Empathy or Stagnation? How We Learn From Climbing Failures

(This post may contain affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links and make a purchase, I’ll receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows us to continue to make videos like this. Thank you for the support!)

I once did a short on the idea of curiosity being a superpower. The idea is a pretty simple one: if we enter any engagement - with an activity, with a person, whatever - curiosity leaves us room to grow. The alternative is assuming we know what we need to know about the task or person; this closes us off to learning as we are too focused on what we can contribute to the interaction. We already know everything we need to know so we don’t have to make ourselves malleable to anything new.

When it comes to climbing accidents, I think curiosity becomes even more important… but maybe is harder to come by. When an accident happens, sure there are people who are just going to be self-righteous keyboard warriors who talk about how “stupid” or “inexperienced” or “careless” the accident victims were. But let’s not talk about those who are already showing up problematically. Let’s talk about the person who genuinely wants to show up with some grace and not just stomp all over the victims or their caring loved ones. In that case, how do we engage with an accident from a stance of curiosity - so that we can learn from the accident - without being inhumane?

I think it’s empathy. I think that’s it. And in discussing an accident, empathy shows up in a very concrete way: withholding judgement. If we can avoid labeling the actors and instead focus on the actions, we are off to a good start.

Further, to ask questions of the situation, we have to let go of the assumptions we might reflexively carry into those conversations. Do we really know what the victims were thinking? Do we really know what the victims perceived? Do we know their background (training, pervious close calls, etc.) that may have impacted their decision making. The point is that we need to know the answers to all the questions; the point is that when we judge, we are assuming we already know the answers to all these questions (and others). That seems to be patently false in most circumstances.

Instead, does not knowing the answers to these questions allow us to want to know? Or at the very least, does it allow us room for the type of contingency thinking like, '“well, if they were taught in this way, I can see why they applied that technique to the situation even if it wasn’t the best for the situation they were in.”

Notice what I’m not doing here, though: I’m not simply disengaging. If an accident happens, it can be incredibly valuable for ourselves and the community to figure out what the heck happened so that we can avoid a similar accident in the future.

Curiosity still wins over certainty. And empathy leads to curiosity.