 Poster: A snowHead
|
Dear all
As part of a project (at Uni Stirling) we put together this survey on avalanche risk perception.
If you are a skier, ski-tourer, freerider, etc. and you have 5 minutes it would be great if you could fill out this survey
Many thanks for your help
Best,
Philip
http://www.psych-survey.stir.ac.uk/avalanche_risk.htm
P.S. The survey is anonymous and the data will be used for academic purposes only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Good, like the explanation at the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Nicely constructed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Done, and interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Cool..... me too
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
quite good, I was extremely close to the model answers, surprisingly. BTW, Q1 is Gender, not sex!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting way of looking at it, not too sure about it all though, my comments at the end:
Not sure about the rating questions - I dont go out with anyone I don't know their ability and experience, and my own ability is based on knowing the general terrain region, recent and current assement information, intended route aspects and alternatives and finally a personal limit based on all that of when to stay home/low. Encouraging people to rate themselves and partners is potentially dangerous- I'm a 1.0 tallyho!
If I somehow get caught on a west slope on a cat 3 north aspect day should I not got out again or rethink my limits and increase my assessment technique beyond theoretical to snow pack testing?
No easy answers, I'm sure there are plenty of skiers and boarders who could make a mockery of their rating!
Interesting stuff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like that, well considered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Wow that was quick. if your reading this and wondering weather to do it, please do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhilE, where did you get your stats re risk of being caught in avalanche based on no. of days off-piste for 10 years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Done
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Interesting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ironsidexx wrote: |
| quite good, I was extremely close to the model answers, surprisingly. BTW, Q1 is Gender, not sex! |
Nonsense. "Gender" doesn't mean what you think it does. Your NHS records have your sex on them, as does your passport.
---
The mountain doesn't know I'm an expert. As with other sports I do, "experts" die all the time, including a few of my friends. Minimising the objective risk is the best you can do, but it's still there.
As far as deciding who to ride with/ who not, I'm reminded of climbing and caving, where you are extremely dependent on your team. Deciding who to go with is generally very clear. Some people are accidents waiting to happen, others are "safe". However I think that you don't make that assessment on their "track record", but by talking to them or even climbing/ watching them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
philwig, I know perfectly well what gender means, thank you. For a psychological survey I would suggest that gender is more appropriate (behaviours rather than biological characteristics)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
done PhilE, nice one, on the gender question my usual answer is YES 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| philwig wrote: |
| However I think that you don't make that assessment on their "track record", but by talking to them or even climbing/ watching them. |
Exactly!
While the survey is interesting, I couldn't help but feel that's "measuring" the irrelevant data! Track record means very little (ok, it means luck! Or rather, the lack of). Attitude counts a lot more. Knowledge is only useful when combine with the right attitude.
Unless the "model" accounts for the attitude change after being caught in an avalanche, I don't see why it should change the numbering of the "confidence level"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
I don't see why it should change the numbering of the "confidence level"
|
Those were my thoughts. Being previously lucky presumably shortens the odds a mishap on your next outing statistically speaking. Having already been caught in a slide would lengthen them, unless of course you are an assessor in the motor insurance industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Lost interest part way through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
musher, statistically it doesn't affect the future at all, any more than getting 10 sixes in a row with an unbiassed die makes any difference to the next throw. However practically it would almost certainly make you more cautious, so make you safer.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Thu 6-06-13 19:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I struggled to rate anything above or below 0.5 which is the correct median answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nickski, SQUIRREL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowball wrote: |
| musher, statistically it doesn't affect the future at all, any more than getting 10 sixes in a row with an unbiassed die makes any difference to the next throw. However practically it would almost certainly make you more cautious, so make you safer. |
Firstly I am no statistician but in terms of their model I think they are using a form of Bayesian analysis to say that new information alters your calculation of risk for future events.
If being caught in an avalanche is in part due to chance and in part due to skill then in assessing risk knowledge of whether someone has been caught on an avalanche combined with their exposure should give you some information as to their likelihood of being caught again.
Although I agree that in reality risk aversion is likely to play a bigger role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
| BTW, Q1 is Gender, not sex! |
There was nothing wrong with the wording!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ Skied with phil this year.
