I can't remember how or exactly when I came across Alex but it was several years ago. On the one hand I find parts of him highly relatable (eg "learning his lines" and his aversion to asking others to climb with him) and others not (eg I have zero inclination to climb anything).
I certainly respect how much work and preparation he puts into his climbs.
The question is: how is he different to the Everest glory hounds that I personally find objectionable? These are the people who basically pay $50k to "climb" Everest and largely get carried by the sherpas. Ask an experienced tour operator and, weather depending, they'll tell you they can probably get anyone to the top.
There are some key differences:
1. I honestly think the Everest glory hounds aren't doing it for the experience, for the most part. They're doing it for the bragging rights. It's the next level of Instagram flexing. Like it's the same people who go to Greece and the only thing they do is get a selfie at sunset in Santorini before moving on to the next Instagram stop.
2. Alex is actually doing things that have never been done before and some thought impossible.
You may view what Alex does as unsafe (I mean, I'd never do it) but it really is his life. Where my attitude turns is when someone has children. You see these stories all the time of [amateur climber] pursues life long dream of summitting Everest and dies leaving [wife and 3 small children].
The defenders will say that person is following their dreams and teaching their kids to do the same. Me? It's purely self-indulgent rationalization. If you're a parent, your kids need you more than you need to be the 6000th person to summit Everest.
Alex has a partner. She can make her own choices though. But your kids? They don't get a choice.
He's different than them in that he's the best in the world in what he does, and also he doesn't put anyone else in danger (Everest climbers put the Sherpas who work for them in danger. They also provide them a great living). But in essence both Honnold and said climbers are just living their dreams; for some it's climbing El Capitan solo and for others it's climbing Everest with 20 Sherpas that help you get there. They're all looking for fame from others, Honnold doesn't shy away from media to say the least. I don't think it's all that different to be honest. Honnold isn't helping to make the world a better place by climbing rocks, I see no reason to treat him as a saint (nor as a villain) based on his sports activities.
He is using his platform and wealth, that he has from climbing rocks, to better the world though: https://www.snewsnet.com/people/alex-honnold-on-public-lands.... I can’t really think of a better example of a contemporary person who has lived simply, achieved success at a very young age, and immediately jumped in to an advocacy role.
And I think his media presence is drastically different from Everest peak baggers: the media comes to Alex because he is a 1 in 7 billion human being, he does not approach the media in an attempt to brag about an accomplishment. Can you point to anything that indicates he does what he does for “fame from other”? In the dozens of hours of interviews I have watched he never once presents himself this way...
Well his making movies about his climbs, so obviously fame is one of his motivations.
The fact that he uses his money for a better world is very good but I'm sure many everest climbers are also doctors, philanthropists etc.
Climbers are passionate about what they do, it is a culture and lifestyle. I think something that has made Alex different has been his ability to connect with people that would not normally take an interest in climbing. I have been hearing his name quite a bit this year. I bumped into a group doing Alex Honnold impressions while hiking this year, it me laugh harder then it probably should have.
There’s also the technical difficulty. Summiting Everest is within reach of a lot more people than even climbing the routes Alex does with ropes and protection. What’s objectionable about Everest isn’t so much the risks as the commercialism involved.
Free soloing relatively easy routes is also fairly common. Both for the challenge and in the case of easier routes as shortcuts to avoid a long walk around.
I think a lot of the anger boils down to limited experience driving peoples risk perception coupled to their own risk tolerance.
I think having children probably helps people realize that parents also need their children more than their children need to be the 6000th person to climb everest.
Anytime I discussed Free Solo with anyone, including my wife, my feelings about Alex couldn’t have been more opposite from theirs.
His bit about empathy and the fact that he’s, “just learning [his] lines” is probably relatable to many here.
His comments about deciding to solo mostly because he wasn’t comfortable asking anyone to climb with him, and didn’t want anyone to see him do something stupid, while ranking in the top 2% on the Mensa test.
