mantakos
Final Approach
Not everybody shares the same notions of risk management, but the core basis of my risk management is that I will weigh risks relative to what I can gain from success. In my mind, there is simply no such thing as a risk undertaken without corresponding reward to justify it. When I can minimize the risk as much as I can, enough so that I can shrink it until the reward outweighs it, then I'll take that risk.
When I hear about somebody undertaking a life-risking adventure, I understand that such a challenge can have reward to justify it. I understand minimizing any unnecessary risk through planning, through training, though preparation and equipment. I understand picking the time of year, the route, the craft, etc, that maximizes your chances.
When I hear about a 16-year-old taking a life-risking adventure, my internal optimizer starts optimizing. It says "why 16? why not wait until 21? that's 5 more years of experience, of education, of maturity." It sees somebody taking on a challenge with an unusual and unnecessary auxiliary risk, an artificial one not inherent to the mission, and wonders what the corresponding reward is to justify that risk.
So what's the reward for taking on such an adventure at 16 when it could just as easily be done at 21?
The answer is "to set a record", "to gain glory", "to get attention", "to get a TV deal". I don't perceive these rewards as sufficient in value to justify the added risk. I don't value them. I don't understand how people can value those, that strikes me as superficial. I expect a teenager to get these priorities wrong, and that's why it's a parent's job to have their head screwed on straight and provide that guidance.
-harry
When I hear about somebody undertaking a life-risking adventure, I understand that such a challenge can have reward to justify it. I understand minimizing any unnecessary risk through planning, through training, though preparation and equipment. I understand picking the time of year, the route, the craft, etc, that maximizes your chances.
When I hear about a 16-year-old taking a life-risking adventure, my internal optimizer starts optimizing. It says "why 16? why not wait until 21? that's 5 more years of experience, of education, of maturity." It sees somebody taking on a challenge with an unusual and unnecessary auxiliary risk, an artificial one not inherent to the mission, and wonders what the corresponding reward is to justify that risk.
So what's the reward for taking on such an adventure at 16 when it could just as easily be done at 21?
The answer is "to set a record", "to gain glory", "to get attention", "to get a TV deal". I don't perceive these rewards as sufficient in value to justify the added risk. I don't value them. I don't understand how people can value those, that strikes me as superficial. I expect a teenager to get these priorities wrong, and that's why it's a parent's job to have their head screwed on straight and provide that guidance.
-harry