He has written a really nice scientific paper which addresses the issue of probability and psychology well.
It will be published in the autumn.
For those discussing : the purpose of the simple survey is actually explained to readers at the very end....
I don't want to give the game away (for anyone who hasn't yet done the survey!).
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Mon 10-06-13 14:36; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Nice one. If such an incident happened to me, I would probably have quite a big initial drop in confidence (to below 0.5 level), which would only increase back up after some more incident-free time on the slopes (but probably not as high as it had been before).
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
What is interesting is that I know practically nothing about avalanches beyond a bit of self reading and an interest in relevant threads recently and yet my answers were about 0.01 from the those that were expected  Does that mean I understand more about the stats of risk assessment than I do about avalanches?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megamum, just means you are predictable
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
The trouble is I don't have a clue what having 0.5 (out of 1.00) confidence that I'm competent at avoiding avalanches actually means. How much of a chance of being in an avalanche does it represent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
decimal places and all that jazz? could you not have simplified it to the traditional 1-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
^ I would presume the actual values don't matter ?
It is just an imaginary scale that allows answers to 1st and 2nd set of questions to be compared (based on your level of experience).
No point in being smart and trying to 2nd guess what you think the survey might be trying achieve......
Work through it to the end then think about the explanation yourself
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
snowball, well its basically the difference between it might rain or it might not - 50% = bang in the middle, either you are good at reading avalanches or you are not - which is why I found it a strange statement and a strange stat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
If 0.5 means I am 50% able to get it right I shouldn't be off-piste. It cannot mean that. I need to be 99% of the time able to be safe, and even then it suggests that 1 day in a 100 I'll make the wrong decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
snowball, It's the expression of your own perception of your competence in avoiding avalanches so you could be at 1.00 and either be a Avy Jedi able to control the flow of snow at will or a complete reckless idiot. Somewhat bizarrely I was thinking of the psychology of what someone presents themselves as to others - surely with strangers you wouldn't want to be the big I am nor the incompetent boob? As either are likely to get you kicked out of the competent group you might aspire to be in to have a fun but safe day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
snowball, the problem is that, as often quoted, 90% of slopes are safe 90% of the time. So even if you only have a 50/50 chance of correctly identifying a slope as dangerous, you could still happily ski off-piste for years without ever being in an avalanche.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
^ yip, this is the real issue for off piste skiers.
most often when you ski a suspect slope nothing actually happens. you have a great run, and this can build up a false perception that you are making good calls and "being safe". when in reality you are perhaps taking dumb risks and *may* eventually get caught out : especially if you spend enough time off piste over a number of years.
The slopes you wish to seek out for fun and exciting skiing (fresh snow on 30+ degrees) are also, potentially, the most risky for avalanches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haggis_Trap,
That was the point I was trying to make. If you keep taking risks the mountain is going to get you eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, I understood that, but is my confidence meant to cover a lifetime of skiing or each descent? It makes a difference of times many thousand.
On each descent I am confident I won't be avalanched, but over the years there is quite a high chance I will eventually be in an avalanche. (Actually I have already been in one when I was with a guide - I was carried 300metres).
stevomcd, I don't agree with your conclusion from your figure. If I take your 90% figures that still means I am skiing the other 10%, plus the 10% of times that the 90% aren't safe, which together adds up to 19% that I need to be right about. In other words at least one slope per day. Getting that right 50% of the time I won't survive more than a couple of days.
Last edited by After all it is free on Tue 11-06-13 17:29; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
snowball, I think the maths is the other way round - so 10% of slopes will slide but they are only dangerous 10% of the time. 10% of 10% is 1%
no idea if those figures are correct but the point is that statistically there is a pretty low chance of a given slope sliding, but it is still too high a chance for most people to be happy to rely on dumb luck
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ exactly...
the chances of a suspect slope actually avalanching at different risk levels are very roughly...
cat 2 = 1 in 1000
cat 3 = 1 in 100
cat 4 = 1 in 10
so basically even if you root into a suspect couloir at cat 4 for first tracks (which well all know is a dumb thing to do) then most of the time nothing will happen. this can easily lead to 'fall sense of security' over time : especially if you end having a great run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
