
- b3morales 4y ago
  Good idea, but needs to be someone with a little bit of self awareness or experience doing this. A preadolescent has no sense of rationing their own energy and will burn themselves out long before the end and make themselves and their caretakers miserable. Speaking from experience with my nephews :)
ajkjk 4y ago
The article is about how the advice is bad and myopic because it pretends like the optimal solution is averaging everyone and ignores that there is actually some subtlety to choosing the right thing to do, not about how it's not-ever-rude to do that.
cptcobalt 4y ago
> and don't let the slower people in the group take a good rest after you rest to let them catch up you look like and ARE functionally an asshole. 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.
russdill 4y ago
A bit of devil's advocate here, but the slower people in the group are willing and able to rest at any point that the fast hiker is ahead and the fast hiker would never even know.
- b3morales 4y ago
  Depends on the hike. There can be a safety issue with getting too far apart. There can also be the opportunity for further friction: on a dayhike if the fast person gets to the end or the turnaround point and then is or feels compelled to wait. As said elsewhere, setting expectations would be the key.

Bouncingsoul1 4y ago

I live in mountains pretty much my whole life and do regular hiking.My advice, you start together, you walk together, you return together. Full stop.

readthenotes1 4y ago
What if someone doesn't want to stop?
- ARandumGuy 4y ago
  Then they shouldn't have joined the group in the first place. If you don't want to wait for others, then find a different group or go hiking by yourself. This isn't that complicated.
  - xenocratus 4y ago
    I genuinely don't understand all these replies about "sTaY iN tHe GrOuP". Sure, if you keep stopping, waiting for others then going straight away that's kinda assholey, but so is demanding that others stop and carry on with you when they don't want to. Starting as a group shouldn't mean ending as a group. I mean, read what you just wrote. > 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.
    - bbarn 4y ago
      Or just set expectations before you start. 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"
    - 4y ago

draw_down 4y ago

DEADMEAT 4y ago

Joker_vD 4y ago
> The author seems to be arguing that a societal focus on helping disadvantaged people is harmful to those who are the most advantaged. Not even sure why something so self-evidently true needs to be argued. The time and resources spent on helping the disadvantaged by the very nature is not spent on the advantaged ones. Which means that they get less than they otherwise could have. Yes. And?
- mtVessel 4y ago
  In a zero-sum game, sure. But assuming we all live in a society, helping the disadvantaged raises the mean level of, er...advantage for all. The advantaged ones get the further benefit of living in a society that's better off as a whole. A rising tide lifts all boats, as they say. And that's without even getting into the morality of inherent advantage.
  - moolcool 4y ago
    I wish I could upvote this a thousand times. The amount of this kind of objectivist discourse I see in tech circles is really disturbing (and telling), considering how much power tech has over society today.
  - Joker_vD 4y ago
    > helping the disadvantaged raises the mean level In the future. And even then, not necessarily. So for those advantaged it looks a lot like a forced investment of dubious profitability. Of course they oppose it. > A rising tide lifts all boats It has been shown several times that no, this doesn't necessarily work in economics, it is entirely possible that the rising tide will only lift the boats of the rich.
    - mtVessel 4y ago
      Sure, it's tricky to get it right, and we've already discovered a lot of ways to get it wrong. I still think it's a worthy goal. Directing resources to those already best-placed to use them is tempting, but taking it to its logical conclusion only perpetuates "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." That, by itself, is a recipe for collapse over the long-term. Again, without even touching on the moral aspects.

1970-01-01 4y ago

>How to take care of your tribe What was the answer? I read the article, and didn't see a conclusion.

jackbravo 4y ago
Wow! Didn't notice that was the subtitle!
the_omegist 4y ago
By pushing them and expecting them to give their best.

moolcool 4y ago

This article is just a bunch of mental gymnastics trying to justify being an asshole. Imagine going on a hike with your grandparents, leaving them in the dust, and then using this kind of twisted Ayn Rand logic to justify it to yourself. Also, find me one person on the planet who uses the term "typical virtue peddlers" unironically who isn't an asshole.

alex_young 4y ago

If you don't intend on waiting for those you are traveling with, you should just take a separate hike and enjoy your own company. 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.

amalcon 4y ago
Quite so. Imagine agreeing to do any other activity together with someone else, and then immediately separating yourself from them because you decide that is more efficient. Agree to, say, cook a meal with someone -- but you decide to just prepare your own portion, and then go do something else while they are still trying to figure out how to chop some unusual vegetable. 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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- the_omegist 4y ago
  Yes, as the author stated, what is considered "average" depends of the group, so I guess he won't be hiking with beginners or overweight people... 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.

that_guy_iain 4y ago

When I did tough mudder I was with a group from my gym. Some of us were fitter than the others. There was a group of 3-4 guys running up front and every now and then we would stand and wait for the rest and carry on. 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.

guyzero 4y ago

This is a lot of words for HYOH

stevesearer 4y ago

In my community we have a courtesy rule for hiking, running, and cycling where if you organized the outing and invited people slower than you, you're not allowed to go ahead of them.

ajkjk 4y ago

I feel like nobody in the comments here so far actually understood the article? 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.

glogla 4y ago
I'm sure people understand the message. They just don't agree. 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.
- the_omegist 4y ago
  > It was already disgusting message about hiking 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?

poszlem 4y ago

„The original "lesson" is not actually about respecting people's needs, or about ensuring accessibility for all. It's mainly about disregarding some people's preferences entirely in favor of certain others, holding up some arbitrary level of preference and skill as the norm. What's too far ahead is considered unreasonable. But if you take the advice to its logical conclusion, it would mean that everyone has to perform at the lowest common level, even if someone obviously doesn't belong there, and would be happier elsewhere.„ 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.

frosted-flakes 4y ago
Except nobody is forced to go on a group hike. If you agree to go on a group hike with friends and you leave them behind, you're an asshole.

0xbadcafebee 4y ago

If you are day-hiking with a random Meetup group, you are going to get a lot of variation in experience, and some people will fall behind. It's up to the group leader to decide what to do next. Did we decide to have a sweeper? Is this a vigorous or easy hike? Should we split up into smaller groups? Should we set a waypoint? Does everyone have a trail map? Are we making good time? 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.

bbarn 4y ago

Interestingly enough, as an experienced cyclist, many of the group rides I go on are "stay at the pace of the slowest rider, other than on climbs". On climbs of any reasonable difficulty it can actually feel worse to go slower than your comfortable pace. Waiting at the top of a half hour or longer climb for your friends is also not a particularly enjoyable thing to do either. You start to cool off right after sweating and can get chills, so even with this rule of regrouping at climbs, it's still better to stay within a certain skill band. A great cyclist and a beginner can enjoy hours together on flats, but on climbs, at some point neither will really have fun. 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.

dehrmann 4y ago

The moving background. Looks cool, but it's horrible for reading.

bwanab 4y ago

I'm old and often hike with younger people who are much faster than I am. When I catch up with them if I need a break, I ask for one. So far, I've never hiked with anybody who refused that request. If I did, it would be the last time. It's just not that hard.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago

Way overthinking it. Everybody else in your hiking group does not have some social agenda that they're marshalling against you, dude.