3 ms·

People overestimate their risk of an extreme situation occurring while hiking and underestimate their risk of being in an extreme situation in everyday life. Th

People overestimate their risk of an extreme situation occurring while hiking and underestimate their risk of being in an extreme situation in everyday life. They are roughly equal. So if you were really that concerned, you’d be wearing hiking pants everywhere, even when not hiking.

jitl 2y ago
What? I’m a lot more likely to get cold and wet with no access to dry shelter 3 days into a 7 day thru hike in the Sierras than when I’m within a 15 minute walk of my car in the city.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  sure, but the "do it first" hikes probably shouldn't be 7 day hikes through a mountain range.
  - Hnrobert42 2y ago
    Not GP, but hypothermia strikes more people in summer than winter. In winter, folks know to prepare for it. In summer, they wonder how they could possibly get hypothermia. Then a thunderstorm drenches them and washes out a bridge. It doesn't even have to be that cold to die of hypothermia. Just cold enough that your body can't maintain above 82°F. If immobile, like due to injury, that can happen at 50°F. Quite possible in the mountains, esp with windchill. Sure, there are a lot of ifs in that scenario. But it does happen. And it is usually easy enough to buy polypro pants.
    - deadbabe 2y ago
      In the situation you describe you’re dead even with the right pants
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bastian 2y ago
  or in London.
- simplyluke 2y ago
  The situation the author describes sounds like a summer day hike in subalpine terrain at Rainier. I’d do that in a cotton hoodie and jeans, and I recreate in that part of the cascades 12 months a year. Our forecasts are some of the best in the world, and even if they missed the solution to getting rained on in July on a day hike is to walk back to your car a little damp and disgruntled. Your example actually makes his point almost exactly. The 7 day thru hike is akin to when hiring a data engineering team and investing super heavily makes sense, the day hike is when you’re chatting with users and figuring out the domain. The “wrong” tools are less consequential at the start and when the stakes are lower.
  - jitl 2y ago
    I’m not trying to respond to the article, overall I agree with the advice. just replying to this silly comment saying I’m more likely to need hiking pants in everyday life than when I’m on a hike, and that my estimation of risk of those activities and locations is off.
munificent 2y ago
> People overestimate their risk of an extreme situation occurring while hiking and underestimate their risk of being in an extreme situation in everyday life. They are roughly equal. They are roughly equal in absolute terms, say 0.000001% and 0.00001%, but not in relative terms (10x). These are made-up numbers, but I think they convey the idea behind the numbers accurately. The reason for the wide disparity is not really about the situation. Our ancestors spent every day of their lives walking miles on rough unpaved trails in the wilderness. It's about experience. Most people, even fairly avid hikers, simply don't spent anywhere near as much time hiking as they spend doing other things. Inexperience radically increases risk. Clear evidence for this is that every single high stakes profession places an extreme emphasis on training and practice. If you're doing an activity that you aren't an expert at, it behooves you to increase your level of caution to compensate. If that activity happens to take place in a setting where consequences are more dire (in the wilderness, far from access to healthcare), then increase your level of caution to compensate for that too. > So if you were really that concerned, you’d be wearing hiking pants everywhere, even when not hiking. I mean, they do appear to be a Seattleite, so that wouldn't exactly be unusual around here...

jitl 2y ago

What? I’m a lot more likely to get cold and wet with no access to dry shelter 3 days into a 7 day thru hike in the Sierras than when I’m within a 15 minute walk of my car in the city.

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
sure, but the "do it first" hikes probably shouldn't be 7 day hikes through a mountain range.
- Hnrobert42 2y ago
  Not GP, but hypothermia strikes more people in summer than winter. In winter, folks know to prepare for it. In summer, they wonder how they could possibly get hypothermia. Then a thunderstorm drenches them and washes out a bridge. It doesn't even have to be that cold to die of hypothermia. Just cold enough that your body can't maintain above 82°F. If immobile, like due to injury, that can happen at 50°F. Quite possible in the mountains, esp with windchill. Sure, there are a lot of ifs in that scenario. But it does happen. And it is usually easy enough to buy polypro pants.
  - deadbabe 2y ago
    In the situation you describe you’re dead even with the right pants
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bastian 2y ago
or in London.
simplyluke 2y ago
The situation the author describes sounds like a summer day hike in subalpine terrain at Rainier. I’d do that in a cotton hoodie and jeans, and I recreate in that part of the cascades 12 months a year. Our forecasts are some of the best in the world, and even if they missed the solution to getting rained on in July on a day hike is to walk back to your car a little damp and disgruntled. Your example actually makes his point almost exactly. The 7 day thru hike is akin to when hiring a data engineering team and investing super heavily makes sense, the day hike is when you’re chatting with users and figuring out the domain. The “wrong” tools are less consequential at the start and when the stakes are lower.
- jitl 2y ago
  I’m not trying to respond to the article, overall I agree with the advice. just replying to this silly comment saying I’m more likely to need hiking pants in everyday life than when I’m on a hike, and that my estimation of risk of those activities and locations is off.

munificent 2y ago

> People overestimate their risk of an extreme situation occurring while hiking and underestimate their risk of being in an extreme situation in everyday life. They are roughly equal. They are roughly equal in absolute terms, say 0.000001% and 0.00001%, but not in relative terms (10x). These are made-up numbers, but I think they convey the idea behind the numbers accurately. The reason for the wide disparity is not really about the situation. Our ancestors spent every day of their lives walking miles on rough unpaved trails in the wilderness. It's about experience. Most people, even fairly avid hikers, simply don't spent anywhere near as much time hiking as they spend doing other things. Inexperience radically increases risk. Clear evidence for this is that every single high stakes profession places an extreme emphasis on training and practice. If you're doing an activity that you aren't an expert at, it behooves you to increase your level of caution to compensate. If that activity happens to take place in a setting where consequences are more dire (in the wilderness, far from access to healthcare), then increase your level of caution to compensate for that too. > So if you were really that concerned, you’d be wearing hiking pants everywhere, even when not hiking. I mean, they do appear to be a Seattleite, so that wouldn't exactly be unusual around here...