Topic: Sensation seeking behaviour and risk tolerance

[johngenx]

NoTo's comments about choosing the safety feature on the Subaru WRX and living with the CVT in order to have it was interesting.

Some of the comments in the thread are as interesting about people that use their personal or professional knowledge to shape their lives in terms of risk taking.  The ER nurse that won't buy a trampoline, etc.

I took a test some years ago that ranked people on a risk taking continuum, with 1 the least and 10 the most.  People that fall into the 10 category generally live short lives and find themselves constantly seeking riskier and riskier activities as they become dulled to the last one.  These include wing suit flyers, etc.

9's are one step down, but also generally live lives shorter than the statistical expectancy.  The have a better balance and control, but still have to flirt with increasing risk.

I fell into the level of 8.  We 8's often live longer lives and have a controllable balance.  We require and desire risky activities, but lack the insatiable need to keep increasing the sensation as the 10s do.  Mountaineers, auto/motorcycle racers, etc, tend to be 8s.

Many climbers also like sports cars and motorcycles and we don't tend to be more concerned with the experience we're going to receive than the safety of the vehicle.  Crash test ratings are a rare topic when we're yakking about cars.  Most of my friends think a Lotus 7 is the ideal car if only we could get our gear into it.

While many of us have very long term relationships and stable family lives, we also tend to change jobs/careers a lot and have little or no tolerance for people that "waste their lives being unhappy."  Most bullies/bad bosses, etc, are patently unhappy people that experience little or no joy out of life.  We tend to have no patience for them.  If you examine how they live, they take few if any risks.  When my friends encounter people like this at work, they tend to just go elsewhere.

As much as those that fall into the category of 2-3 don't understand the 7+, we don't understand the non-risk takers.

Watch the film "McConkey" about Shane McConkey - a ground breaking skier and flyer that was a 10+, and surprisingly lived to be 39.  While I admired Shane and how much he "sucked the marrow" I am also VERY happy that my daughter is not a 9 or 10, as it will give her a much better chance of living a long and happy life.

[Brig]

I'm a 10 - on the Chickenpants Scale of Risk Aversion.

While I fail to understand you nutjobs, I am also aware that not everyone is the same as me, and not everyone thinks the same way I do.  I'm fine with that.  I would no more try to coerce you into living a safe, boring life than I would expect you to force me to walk on those ridiculously skinny mountain ridges with hard drops on either side.

Carry on.   

[dkaz]

I wonder where commuting 35km a day on a scooter through Vancouver lies. I would say an easy 7. I would push motorcycle racing up to an 8 while auto racing is a 6 tops. Autocrossing is probably down in the 3 range. I guess there's a risk of being killed by a stray or rogue pylon.

[tooscoops]

obviously haven't done the test.. but i would think i'm closer to the middle, slightly above average... so about 6 or so.

to me, it's not a job thing... it's a human thing. we die. i don't worry about that. what's the point? i'm not going to go play frogger on the 403, but i will go earn my turns in the backcountry. any reason for me to be more careful has nothing to do with me worrying or being scared.. it's more guilt for what i'd leave behind for my friends and family.

meh.. it's a hard conversation to have because we all have different views... of ourselves.

[Noto]

great post, John!  I always like to think a little.

I'd love to take that test.  My favoured sports are skiing, scuba diving, and hiking (prefer mountain tops).  I like to drive and don't necessarily fear going out driving in the snow.

I doubt it's age, but seeing how injured so many of my clients are - that's what brings me down a number or two on scale.

Watching videos posted here about extreme bikers/skiers, I couldn't do that stuff.  I'm not a 10.  I'm not a 9.  I doubt I'd be considered an 8; I'm more recreational in the things I do and am content with skiing blue squares most of the day, with a few runs on the double blacks.  So, yeah, I'll settle for a 7 normally, but nowadays a 6 with newfound fear.

[mmret]

There are different kinds of risk, though. Someone who might be a 10 in one type of risk might be a 2 in another. That would be a much more interesting study.

I am the type who takes a lot of investment risk for example, and have a job that is fairly high risk/high reward type of deal. On the other hand I tend to drive pretty sedately, and in many dimensions I try to reduce risk as much as I can (one example being say VPN use, changing passwords that matter regularly, taking preventative measures when it comes to the car or the house etc.)

