3 ms·

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 al

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.
lake_vincent 4y ago
The thing I kept thinking when reading this was, what about the hikers' agency in deciding whom they hike with? 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?
- tppiotrowski 4y ago
  Agreed, but I think that author's gripe is that in the absence of a conversation the rule is that the slowest sets the pace. That the "implicit/default/unspoken" rule in today's society dictates that we stoop to the lowest common denominator otherwise we are being insensitive. 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.
  - lake_vincent 4y ago
    Ah, well said, that is a good way to look at it. Very true! 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.

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.

lake_vincent 4y ago

The thing I kept thinking when reading this was, what about the hikers' agency in deciding whom they hike with? 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?

tppiotrowski 4y ago
Agreed, but I think that author's gripe is that in the absence of a conversation the rule is that the slowest sets the pace. That the "implicit/default/unspoken" rule in today's society dictates that we stoop to the lowest common denominator otherwise we are being insensitive. 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.
- lake_vincent 4y ago
  Ah, well said, that is a good way to look at it. Very true! 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.