I came away sympathetic — recognizing a kindred spirit who’s capable of a lot, but had a hard time fitting in with the world, while everyone else just saw a very impressive asshole.
Great article that builds on all of the personal dynamics present in the film.
When I watched the movie with my girlfriend I thought that he was refreshingly honest with his feelings. My girlfriend on the other hand thought that he was just a selfish prick. Pretty interesting.
> There was also that whole bit about how he thought he should break up with her because he didn't belay him properly or something.
Relationships have ended over a lot less than one person potentially ending the others career by being careless. It isn't a trivial thing where her technique was wrong, she fucking dropped him and he was lucky to only have a simple broken foot.
The more interesting quote to me was when talking about the guy they both knew who died free soloing. The gf said it must be awful for the wife, and Alex (iirc) said "well what did she expect?".
I came away with the feeling that he sees things in the world very black and white, lacks empathy (but still tries), and doesn’t compromise on his view of the world. Some might view that as an admirable trait and that’s it’s important to be true to ones self, others might more negatively view it as isolationist, anti-social, or even as one commenter here put it “on the spectrum”. I don’t want to judge his personality too much or pick sides, but I can understand how his personality can be polarizing.
As far as free climbing goes, he’s on top of his game, and should be able to climb as he wishes I think. It’s his life, let him live it. But the list of dead free climbers that were once the best in the world, grows every year it seems....
I went to a Q&A with him after a showing in London and he was asked something around if the movie portrayed him accurately. His answer was more that they shot many hours over a long period of time and he never thought about how certain things he said would be perceived. I think he was suggesting that it was more a decision while editing to paint a picture in that way.
>I came away sympathetic — recognizing a kindred spirit who’s capable of a lot, but had a hard time fitting in with the world
If there's one thing I've learned about HackerNews, it's that everyone here is an exceptional but misunderstood genius.
>while everyone else just saw a very impressive asshole.
I don't know a single person who came away from this film with the impression that Alex Honnold is an asshole. Seems like an odd take, but nothing in today's world surprises me.
Well he didn't treat his girlfriend particularly well through the film. He was never actively nasty to her, but he was dismissive and didn't appear too interested in her either.
That's odd, in my group the main take away was how toxic she is to their relationship. It came across as if she attached herself to him in a way that came across as very manipulative. Demonstrated well in the house buying scene I think.
I thought he was an asshole. Quite apart from how he came across in the film exposing yourself to utterly needless danger is a very bad way to treat people who love you.
I get that perspective. Let me ask this: Do you feel the same way about the people in your life who smoke? or eat fast food? or don't exercise daily? or text while driving? I know you can say those are an accumulation of small dangers but it isn't like Honnold never climbed once and decided to free solo the hardest cliff in the world. Do you feel the same about race car drivers? NFL players? We all have our identity and a lot of time it is associated with the things we are good with.
For some of those things yes. Dangerous driving and smoking for me are reckless to the point of being blameworthy. I'm less sure about eating badly and not exercising but I'm not sure that's a difference of kind rather than degree (inasmuch as those things tend to be less harmful, or an instance is less harmful)
If you eat so badly that you die at 40, then yes that's just as bad as slipping off a rock. Look at it this way, let's say a guy gets married and then starts eating so many big macs every day that he's headed to the grave in a few years. My guess would be that his wife would hate him for that even more than if he was a solo climber.
It's his life, if he chooses to do this instead of joining the military or being a firefighter or some traditionally acceptable form of risking your life, that's fine. He is not obligated to live the way 'the people who love him' want him to.
The only person in the movie who met Honnold before he started free soloing was his mother, and she seems fine with him doing it. Everyone else knew what they were signing up for. If anything, they're the selfish ones because they want him to stop doing what he loves.
> exposing yourself to utterly needless danger is a very bad way to treat people who love you
He didnt ask those people to love him, their emotions are not his responsibility, he gets to live his life the way he wants to. That's his right of existence.
