3 ms·

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

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.

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.