For such along article (and I did enjoy some of it) they spent almost no time on describing the study methodology.
> Nowhere in the fear center of Honnold’s brain could the neuroscientist spot activity.
Could this be solely accounted for in the selection of pictures and experience of the participant? Compare e.g. the response to the sound of explosions for someone that has lived in the US vs. someone who has lived in Damascus the past couple years.
edit: Not sure why this is being down-voted? Is there a detailed description of methodology that I missed somewhere?
Well, they do touch on desensitisation as a potential route to how he ended up as he is, so it's possible that he's equally desensitised to gruesome imagery. They don't mention much about the control subject other than that he's also a climber - but he may come from a culture where the kind of imagery described is less prevalent.
I'm a high sensation seeker - I don't climb, but I do skydive, bungee, and I love to ski at ludicrous speed down unmarked terrain - flying off a cornice that you didn't see and having to think fast about where and how to land is a crazy rush. Why I mention this - I can identify with the visualisation and memory rewrite process he describes. I am, by no means, master of my amygdala - but more often than not I am. I think about the bad possibilities of anything I'm about to do, and visualise avoiding or dealing with them. I rehearse in my head. By the time I get to the real thing it's old hat. There's no fear, just supreme confidence that I know what I'm doing. It's the same sort of process one goes through before pitching to a customer or investors. Rehearse mentally until it's easy, even if you've never done it before.
When I do have an unfortunate experience, like chopping off a thumb, knocking myself out, or shattering a hand because I forgot that trees are quite hard at 100mph, I revisit it until it's funny, and no longer regrettable and associated with pain, both in my own mind and by recounting the tale. Having a wilful disregard for the integrity of your own body is quite useful - I know I'm not bulletproof but I don't mind the missing and numb bits.
That all said, once in a while I find myself with shaking legs, tunnel vision, and all the rest - usually from stupid and inconsequential shit that, critically, I didn't anticipate - like his ten foot fall.
I remember the moment I figured it out, aged seven, halfway down an icey mogul black, panicking and crying, and then suddenly realising that I didn't know what I was scared of - and then blasting down the piste, realising that it was all about just believing that you can and it'll all be fine and just getting on with it.
Anyway. My two cents is that you can self modify and override "hardwired" behaviour with only moderate conscious effort, and far more people do this than we currently realise.
I was four when I saw on television a special that featured either Peter Croft or John Bachar free soloing a granite face somewhere in Yosemite and I decided then and there that that was the most badass thing a person could do.
I've been obsessed with climbing ever since, and progressed from furniture to trees to nearby buildings, and it wasn't until I was 16 I finally got my own car and gear and independently made the 4 hour drive to the nearest natural vertical face to climb it. This was in the early 90s, before climbing gyms were common.
Though I decided not long after, after spending most of a day stranded 2/3rds of the way up a cliff that I had taken it as far as I was willing to go as a free soloist.
Amazing video. I went to see him speak and he introduced himself with that, and then quickly went over his philosophy about the risk of death as "the boring stuff".
He seems genuinely sick of discussion about death, which at first shocked me (shouldn't someone tell him that almost every free soloist dies?! It's irresponsible not to!).
But if you listen to him, it's immediately apparent that he's fully cognizant of the situation. After just a few minutes even I was annoyed by the hypocrisy and judgment when someone questioned his risk assessment. And he has to deal with that almost every time he interacts with people outside of his inner circle. I can hardly imagine how frustrating that must be.
I do aerial acrobatics, I've tried to battle fear of heights when being 5/10m up and making a drop, having to be sure that I did the correct moves and the rope will stop my fall. The only safety I have is a 2 by 2m crash mat that won't protect me from broken bones. Not to mention that falling to the mat in the wrong position or outside of the mat will also have potentially serious consequences. And yet when I don't have it, something goes off in my mind and it gets much scarier. I'm afraid of doing anything, even the most inconsequential moves.
Fear is irrational, and I've realised that safety is sometimes psychological and misleading. You'll likely put yourself in more dangerous situations by having a safety net, and knowing you can fail. Thing is, safety also fails, and you can also fail in setting up the safety material (knots, ropes, mats).
My point: This guy knows the consequences of every move, will be much careful in execution of every step. Much more than if he had a rope. He can't afford to get distracted, while someone with a rope will likely pay less attention to details.