It's interesting to see some negative reactions to what Alex did. His actions bring to forefront a belief which doesn't seem to sit well with many: his life is his own.
And our lives really are, ultimately, our own. Well, at least until we bring kids into the world. We can certainly choose to give up part of this autonomy, but we shouldn't demand it from anyone else.
I've been fascinated for a long time by how people get angry at others for taking risks. Ride my mountain bike slowly on a side walk without a helmet? It invokes ANGER in others. Why? Is it an evolutionary trait built into pack animals perhaps?
That would make sense. But still, leave me alone! =)
Also, yes internet I understand that falling from a mountain bike at a slow speed can impact your head just as hard as falling from a high speed, that isn't the point, or even entirely true.
Because in the real world the consequences of your actions aren’t confined to yourself.
Reckless behavior increases the impact on anyone involved in an accident with you, mentally impacts anyone that might see your brains splatter, increases insurance premiums, uses hospital resources, etc.
None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. Eating junk food, drinking a beer, driving a sports car, doesn't evoke the same emotional reaction in people, which has the same sorts of consequences if you did some sort of long term impact analysis, which normal people don't do on the spot.
As well, insurance and hospital costs are likely reduced since I'm more often just dead rather than maimed. Plus I'll have less diabetes and heart disease since I'm not sitting inside watching CNN and Fox news all day getting fat and being "safe"
"None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. Eating junk food, drinking a beer, driving a sports car, doesn't evoke the same emotional reaction in people"
I'm sorry, I can't agree with this. There's plenty of anger and disdain for all those things. There's plenty of "fuck fatties", "fuck rich fat cats", and "fuck drunks" sentiment, and I don't go out of my way to engage in communities I know to be hateful or particularly negative. (Unless HN counts??)
1. Public health campaigns - They don't get outraged by junk food, sports cars, etc. because there isn't advertising telling them it's unequivocally bad. Government will tell you that not wearing a helmet, smoking a cigarette, etc. is universally bad so it's easier for people to see someone "doing a bad thing". People get angry when other people "break the rules".
2. They know someone who was affected. I'm guessing if your cousin got hurt because they weren't wearing a helmet, you might carry some emotions that could be released when you see someone else taking the same risk.
3. Human nature. Back in tribes, if our Uncle was trying to scale giant cliff faces for fun, we'd be at greater risk of less food / losing a war if the tribe let him risk his life for little to no tribal gain. Especially if the young kids thought it was cool and wanted to try it too. People are persuadable and can be influenced. It's not unreasonable to think that glorifying death defying sports or financially rewarding them will result in more people risking their lives.
4. Bullying. If you see someone doing something different or not fitting in, some humans feel compelled to yell at that person to increase conformity and cohesion.
5. Low self confidence. They might be highly critical of themselves and see an opportunity to criticize others.
For me, #3 is the most common answer. People in strong, healthy communities feel safer so they probably don't want what they consider a "risky" behavior to spread.
I had a negative reaction to his free solo, but I wouldn't say I'm angry about it. I agree with the idea that he is his own person and can ultimately make his own decisions, but there are a couple things that bother me about the free solo that aren't covered here. While Alex may not have been known by the general public before this event he was pretty well known in the climbing community, and is obviously still well known. Therefore he wields an influence over others and particularly kids. Kids do stupid and risky things, because their brains aren't developed enough to judge the consequences of their actions. They want to emulate the pros, which in this case, climbing unroped, could be deadly. Another thing that bothers me about it is the sort of stigma it puts on the sport. Now, free soloing like what Alex did is what a lot of people think climbing is. I've been climbing for the past 12 years, 10 of those outside and on a good day it's nearly a spiritual experience. I love this sport and I find it incredibly rewarding. It is a dangerous sport, but there is a lot you can do to mitigate those dangers. I think when a lot people see the spectacle of 'free solo' they are awed by it, but may also think "I could never do something like that" and so never try to climb. This is why I think I have a negative reaction to the film.
