Firstly and foremost, best wishes to those of you here in the U.S. for a wonderful 4th celebration this 2017. If you happen to make the day complete by performing a few ski turns on snow, let us know.
After our recent (and nicely civil) comment thread about sexism, it occurred to me that we indeed do have something special here at Wildsnow. We can have such a discussion without it becoming a flame war, and I rarely have to moderate or delete a contribution. Amazing. Thanks all for that.
Web-wide, the issue of how to prevent bullies and other power trippers from taking over a comment system continues to be a huge issue. We do it here with a totally hands on approach. Website managers and developers in the geekosphere apparently have continued faith that soft AI can take care of the challenge. Hacker News is a good example (a daily stop for me in my web browsing). Over there at Ycombinator, they use what appears to be a rather convoluted scoring system to prevent comment wars while allowing readers to rank articles. The results are mixed, Ken Sherriff digs in on his amazing electronics and computer science blog.
Back to skiing, where indeed is the best and most accessible summer snow for those of you in the lower 48 United States? Due to this winter’s bounty, a number of Sierra resorts continue into the summer with skiable nieve. But how about backcountry? In my experience Mount Shasta fits the bill. Could be the best ski mountain on the planet, and you might even meet a Lemurian. Good article here.
For those of you who enjoy long form reading, New Yorker recently published a sweet ski story. Kick back with your iPad and check out Adventure of a Skier.
And… more pondering the ever effervescent issue of sexism. Any thinking person can not but wonder if separating men and women, in certain sports, is nothing but sexism. Consider downhill ski racing. Really, why shouldn’t everyone simply race together? Lindsey Vonn continues to state she’d like to do exactly that. Curiosity led me to googling “women reaction time” since cat-like reflexes are a big part of winning any alpine skiing event. Let’s just say the jury is still out, and you might need weeks to read all the content you’ll find.
Have a good 4th holiday.
WildSnow.com publisher emeritus and founder Lou (Louis Dawson) has a 50+ years career in climbing, backcountry skiing and ski mountaineering. He was the first person in history to ski down all 54 Colorado 14,000-foot peaks, has authored numerous books about about backcountry skiing, and has skied from the summit of Denali in Alaska, North America’s highest mountain. For more about Lou, please see his personal website at https://www.loudawson.com/ (Blogger stats: 5 foot 10 inches (178 cm) tall, 160 lbs (72574.8 grams).
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lou.dawson.writer
11 comments
Happy early 4th of July to all you at Wildsnow!
JJ, same to you!
Let Katie speak for herself. The only narrative she’s pushing is the speed ascent she just broke. https://goo.gl/vi1itD
What a delight to find a link to a Calvino story on WildSnow! Perhaps not coincidentally, one of Calvino’s biggest literary heroes was Hemingway, another skiing writer who also wrote a bit about this wonderful way to move through the world. For those who enjoyed the linked Calvino story, I highly recommend his story collections “Marcovaldo” and “Palomar” too. The first revels in life like a fool, and the second examines life like a fool. And they will both make you all the wiser for reading. Grazie!
Lou, I’m curious: when you google articles on reaction time, athlete gender, etc., how do you discern pseudoscience from useful information?
How do you reconcile (1) lots of pseudoscience published for notoriety/income rather than actual scientific insight, and (2) an absence of M.S./Ph.D. level human anatomy knowledge required to tell what’s fake from real science?
Confirmation bias is usually a massive problem when trying to sift through google hits.
Tim, sure, I try as hard as anyone to be discerning. My informal training as a journalist starts with the “3 sources” idea. That’s not used as much any more apparently. , but when I tend to believe something as fact I like to see three fairly separated sources, or in the case of history writing, perhaps 2 but a good probability, and yeah, sometimes one if it makes total sense…
Apologies if I alluded to anything googled as a specific statement of fact, I certainly didn’t intend to do that with reaction time vs gender. I just thought it made for thought provoking reading.
In terms of my lack of PHD level knowledge in all subjects, isn’t that why there are PHDs writing about that stuff for us, so we can read it and inculcate their take? Otherwise, what?
More, a person doesn’t have to have a white lab coat and a PHD to be discerning — or not. The history of biased and inaccurate science comes to mind…
‘best, Lou
One of the major problems with current “information technology” is the deluge of misinformation tailored to our individual quirks and biases. You can find 3 sources to support just about any ludicrous claim in the time it takes to make a sandwich.
See, I’m not a cynic about this, I think we can all often find the truth about lots of things if we take the time and have some basic communication skills. I do agree however, that’s not _always_ the case. Probably been that way since people were people. Lou
I’m with you on the importance of communication, especially with people who have different points of view. But I think humanity has had to cope with some pretty radical changes in the way we “communicate” in a very short time. I’m not sure that our ability to be critical consumers of media has adapted well to the new information environment just yet. In other words: the tech is a tool, don’t be a tool of the tech.
That’s what I tell myself. I’m not suggesting you (Lou) need any such reminder.
Thanks for that response, Lou!
“In terms of my lack of PHD level knowledge in all subjects, isn’t that why there are PHDs writing about that stuff for us, so we can read it and inculcate their take? Otherwise, what?”
That’s what I was talking about when I said pseudoscience gets published for notoriety/income, rather than for scientific insight. Holding a Ph.D. doesn’t mean one’s published views, conclusions, synopses are free from confirmation bias or emptiness, scientifically speaking.
At another level, google internally filters its search results and prioritizes them based on its own commercial interests, and it holds financial stakes in many different economic trends.
Otherwise, I don’t mean you’re not entitled to draw your own conclusions — we all should be doing that, and I think that’s the view you tend to offer here yourself, isn’t it? 🙂
I think See said it well: internet searches are a tool — whoever you are, whatever you’re searching, don’t become THEIR tool by simply accepting something that appears prestigious or PhD certified, etc.
Comments are closed.