Dont look down

DeVlaeminck

That was my take, the danger seemed more important than the challenge, it was like a game of dare where the risks have to keep getting bigger.

jimmythecuckoo

I think we all agree the Ukranian guy was... well wow!!

he was supremely risk adverse.

Garry H

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

I think we all agree the Ukranian guy was... well wow!!

he was supremely risk adverse.

I suspect his perception of risk will advance,along with his age. Well,if he ever makes it that far...

finchy

Just by way of comparison, 1 in 10 people who get to the summit of Everest die on the way back down.

BillyMansell

Blimey, what a bunch of scaredy cats we have here. Clearly a lot of people have been conditioned from a young age into high perceptions of risk but I'm afraid as much as some may think that these guys can be dragged down into altering their perceptions it is unlikely to happen as they haven't been indoctrinated in fear like the rest of us.

James, much like Danny MacAskill, was brought up to have a healthy respect of risk by exploring the limits of his potential rather than being a hostage to the fears of his parents. Like Danny MacAskill, we saw him practising in his garden, throwing himself about and developing his balance skills. Once you have those skills, as a tightrope walker or slackliner would tell you, whether you're 4 or 400 feet off the ground the skills are exactly the same, only the perception of risk is different if you choose to believe it is.

pinno

Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a f**king big television. Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of f**king fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing f**king junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, f**ked up brats you spawned to replace you. Choose your future. Choose life.

Garry H

BillyMansell wrote:

Blimey, what a bunch of scaredy cats we have here. Clearly a lot of people have been conditioned from a young age into high perceptions of risk but I'm afraid as much as some may think that these guys can be dragged down into altering their perceptions it is unlikely to happen as they haven't been indoctrinated in fear like the rest of us.

Perceptions of risk advance along with age and other events though. Personally speaking, the birth of my first child, almost three years ago, jolted mine into life. I wouldn't dream of doing now, some of the stuff that I didn't bat an eye-lid at doing even 5 years ago, and I wouldn't be happy at all if either of my children were to do some of the things I got up to when I was much younger.

BillyMansell

Garry H wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

Blimey, what a bunch of scaredy cats we have here. Clearly a lot of people have been conditioned from a young age into high perceptions of risk but I'm afraid as much as some may think that these guys can be dragged down into altering their perceptions it is unlikely to happen as they haven't been indoctrinated in fear like the rest of us.

Perceptions of risk advance along with age and other events though. Personally speaking, the birth of my first child, almost three years ago, jolted mine into life. I wouldn't dream of doing now, the some of the stuff that I didn't even bat an eye-lid at doing even 5 years ago, and I wouldn't be happy at all if either of my children were to do some of the things I got up to when I was much younger.

I wouldn't disagree with your experience Garry as parents have both a natural urge and, in humans, a legal/moral/social responsibility to protect their young as children are born without fear for many things we as adults perceive as dangerous. The risk is that people instill fear or use negative reinforcement to 'protect' the child from harm, which at worst can lead to cognitive behavioural problems later in life, rather than supporting or encouraging them to develop a healthy respect and understanding of risk.

Garry H

BillyMansell wrote:

I wouldn't disagree with your experience Garry as parents have both a natural urge and, in humans, a legal/moral/social responsibility to protect their young as children are born without fear for many things we as adults perceive as dangerous. The risk is that people instill fear or use negative reinforcement to 'protect' the child from harm, which at worst can lead to cognitive behavioural problems later in life, rather than supporting or encouraging them to develop a healthy respect and understanding of risk.

Completely agree with that.

GiantMike

BillyMansell wrote:

Once you have those skills, as a tightrope walker or slackliner would tell you, whether you're 4 or 400 feet off the ground the skills are exactly the same, only the perception of risk is different if you choose to believe it is.

This is incorrect regarding risk (which I think you're confusing with 'hazard' and is only 1 part of the risk equation). The risk is different if you're 400ft off the ground to if you're 4ft. A 400ft drop = guaranteed death, a 4ft drop is likely to result in a broken bone or a sprain. The chance of falling off is the same (if you exclude environmental factors, for example), but the consequences are much higher.

Risk = 'probability of something happening' x 'consequence of that thing happening (aka hazard)'

So, in the programme (I haven't seen it other than the clip) they are increasing the consequential aspect (hazard) but controlling the probability aspect, and have the skills to reduce the probability of failure to a very low number so the overall risk is very low. People who perceive the risk to be high probably have a much higher expectation of something going wrong and probably don't have the relevant skills to reduce the probability to a suitably low level.

Though they seem brave, they aren't risk-takers. If you gave one of them the chance to walk through a minefield blindfold (high risk defined by high probability of something going wrong and significant consequences if it did), they wouldn't do it. Not because they couldn't control the consequence, but because they couldn't control the probability. Replace the mines with marshmallows, and the risk is so low that anybody would do it, even though the probability of stepping on one is the same.

Garry H

GiantMike wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

Once you have those skills, as a tightrope walker or slackliner would tell you, whether you're 4 or 400 feet off the ground the skills are exactly the same, only the perception of risk is different if you choose to believe it is.

This is incorrect regarding risk (which I think you're confusing with 'hazard' and is only 1 part of the risk equation). The risk is different if you're 400ft off the ground to if you're 4ft. A 400ft drop = guaranteed death, a 4ft drop is likely to result in a broken bone or a sprain. The chance of falling off is the same (if you exclude environmental factors, for example), but the consequences are much higher.

Risk = 'probability of something happening' x 'consequence of that thing happening (aka hazard)'

So, in the programme (I haven't seen it other than the clip) they are increasing the consequential aspect (hazard) but controlling the probability aspect, and have the skills to reduce the probability of failure to a very low number so the overall risk is very low. People who perceive the risk to be high probably have a much higher expectation of something going wrong and probably don't have the relevant skills to reduce the probability to a suitably low level.

Though they seem brave, they aren't risk-takers. If you gave one of them the chance to walk through a minefield blindfold (high risk defined by high probability of something going wrong and significant consequences if it did), they wouldn't do it. Not because they couldn't control the consequence, but because they couldn't control the probability. Replace the mines with marshmallows, and the risk is so low that anybody would do it, even though the probability of stepping on one is the same.

Very well written Mike.

DeVlaeminck

I don't know how many people engage in this kind of thing but didn't it mention there have been 16 deaths just in the Ukraine - I'd say they are risk takers.

rolf_f

Mikes point is good but I think doesn't take the human condition into account. If you look at how these folk behave, they do seem to vary the degree of risk that they take according to circumstances - looking at the clips shows this. There are obviously very dangerous situations - eg right at the top of radio masts, where they do one handed handstands on a beam overhanging nothing. Whilst they may be able to easily manage that, doing it in gusty strong winds puts a different complexion on it.

And then there is complacency. This chap http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvlB0jJtbwU Pavel Kashkin seems to have been more into Parkour than doing daft stuff on cranes and the vid shows how good he was at what he did. So one day all he was doing was backflips - it happened that he was doing them on the parapet of a 16 story block of flats and he stumbled as he landed. It doesn't matter how good you are - if there is a chance that you can make a mistake and you haven't given your life a margin for that mistake then you end up dead when you make it - as did Kashkin.

finchy

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I don't know how many people engage in this kind of thing but didn't it mention there have been 16 deaths just in the Ukraine - I'd say they are risk takers.

I thought they said that the 16 deaths were in Ukraine and Russia, not just Ukraine?

Either way, without the number of participants and how many climbs they do a year on average, that figure doesn't mean much.