> As well, insurance and hospital costs are likely reduced since I'm more often just dead rather than maimed.
No, please stop. This canard has been repeated by the anti-helmet crowd for decades, despite having been disproven countless times. Even if you're a number-crunching robot and care for nothing except how much cash it will cost today, helmets are a huge win.
> Also, yes internet I understand that falling from a mountain bike at a slow speed can impact your head just as hard as falling from a high speed, that isn't the point, or even entirely true.
You're riding so slowly that a fall won't impact your head much, but merely kill you?
Should people really be eating junk food? I do kind of think it's unfair that in a world with universal healthcare I'm going to have to be paying for their diabetes in 50 years. If I'm going to be paying for the consequences then you bet I'm going to want to make your decisions. Likewise I wouldn't mind it if you went climbing, but then I would demand that you pay for your own solo climbers insurance.
> None of that is what actually causes people to be angry.
How do you know this? Have you interviewed everyone ever on why they got angry? There are a variety of reasons and it's very highly unlikely that you are correct.
Riding your bike that way in Amsterdam (or really any place in Europe and I imagine most of the rest of the world) wouldn't turn one head, let alone invoke anger. That's definitely an American thing. I guess some people get off on the righteousness and they attempt to control other people in the most minuscule of ways. I think this is because they have little freedom and control over their own lives and feel helpless themselves. This part is not limited to America, but in America it's a big part of the culture. Someone else having fun while you're not? Be angry and try to stop them, often using laws. Someone else doing things you don't like? Same thing. Control coupled with a puritan mindset leads to these bizarre reactions.
American culture is more individualistic than most Western European countries, not less. There is no connection between puritanism and frustration at people not wearing a helmet.
In fact, my bike-loving, safety-loving friends never say they're angry at someone riding without a helmet. Usually someone just calls them an idiot.
But as others have said, in any country with a social safety net, someone's injury/death ends up taking resources away from others (hospital bills, loss of productivity, loss of repaying the cost of your childhood, not taking care of parents or kids, etc.)
There's nothing bizarre about seeing someone who abuses their safety net as selfish or irresponsible.
I think you missed my point which is that riding without a helmet is not dangerous. Americans think it's dangerous because of the way the culture treats everyone as if they are children who need a nanny because they don't know any better. If indeed it was true that "There's nothing bizarre about seeing someone who abuses their safety net as selfish or irresponsible," then why don't people in Amsterdam and Europe in general have this reaction? They actually have a safety net unlike America.
Your point was buried in the other misinformation in your post, but it's also wrong.
First of all, helmets dramatically reduce risk of injury[1]. Why do American football players wear them if they aren't protective?
Second, much of the bike riding done in the US is on roads shared with cars, and most of our accidents involve cars. We likely have more accidents per mile here than any place with dedicated bike infrastructure.
Just because you don't agree with my analysis of our culture doesn't mean it's misinformation. Helmets reducing the risk of head and face injuries doesn't mean that biking without a helmet is inherently dangerous. Nor does it mean we should force people to wear them because we insist on treating adults as children in America. American football is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Until my city installs a sufficient number of separated bike lanes, I'll continue to ride on the sidewalk rather than risk my life in traffic, even if it hurts your feelings.
In order for it to be fair to risk your own health, you would have to be in a society with zero social safety net (no mechanism where other people end up paying for your healthcare, and forget about charity for the disabled), as well as no emotional investment from any relationships (good luck getting this to happen on a planet with humans). An octopus could probably get away with solo climbing.
From what I've seen of the world, this belief isn't universal across either time or space. It happens to be especially prevalent in North America right now, and found fertile ground on internet forums.
Neither of those is exactly a glowing recommendation in my book, though. If anything, they tend to make me suspicious, since it's hard to imagine any arenas where stability and sustainability are less valued than America and internet forums in 2019.
In specific contexts, even the most libertarian people seem to agree that complete autonomy simply isn't viable, e.g., in a spacecraft, or a military group in battle. When the survival of the group's members depends on everyone working together in a certain way, autonomy is surrendered.