"many high sensation seekers’ problematic behaviors involve intense experiences that can be pursued impulsively and without obvious immediate consequences, such as binge drinking or drug use....Joseph wonders if that energy could be redirected into high-arousal activities—such as rock climbing, but with protective gear—that by their nature involve constraint, premeditation, and specific goals, reinforcing different life patterns."
I read some time ago about a drug treatment program centered around rock climbing, said to have astonishingly high success rates. But then I never heard much more about it. Perhaps it doesn't scale due to small supply of climbing teachers and/or large supply of skeptics?
I grew up getting dragged along on climbing trips, also competed briefly (my father as most of his friends were mountaineers). It's a great sport and community. Most significantly, that you can climb with a relative stranger and trust them to belay you (even if it's just top rope) is a wonderful thing I think most people never experience (I'm rationalizing in retrospect now) - still I think this is part of the underlying basis which makes the community so much more trusting and friendly. Also the outdoors, physical exertion etc.
Tim Ferriss actually did a podcast interview with Honnold [0] and it delved into how he handles fear and thinks about risk in his own life. A really great interview.
Why not just get rid of the amygdala? Looks like it doesn't reduce brain function. If you can live with the 3% mortality rate, maybe a lifetime free of anxiety?
Wrt. Honnold's amygdala - it isn't clear that his amygdala doens't work - at least looking at the brain scans of Honnold and of a control climber's one can see that the control's brain has the signal going all the way from the visual cortex (back of the neck) to the amygdala, while Honnold's brain doesn't seem to conduct that signal to the amygdala. According to the article both climbers were _looking_ at the same arousing images. One can wonder - how about scary sounds or touches - would Honnold's amygdala receive such signal from the corresponding parts of the brain processing such sensory input? Or alternatively - if we instead of getting rid of amygdala just block or attenuate the signal pathways to it?
There's a great documentary on the history of climbing in Yosemite called Valley Uprising that he is in (albeit towards the end). Truly remarkable what they do.
Kelly Slater and I'm sure many other athletes have expressed a similar sentiment.
I suspect there are other professionals, mathematicians, physicians, playwrights, who have a similar sentiment. I wonder if a rather simple model of this is that their neural nets are highly optimized for the task. And if that's the case, is that a tell for a task that can or can't be automated?
Can a machine drop into a triple-overhead wave and throw improv tricks with grace? What does grace mean to the machine? Dignity?
I followed with rapt attention the first free-climb of the Dawn Wall[1] but free soloing is orders of magnitude more incredible and he makes it look so easy. Amazingly talented guy.
He probably won't experience old-age, child-rearing, and working to improve his local community like the rest of us either. Because he'll likely be dead in the next few years.
In Honnold's case, they may be safe from this, as it's the total absence of signal relative to a control subject that is interesting, not activity in some unexpected region of the brain.
Frankly I don't understand why people turn risk of falling into risk of death.
Why can't they make some device for him, say, a thick-ish belt, which will make him hang inside of a sphere full of compressed gas, after a second of free fall? Not unlike how car SRS work?
Why don't ships have inflatable balloons strapped to their hulls that would allow them to float indefinitely? We still have sinking ferries with hundreds dead that could perhaps been fully prevented?
Why can't they make some device for him, say, a thick-ish belt, which will make him hang inside of a sphere full of compressed gas, after a second of free fall? Not unlike how car SRS work?
Probably because the inflation of such a sphere, like an airbag going off, would be an incredibly violent event in itself. Also, decelerating inside the confines of a small sphere wouldn't be much gentler than just hitting the ground at full speed.
Some sort of jet-assist contraption to slow your descent might be a better bet. It would arm itself when it senses that you've fallen, and fire the next time it senses that it's upright.
I have a feeling that a lot of people who die in this sport are either paralyzed or dead before they hit the ground, due to collisions with outcroppings in the rock face. Free climbing isn't something that you would want to do if you have the slightest concern for your own neck, and I don't think any number of Rube Goldberg gadgets will change that.
I look it this way. People seem to be very different to what they need to experience different feelings. To put that into one-dimensional scale (which does not give justice to the wide variety of peoples' feelings but simplifies the analysis):
One may sense tremendeous joy seeing new flowers in the spring and vast sense of disappointment missing a train when next leaves 15 minutes later.
In order to get the same sensations, some other needs to success in something in which a failure would mean death, or fail in something very difficult that he/she has been working on years.
