Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. It's one thing to say, "I'll give it a go", but there are times you just need to know when to turn the rocket booster off, knowing that if you don't, you'll go splat.Clevis Hitch wrote: Considering that a 100 means you are apt at risk assessment. Which I would think would make you a better climber! Being able to accurately judge the "actual" risk involved in lets say running something out or not being able to get your first piece for a bit. If you didn't have the ability to accurately judge actual risk and went all out every time you'd soon crater.imo
Risk assessment..
-
mike_a_lafontaine
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:44 pm
-
Clevis Hitch
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:10 pm
I wanna tell ya! The biggest thing with me and climbing is I have to constantly remind myself that my science is good. When I get on the sharp end I stick the first bolt then I have the belayer take up and I sit on the rope. It's like a triple check of my harness,knot,rope,belay device and belayer. After that I'm good. Well good as I can be... 
If you give a man a match, he'll be warm for a minute. If you set him on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
how ya ever gonna redpoint a route if you keep hanging at the first bolt?Clevis Hitch wrote:I wanna tell ya! The biggest thing with me and climbing is I have to constantly remind myself that my science is good. When I get on the sharp end I stick the first bolt then I have the belayer take up and I sit on the rope. It's like a triple check of my harness,knot,rope,belay device and belayer. After that I'm good. Well good as I can be...
Positive vibes brah...positive vibes.
It's an interesting idea to test risk assessment. But there are a lot of folks out there who are good at book-learning and judging what they do or don't know about book-learned things. Book-learning does not necessarily translate into active skills. And I'd argue this test does not necessarily translate to an ability at risk assessment in a physical situation, like climbing or driving at high-speeds in traffic or bar-fights. It tests your risk assessment for something like playing Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.
-
Clevis Hitch
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:10 pm
It's always been a pet peeve of mine when people use the term"book-learned". IMO people use the term when they don't know the true term so they throw in book-learning excuse. You either have good risk assessment skills or you have bad risk assessment skills. That book learning shit is just a crutch to try to explain away what you can't articulate.
If you give a man a match, he'll be warm for a minute. If you set him on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
Somewhat pertinent to this discussion, I've posted a couple photos of some ice climbing exploits from back in the day on Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/#
When I wrote "book-learned" I had two former students in mind. They were both excellent at learning in a manner traditional to classrooms (reading, learning from lectures, etc). They were also very good at assessing what they did and didn't know, in written tests or classroom discussions. I then witnessed them both doing lab work and field work. One nearly got himself killed on our research tower (150' tall, climbed via a ladder with harnesses and ascenders as safety equipment) because he had no sense (in spite of several people's efforts to teach this) of what was or wasn't risky. The other nearly electrocuted himself (in spite of having aced several written tests on electricity/electronics). He had no idea what he'd done wrong, though it was obvious to everyone else, and we were all stunned that he was stupid enough to do what he'd done.
Perhaps there's a better term than "book-learned". Call it lacking common sense. Whatever. There are a lot of people out there like that.
I have no doubt those two students both would get very high scores on the tests Wes linked in the first post. And thus this test would label them as having good risk assessment skills. What this test calls "risk assessment" is an ability to determine whether you're good at memorizing facts your teacher told you or you read in the newspaper, and being sure about whether you remember correctly. And that doesn't translate to the various statements made here about whether high or low scores are better for climbers.
Perhaps there's a better term than "book-learned". Call it lacking common sense. Whatever. There are a lot of people out there like that.
I have no doubt those two students both would get very high scores on the tests Wes linked in the first post. And thus this test would label them as having good risk assessment skills. What this test calls "risk assessment" is an ability to determine whether you're good at memorizing facts your teacher told you or you read in the newspaper, and being sure about whether you remember correctly. And that doesn't translate to the various statements made here about whether high or low scores are better for climbers.
-
cliftongifford
- Posts: 649
- Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:57 am
-
lena_chita
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:48 pm
And apparently the test is designed for dumbasses, b/c if I just happen to know most of the answers then the test doesn't work, either.schwagpad wrote:This test is dumb. I got a perfect score (99) without being a good risk assesser. Here is the algorithm. 1) find ONE thing you KNOW is false. Mark 0. 2) Find ONE thing you know is true. Mark 100. 3) Mark 50 for ALL 48 of the remaining questions.
Of course, if I actually play their game...I'm apparently a dumbass.