A friend of mine....takes loads of investment risk as well but on the other hand won't take his car to anywhere other than the dealer he bought it from because another shop "might get it wrong."

[rrocket]

NoTo's comments about choosing the safety feature on the Subaru WRX and living with the CVT in order to have it was interesting.

That's a bit sad.  Statistically, driving cars is a pretty safe activity.

Maybe he could get this special jacket to make things safer?   

[rrocket]

Watch the film "McConkey" about Shane McConkey - a ground breaking skier and flyer that was a 10+, and surprisingly lived to be 39.  While I admired Shane and how much he "sucked the marrow" I am also VERY happy that my daughter is not a 9 or 10, as it will give her a much better chance of living a long and happy life.

I recently watched this.  And while I have no issue with someone pushing their limits, I was annoyed when he took his thrill seeking up MANY notches...after his child was born.    And at the same time his wife saying (lying?) that she was seeing "real changes" in him with wanting to do nothing but spend time with his child rather than doing his extreme stuff.  What she was saying and what he was doing were 2 very different things.

It's sad his daughter will never know his dad.  And one of the issues McConkey lived with, was never really knowing his dad.  But in the end...his thrillseeking mattered more than family.  And I have a hard time getting my head around that part.

[Noto]

Maybe he could get this special jacket to make things safer?   

Does it come in pink?  I'd much rather it in pink.

It'd go well with my other clothing...

[Ex-airbalancer]

I have been  classified a Nuclear Energy Worker is that a 10 

[rrocket]

And it would go well with your purse...

[Noto]

And it would go well with your purse...

and my cellphone case?

[johngenx]

I used to be less tolerant of less risk seeking people, accusing them of being "boring" and not "embracing life."  Now I believe it's just that we're all built differently.  I once was very jealous of the 9-10 guys (it's a nearly exclusive male club, but some women are there) wondering why I was holding back.  Then I came to realize that I just needed to be comfortable with who I am and go from there.

One interesting study I read looked at the relationship between position on the continuum and money.  We tend to think of entrepreneurs as risk takers - but the opposite is actually true.  Sure, there's guys like Richard Branson, but most of them tend to be Bill Gates and Warren Buffet - they don't crave physical risks - the kind that might take your life away.

I see this in the mountains. We come across wealthy people, but they're rarely pushing the envelope.  99.9% of the time they hire guides and use "trade routes" to climb peaks - the easiest way possible.  They're much more interested in the summit photo than the esthetics of the climb and the process.  For them, the result is the trophy.  Business acumen is often about finding shortcuts and paths of least resistance.

One day myself and three friends were climbing Mt. Athabasca via one of it's more difficult routes.  There was also a guided group out that day.  We'd left at midnight and they at 3:00am.  They actually summitted before we did, and were down long before us.  Their day was about 12 hours long and ours 19.  In the campground that evening, the US businessmen were jovial about their "win."  We shared a beverage with the guides and had a chuckle about it all - but in hindsight it's just differing perceptions.  We were looking for the huge air under our boots, the hanging belays watching ice screws melting out and praying they held just a little longer, the lead climbing with potentially fatal falls one mistake away.  The summit was a bonus.  The other group wanted to stand on top.

This is why peaks like Everest have no appeal to me.  It's about the summit.  It's even come to the point where if you want to climb it without fixed ropes and Sherpa support, you're not going to be able to.  Ueli Steck, Simone Moro and Jonathan Griffith tried and ended up in a brawl in the Western Cwm over trying to climb without using that infrastructure.  It's become an industry, and if you don't buy in, the Sherpas believe (and rightly so I suppose) that you're undermining their business.  Peaks with big names instead of big climbing challenges are for those that can write big cheques and are focused on the result, the top.

Different ways of thinking.

[johngenx]

I am the type who takes a lot of investment risk for example, and have a job that is fairly high risk/high reward type of deal. On the other hand I tend to drive pretty sedately

The analysis I participated in was centered around risk taking in terms of severe consequences, aka death or injury.  Personal, physical risk.  See my above post relating to how people that are high in that scale can be very different from people that risk money.

[johngenx]

I recently watched this.  And while I have no issue with someone pushing their limits, I was annoyed when he took his thrill seeking up MANY notches...after his child was born.    And at the same time his wife saying (lying?) that she was seeing "real changes" in him with wanting to do nothing but spend time with his child rather than doing his extreme stuff.  What she was saying and what he was doing were 2 very different things.