Now, if you force the first person to not have those sensations, what will happen? I find it a very possible outcome that the life becomes so unbearable that the person is ready to kill him/herself. If this is remotely correct, it should be quite easy to see why some people are ready to take fatal risks voluntarily. To feel something.
Safety devices would negate the exceptional risk he's undertaking, and make it not so remarkable. That's why "walking a tightrope without a net" is remarkable. As to the sinking ferries situation, yeah those should be safer, but no one on a ferry is proud of risking their life on their daily commute.
[+] [-] forgotpwtomain|9 years ago|reply
> Nowhere in the fear center of Honnold’s brain could the neuroscientist spot activity.
Could this be solely accounted for in the selection of pictures and experience of the participant? Compare e.g. the response to the sound of explosions for someone that has lived in the US vs. someone who has lived in Damascus the past couple years.
edit: Not sure why this is being down-voted? Is there a detailed description of methodology that I missed somewhere?
[+] [-] madaxe_again|9 years ago|reply
I'm a high sensation seeker - I don't climb, but I do skydive, bungee, and I love to ski at ludicrous speed down unmarked terrain - flying off a cornice that you didn't see and having to think fast about where and how to land is a crazy rush. Why I mention this - I can identify with the visualisation and memory rewrite process he describes. I am, by no means, master of my amygdala - but more often than not I am. I think about the bad possibilities of anything I'm about to do, and visualise avoiding or dealing with them. I rehearse in my head. By the time I get to the real thing it's old hat. There's no fear, just supreme confidence that I know what I'm doing. It's the same sort of process one goes through before pitching to a customer or investors. Rehearse mentally until it's easy, even if you've never done it before.
When I do have an unfortunate experience, like chopping off a thumb, knocking myself out, or shattering a hand because I forgot that trees are quite hard at 100mph, I revisit it until it's funny, and no longer regrettable and associated with pain, both in my own mind and by recounting the tale. Having a wilful disregard for the integrity of your own body is quite useful - I know I'm not bulletproof but I don't mind the missing and numb bits.
That all said, once in a while I find myself with shaking legs, tunnel vision, and all the rest - usually from stupid and inconsequential shit that, critically, I didn't anticipate - like his ten foot fall.
I remember the moment I figured it out, aged seven, halfway down an icey mogul black, panicking and crying, and then suddenly realising that I didn't know what I was scared of - and then blasting down the piste, realising that it was all about just believing that you can and it'll all be fine and just getting on with it.
Anyway. My two cents is that you can self modify and override "hardwired" behaviour with only moderate conscious effort, and far more people do this than we currently realise.
[+] [-] koolba|9 years ago|reply
That line reads like it'd be the intro to a bad (or good?) action movie.
[+] [-] Fricken|9 years ago|reply
I've been obsessed with climbing ever since, and progressed from furniture to trees to nearby buildings, and it wasn't until I was 16 I finally got my own car and gear and independently made the 4 hour drive to the nearest natural vertical face to climb it. This was in the early 90s, before climbing gyms were common.
Though I decided not long after, after spending most of a day stranded 2/3rds of the way up a cliff that I had taken it as far as I was willing to go as a free soloist.
Alex Honnold is something else.
[+] [-] hentrep|9 years ago|reply
I'm by no means discounting his accomplishments and skills, but rather highlighting that it isn't quite as reckless as it first appears.
[+] [-] vijayr|9 years ago|reply
Eskil Ronningsbakken - http://www.eskilbalance.com/
[+] [-] choward|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgrytoyr|9 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phl82D57P58
He really is something else.
[+] [-] arcticfox|9 years ago|reply
He seems genuinely sick of discussion about death, which at first shocked me (shouldn't someone tell him that almost every free soloist dies?! It's irresponsible not to!).
But if you listen to him, it's immediately apparent that he's fully cognizant of the situation. After just a few minutes even I was annoyed by the hypocrisy and judgment when someone questioned his risk assessment. And he has to deal with that almost every time he interacts with people outside of his inner circle. I can hardly imagine how frustrating that must be.
[+] [-] sergioisidoro|9 years ago|reply
I do aerial acrobatics, I've tried to battle fear of heights when being 5/10m up and making a drop, having to be sure that I did the correct moves and the rope will stop my fall. The only safety I have is a 2 by 2m crash mat that won't protect me from broken bones. Not to mention that falling to the mat in the wrong position or outside of the mat will also have potentially serious consequences. And yet when I don't have it, something goes off in my mind and it gets much scarier. I'm afraid of doing anything, even the most inconsequential moves.