I wonder if even America will come around on this issue in the future. As Buckminster Fuller said, we're all on Spaceship Earth. Its capacity for supporting human life looks more fragile now than any time I've been alive. I don't think Honnold's climb was particularly irresponsible, but there are countless actions that people do every day that are.
50 years ago, you could sit on your own land and burn a million gallons of oil, right up into the atmosphere, and we'd call that independence. Today, you're destroying our spaceship. (You didn't choose to live here, but neither did I.) There are many such issues that we once thought were only about individual freedom which have turned out to be global issues that affect us all. Every year, there seems to be less that I do that doesn't have far-reaching consequences.
The choice between Individual and Group isn't a binary decision -- almost nothing is -- but I've come to realize the sustainability threshold is much closer to the Group side than I ever before appreciated. We're way past Adam Smith.
As a (very) amateur climber myself, I admire Alex. But the litle I know about psychiatric illness, I could clearly see that Alex is in depression - and that is, IMHO, one of the strongest motivations of him to free solo. In other words, soloing makes him forget the real pain. In case it goes sideways, he just does not care much.
As someone with personal experience with psychiatric illness and having a degree in psychology and neuroscience, being trained on recognizing and treating disorders, I'd recommend avoiding attributing a clinical diagnosis to people without knowing more of the story.
As a climber who's met Honnold and many other extremely high-end climbers, it's a pretty common thread that they don't feel 100% alive except for when they climb. You may be able to argue that they're all depressed people trying to get their fix, but I don't think that's true. The thing is though, it can be hard to explain this phenomenon to people who don't have some sort of hobby that gives their life such purpose. I really enjoy my life outside of climbing, I honestly do. But it's the stories of adventure and hardship (even if self-imposed) that really enrich my life and have made me who I am. Honnold is similar, just a lot more so.
> In case it goes sideways, he just does not care much.
I don't think it's that. In some video online it covers Alex getting a brain scan, to determine if the part responsible for fear is maybe broken. It turned out that it wasn't, it was just that Alex was such an experienced climber that he knows with full confidence what he has to do and what his limitations are. Him failing doesn't really factor in the calculus of his mind as a possibility.
The brain scan is from the documentary, which if I remember correctly did result in the conclusion that his brain does not function like a normal human's in the context of fear.
> Honnold enrages me. Free soloing is a fundamentally irresponsible act; it shows utter contempt for anyone in your life who loves you.
Before you vent, I would encourage you to think more deeply about what it means for an athlete to risk physical harm. Also, please refrain from using the F word in a public forum. Some of us find it offensive and disrespectful.
Software development can also be very inward-facing (though perhaps it should not be if a company is to succeed). I wonder what is in common between Alex and the 10xer.
I certainly respect how much work and preparation he puts into his climbs.
The question is: how is he different to the Everest glory hounds that I personally find objectionable? These are the people who basically pay $50k to "climb" Everest and largely get carried by the sherpas. Ask an experienced tour operator and, weather depending, they'll tell you they can probably get anyone to the top.
There are some key differences:
1. I honestly think the Everest glory hounds aren't doing it for the experience, for the most part. They're doing it for the bragging rights. It's the next level of Instagram flexing. Like it's the same people who go to Greece and the only thing they do is get a selfie at sunset in Santorini before moving on to the next Instagram stop.
2. Alex is actually doing things that have never been done before and some thought impossible.
You may view what Alex does as unsafe (I mean, I'd never do it) but it really is his life. Where my attitude turns is when someone has children. You see these stories all the time of [amateur climber] pursues life long dream of summitting Everest and dies leaving [wife and 3 small children].
The defenders will say that person is following their dreams and teaching their kids to do the same. Me? It's purely self-indulgent rationalization. If you're a parent, your kids need you more than you need to be the 6000th person to summit Everest.
Alex has a partner. She can make her own choices though. But your kids? They don't get a choice.