2008.05.07
2007.12.06
2007.06.06
2005.10.24
Blink; you're in an avalanche!
Malcolm Gladwell was in Zürich last week, talking about his book Blink : The Power of Thinking Without Thinking
at a Swiss independent research institute (GDI).
With my mind wandering al over the place as usual, I drew a comparison between his examples of (often critical) decision making and the methods being used to asses the risk of avalanches. The goal there is to decide: do I go on this tour or not? If yes, which route should I ski/ Board to keep the residual risk to an acceptable level?
Very important is the balance between the scientific theory of determining the risk and the human factors influencing both the risk itself and the decision making process! This is where Malcolm's theory becomes relevant: to what extent does our subconscious interfere with the outcome of our theoretical analysis? Or, can it be the other way around? (You 'feel' it's not safe but the reduction method says the risk is acceptable.)
It seems that this is actually taken into account in the standard risk reduction method developed by Werner Munter in Europe. His work is the standard for determining avalanche risk and he has developed the '3x3 risk reduction method' that is being used all over the world.
Notes from a Backcountry Avalanche Workshop on clubthread.com:
"Munter's Reduction method is based on the idea that there are two modes of thinking: Scientific or "left" brained; rational, conscious thought, slow, differentiating, based on scientific details and Operational or "right brained"; Quick, responsive, intuitive, gut-feeling, based on past experiences and able to recognise patterns; and the acceptance that we will need to use both modalities in our decision making processes in order to make better decisions.
Studies have shown; in order to make better decisions, the maximum of variables we can deal with is only 3-5, these variables should have no more than 3-5 different values. More information than this quickly leads to overload and does not increase the quality of the decision. It is better to have one basic approach, less details are better."
Malcolm gave an example of situations where decisions based on a limited set of variables significantly increased the success rate: Doctors distinguishing patients who were having heart attacks from patients who weren't using only 4 indicators.
The standard reference book for Avalanche theory by Werner Munter (in German) is: Drei mal drei (3x3) Lawinen. Entscheiden in kritischen Situationen.
A partial English translation can be found in Powderguide by Tobias Kurzeder and others.
The research data that the book is based on is kept at the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research Davos (SLF).
Some quick reference sheets from the SLF:
- Caution - Avalanches!
- Avalanches. Danger!
at a Swiss independent research institute (GDI).With my mind wandering al over the place as usual, I drew a comparison between his examples of (often critical) decision making and the methods being used to asses the risk of avalanches. The goal there is to decide: do I go on this tour or not? If yes, which route should I ski/ Board to keep the residual risk to an acceptable level?
Very important is the balance between the scientific theory of determining the risk and the human factors influencing both the risk itself and the decision making process! This is where Malcolm's theory becomes relevant: to what extent does our subconscious interfere with the outcome of our theoretical analysis? Or, can it be the other way around? (You 'feel' it's not safe but the reduction method says the risk is acceptable.)
It seems that this is actually taken into account in the standard risk reduction method developed by Werner Munter in Europe. His work is the standard for determining avalanche risk and he has developed the '3x3 risk reduction method' that is being used all over the world.
Notes from a Backcountry Avalanche Workshop on clubthread.com:
"Munter's Reduction method is based on the idea that there are two modes of thinking: Scientific or "left" brained; rational, conscious thought, slow, differentiating, based on scientific details and Operational or "right brained"; Quick, responsive, intuitive, gut-feeling, based on past experiences and able to recognise patterns; and the acceptance that we will need to use both modalities in our decision making processes in order to make better decisions.
Studies have shown; in order to make better decisions, the maximum of variables we can deal with is only 3-5, these variables should have no more than 3-5 different values. More information than this quickly leads to overload and does not increase the quality of the decision. It is better to have one basic approach, less details are better."
Malcolm gave an example of situations where decisions based on a limited set of variables significantly increased the success rate: Doctors distinguishing patients who were having heart attacks from patients who weren't using only 4 indicators.
The standard reference book for Avalanche theory by Werner Munter (in German) is: Drei mal drei (3x3) Lawinen. Entscheiden in kritischen Situationen.
A partial English translation can be found in Powderguide
by Tobias Kurzeder and others.The research data that the book is based on is kept at the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research Davos (SLF).
Some quick reference sheets from the SLF:
- Caution - Avalanches!
- Avalanches. Danger!
2005.07.19
TED Global 2005
TED Global 2005 was really great on many levels! A treat for the mind, meeting great people, interesting subjects, good laughs, a diet (Gala dinner) and much more.
The interesting discussions took place off stage. That is something I thought could have been started on stage with the speakers. The conference could still have been as on-schedule as it was if the host would have facilitated it properly.
Some people have blogged about the conference:
- Black Looks: TED Global
- The Post Money Value: TEDGLOBAL vs. well, everything else
- Seth's Blog: Stuck (with a bump on the head)
- "Hello_World": TED Global -180 seconds of fame
But some expect more:
Blackbeltjones/Work: Thread-bare TED
I hope more posts trickle in this week.
A lot of photo's are available from the Tedsters and on the official site.
My contribution? An explanation of a little yellow thingy.
The interesting discussions took place off stage. That is something I thought could have been started on stage with the speakers. The conference could still have been as on-schedule as it was if the host would have facilitated it properly.
Some people have blogged about the conference:
- Black Looks: TED Global
- The Post Money Value: TEDGLOBAL vs. well, everything else
- Seth's Blog: Stuck (with a bump on the head)
- "Hello_World": TED Global -180 seconds of fame
But some expect more:
Blackbeltjones/Work: Thread-bare TED
I hope more posts trickle in this week.
A lot of photo's are available from the Tedsters and on the official site.
My contribution? An explanation of a little yellow thingy.
2005.05.21
2005.04.25
2004.12.09
2004.09.28
The Nido car: smarter
Congratulations to some friends of mine. (No blog.)
They participated in the design of the safety concept of Pininfarina's Nido, a new small and safe car that was just presented at the 2004 Paris Motor Show.
(What's that on the seat?!)
Article in Car Design News.
They participated in the design of the safety concept of Pininfarina's Nido, a new small and safe car that was just presented at the 2004 Paris Motor Show.
(What's that on the seat?!)
Article in Car Design News.
Links
- Google Profile
My general profile - St. Anton am Arlberg
Where I ski - TED
Inspiration - Travel: my Dopplr profile
Where I am (default is Zürich, Switzerland) - Zürich
Where I live
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Recent Comments