Fear is irrational, and I've realised that safety is sometimes psychological and misleading. You'll likely put yourself in more dangerous situations by having a safety net, and knowing you can fail. Thing is, safety also fails, and you can also fail in setting up the safety material (knots, ropes, mats).
My point: This guy knows the consequences of every move, will be much careful in execution of every step. Much more than if he had a rope. He can't afford to get distracted, while someone with a rope will likely pay less attention to details.
[+] [-] toss1|9 years ago|reply
I read some time ago about a drug treatment program centered around rock climbing, said to have astonishingly high success rates. But then I never heard much more about it. Perhaps it doesn't scale due to small supply of climbing teachers and/or large supply of skeptics?
[+] [-] forgotpwtomain|9 years ago|reply
Do you have a link for the study?
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sn9|9 years ago|reply
[0] http://fourhourworkweek.com/2016/05/17/alex-honnold/
[+] [-] carsongross|9 years ago|reply
"The guy was a sociopath on a bicycle. As far as I'm concerned, we got off easy!"
Just keep him on the rocks...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uol6e5YAPqs
[+] [-] WhitneyLand|9 years ago|reply
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18590383
[+] [-] trhway|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burkaman|9 years ago|reply
Also, anxiety is not the same as fear. Literally being unable to feel fear would be very dangerous.
[+] [-] fletchowns|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steveax|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] choward|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] was_boring|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vanattab|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cko|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] niels_olson|9 years ago|reply
Kelly Slater and I'm sure many other athletes have expressed a similar sentiment.
I suspect there are other professionals, mathematicians, physicians, playwrights, who have a similar sentiment. I wonder if a rather simple model of this is that their neural nets are highly optimized for the task. And if that's the case, is that a tell for a task that can or can't be automated?
Can a machine drop into a triple-overhead wave and throw improv tricks with grace? What does grace mean to the machine? Dignity?
[+] [-] jonah|9 years ago|reply
[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/sports/el-capitans-dawn-wa...
[+] [-] sakopov|9 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OusYaNWBy08
[+] [-] zeddie|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] takk309|9 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFfTHoJ9khs
[+] [-] CaptainReality|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdrool|9 years ago|reply
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/
[+] [-] sliverstorm|9 years ago|reply
In Honnold's case, they may be safe from this, as it's the total absence of signal relative to a control subject that is interesting, not activity in some unexpected region of the brain.
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|9 years ago|reply
Why can't they make some device for him, say, a thick-ish belt, which will make him hang inside of a sphere full of compressed gas, after a second of free fall? Not unlike how car SRS work?
Why don't ships have inflatable balloons strapped to their hulls that would allow them to float indefinitely? We still have sinking ferries with hundreds dead that could perhaps been fully prevented?
[+] [-] CamperBob2|9 years ago|reply
Probably because the inflation of such a sphere, like an airbag going off, would be an incredibly violent event in itself. Also, decelerating inside the confines of a small sphere wouldn't be much gentler than just hitting the ground at full speed.
Some sort of jet-assist contraption to slow your descent might be a better bet. It would arm itself when it senses that you've fallen, and fire the next time it senses that it's upright.
I have a feeling that a lot of people who die in this sport are either paralyzed or dead before they hit the ground, due to collisions with outcroppings in the rock face. Free climbing isn't something that you would want to do if you have the slightest concern for your own neck, and I don't think any number of Rube Goldberg gadgets will change that.
[+] [-] beefield|9 years ago|reply
One may sense tremendeous joy seeing new flowers in the spring and vast sense of disappointment missing a train when next leaves 15 minutes later.
In order to get the same sensations, some other needs to success in something in which a failure would mean death, or fail in something very difficult that he/she has been working on years.
Now, if you force the first person to not have those sensations, what will happen? I find it a very possible outcome that the life becomes so unbearable that the person is ready to kill him/herself. If this is remotely correct, it should be quite easy to see why some people are ready to take fatal risks voluntarily. To feel something.
[+] [-] sporkologist|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinator|9 years ago|reply
Because it's fun.
[+] [-] steveax|9 years ago|reply
[1]: https://vimeo.com/2872213
[+] [-] collyw|9 years ago|reply