8,000 meter death rate is 85%?!?!

[mikefromcraig]

I couldn't help but notice the death rates on the 14 8,000 meter peaks. They ranged from 1% to 32%. If you run the numbers, the odds of doing all 14 without dying is only 17%. And when you factor in the likely outcome of having to go back and do multiple attempts it would be less than 15%.

For the record I'm a libertarian so I believe that adults should be allowed to engage in whatever dangerous activities they choose.

I have never personally met anyone who has set out to do all 14 of the 8,000 meter peaks but based on my experience with climbers and base jumpers it seems like it's not the case that these people make an intelligent assessment of the risks and then make a rational decision, balancing the costs and benefits. Rather, they just blindly engage in activities without a real understanding of the risks.

For example, Dean Potter's last post before he died went something like "I have had X number of friends die this year while wingsuit jumping so I guess it's dangerous. But I don't know, it just feels really safe to me."

It seems like people who go for the 14 8,000 meter peaks would fall under this same category. If you offered them a magic pill that would cost $250,000 and had an 85% chance of killing them and only a 15% chance of giving them all the sense of accomplishment and notoriety of doing the 14 8,000 meter peaks, I'm sure the vast majority would say that's incredibly stupid and decline.

I know there has been research done on how the sense of control that one has can warp your risk assessment abilities (why some people incorrectly feel more safe driving a car [that they control] than flying an airplane, even though the latter is infinitely more safe) so I guess that could account for some of it.

Interested to hear your thoughts...

[Doug Shaw]

It's a magic elixir of risk homeostasis and rationalization.

[12ersRule]

Mikefromcraig, interesting thread. Show me the math. Thanks.

[AyeYo]

At the end of the day, you simply roll the dice and hope for the best. The likely false sense of control and security they feel is from having a bunch of winning rolls.

It's no different than people that regularly venture into avalanche terrain and attribute their continued non-death to skill and ability to read the snow, or day traders that think their run of winning stock picks is due to superior ability to predict moves, or people that pack ultra-light in the winter and think they're still alive because of "experience", etc.

So much risk is out of our control. The people that roll the dice and win will attribute it to skill. The people that lose will have their deaths attributed to poor decision making.

[mikefromcraig]

Mikefromcraig, interesting thread. Show me the math. Thanks.

You just take the inverse of the death rate and multiply. So, for example, if there are two mountains that each have a 10% death rate (per attempt, not per summit) you just do .9 X .9 = 81%. So your odds of NOT dying when attempting one ascent on each is 81%.

When you have 14 mountains with death rates getting down into the 60's, the numbers plummet fast.

[mikefromcraig]

The likely false sense of control and security they feel is from having a bunch of winning rolls.

This probably plays a significant part. If you are considering doing the 8,000 meter peaks then you are someone who has done a lot of mountaineering and, by definition, you have not yet died.

People allow personal experience to warp their ability to assess risk.

Plus, these are people who are above average climbers so they are used to thinking that the rules don't apply to them. "Well, the guide book says this will take 7 hours so I can probably do it in 4." "People say it takes 3 years of practice to get to a certain skill level so I can do it in 1." So if they bother to look at the statistics they probably think "Those are for other people, they don't apply to me."

[TravelingMatt]

Is that using the number of deaths as a percentage of successful summits and returns, or the number of deaths as a percentage of total attempts? There is also the variable that a death may or may not have followed reaching the summit.

Also it ignores that successful summits are autocorrelated. If you've summited and returned from five 8000ers, you're more likely to succeed on a given peak than someone on his or her first attempt.

[madbuck]

It would be interesting to note to which degree factors were more random and uncontrollable.

But taking human agency (as well as experience) into account, it wouldn't be accurate to assume complete independence. It is reasonable to assume that the conditional probabilities will be more favorable on additional peaks because of selection bias of those both able and desirous to continue on multiple peaks.
Of course, for those actually pursuing multiple peaks, there will be mitigators in the negative direction as well, such as the temporal aspect of the amount of time to take on such an endeavor necessarily being older, and perhaps additional judgment issues when the list completion is near...

Interesting baseline estimate for discussion, though.

[madbuck]

Also it ignores that successful summits are autocorrelated. If you've summited and returned from five 8000ers, you're more likely to succeed on a given peak than someone on his or her first attempt.

Autocorrelation -- yes, this.

People allow personal experience to warp their ability to assess risk.

But it actually is true and useful, for the risks that are human factors.

[mikefromcraig]

Is that using the number of deaths as a percentage of successful summits and returns, or the number of deaths as a percentage of total attempts? There is also the variable that a death may or may not have followed reaching the summit.

Also it ignores that successful summits are autocorrelated. If you've summited and returned from five 8000ers, you're more likely to succeed on a given peak than someone on his or her first attempt.

It uses deaths as a percentage of total attempts. That's why you have to adjust it even lower to account for multiple attempts.

I don't see the relevance of whether the death occurred before or after a summit as nobody would be ok with dying as long as it was a couple hours after a summit.

[wineguy]

You just take the inverse of the death rate and multiply. So, for example, if there are two mountains that each have a 10% death rate (per attempt, not per summit).

If you plan on trying until you summit, shouldn't the appropriate death rates be per summit?

But getting back to your original question, who would do this? I agree with your answer that most probably don't approach this statistically. Also, some may say that: 1. It's safer today with better equipment, 2. I'm going to be safer than average, 3. I'm going to be in better shape than average, and 4. I'm smarter than average.

Unfortunately, none of these apply to me. I'd never attempt 8,000 meters, but my main rationale for the risks I take is: I'd rather die in the mountains than get old on flat land.

[TravelingMatt]

I don't see the relevance of whether the death occurred before or after a summit as nobody would be ok with dying as long as it was a couple hours after a summit.

In the real world it is not relevant, but someone doing the math may use "number of times reaching the summit whether or not the return was successful" as the denominator and count it.