It's sad his daughter will never know his dad.  And one of the issues McConkey lived with, was never really knowing his dad.  But in the end...his thrillseeking mattered more than family.  And I have a hard time getting my head around that part.

There was no way he could.  No way at all.  It's built right into his DNA.  I have a hard time understanding it, but I have an inkling of it.  When my daughter was born, I "calmed down" in many of my activities, but in the last few years have begun to ramp up again.  A colleague of mine thought perhaps now "your daughter has had time with you, so you think you can go risky again."

Nope.  It's just that I have grown tired of trying to hold it back and miss it so much I can't stand it anymore.  On Sunday evening I had some climbing buddies over and our 2015 plans are some of the most dangerous of any we've ever done.  One peak has a terrible reputation for killing people.  And I can't wait to go.

Shane could try to stop.  He could try to change.  But in the end, he would lose that battle.  He was one of the most envelope pushing people on the planet, and for him of all people to stop would have been literally impossible. 

[Northernridge]

I also was going to ask if the test was for physical risk or risk in general. I'm probably 4-5 on the physical risk scale but 9+ on business/career. I'm amazed how a couple of my fearless pilot/motocross racing buddies become weak-kneed about career/job security/business issues.

[Snowman]

Depends on the situation and activity. There are days in the week where I am both a one and a ten.

[rrocket]

I recently watched this.  And while I have no issue with someone pushing their limits, I was annoyed when he took his thrill seeking up MANY notches...after his child was born.    And at the same time his wife saying (lying?) that she was seeing "real changes" in him with wanting to do nothing but spend time with his child rather than doing his extreme stuff.  What she was saying and what he was doing were 2 very different things.

It's sad his daughter will never know his dad.  And one of the issues McConkey lived with, was never really knowing his dad.  But in the end...his thrillseeking mattered more than family.  And I have a hard time getting my head around that part.

There was no way he could.  No way at all.  It's built right into his DNA.  I have a hard time understanding it, but I have an inkling of it.  When my daughter was born, I "calmed down" in many of my activities, but in the last few years have begun to ramp up again.  A colleague of mine thought perhaps now "your daughter has had time with you, so you think you can go risky again."

Nope.  It's just that I have grown tired of trying to hold it back and miss it so much I can't stand it anymore. On Sunday evening I had some climbing buddies over and our 2015 plans are some of the most dangerous of any we've ever done.  One peak has a terrible reputation for killing people.  And I can't wait to go.

Shane could try to stop.  He could try to change.  But in the end, he would lose that battle.  He was one of the most envelope pushing people on the planet, and for him of all people to stop would have been literally impossible.

Yea, but you held back (at least in part) because of your daughter/family...whether you think so or not.  It's hard to rationalize that you NEED to take huge risks when you have a new baby.  But at this point in your life, you've provided, nurtured and guided her in life..and now she's charting her own path.  And her chosen path has much to do with your nurturing and guidance.  It's not that you're done being a dad by any stretch....but she's not an infant anymore.  If you fell off a mountain now (heaven forbid), while it would be tragic, I would imagine you've given your daughter the necessary tools to continue charting her path in life.  But if she was an infant and the same thing happened?  Who knows what type of person or path she'd take.  At the very least, she'd have "daddy" issues and who know what else.  At least you gave her a chance and all the tools she needs.  McConkey's daughter never had that same nurturing and chance.

Perhaps he was an idiot for having kids?  You'll recall in the film he pushed to have the kid...not the wife.  Still makes no sense to me considering McConkey had "daddy" issues...

[CanuckS2K]

I also was going to ask if the test was for physical risk or risk in general. I'm probably 4-5 on the physical risk scale but 9+ on business/career. I'm amazed how a couple of my fearless pilot/motocross racing buddies become weak-kneed about career/job security/business issues.

I'm roughly about the same as you, NR.  A max of 5 or so on the physical side but easily a 9 on the business side. 

[wing]

I know people who are 1s, even looking at a car is dangerous for them.

Probably 90% of the gov and tech employees in Ottawa.

I'd say I'm prob a 6 I don't do anything crazy except instruct people in race cars.