Define Obsessive Behavior

[LifeIsGood]

Several topics have been discussed recently, in which some forum members have sounded irrational.

In fact, a number of statements have been made that would sound completely nonsensical to someone wholly outside of peakbagger culture, such as:

“I always walk around (even on a flat boring summit), and ensure that I have touched every possible highest point.”

“People should go back and re-climb Crestone Peak, in order to count it on their checklist, now that it has been determined that the East Summit is very likely a few inches higher.”

“People should not check off Mt Bross, on their peak list, if they stayed on the legal trail, just barely below the summit.”

Rather than re-hash these topics here, I am interested in what else can we include on this list of irrational thought processes, that the people seem to think they are 100% correct about???

[Veory]

Is it really any more irrational than spending thousands of dollars on gas to drive around the state 50+ times to climb peaks above an arbitrary threshold, which is exactly the point on which this site was founded?

Just saying

[jrbren_vt]

Winter in the mountains starts on the solstice and ends on the equinox.

[LifeIsGood]

to climb peaks above an arbitrary threshold

Excellent point by Veory (as usual)!

One could certainly say that the Colorado 14’er list is, in a way, nonsensical, as the 14,000 foot threshold is indeed a completely arbitrary, man-made criteria.

Peak lists that DO make sense would be: “7 Summits” (the highest mountain on all 7 continents, “Highest 100 peaks in Colorado,” etc. So much simpler and much more aesthetic.

[Mtnman200]

Here's what I think is an obvious one: obsessing about "the 3000' rule" by people who aren't going for FKTs.

[LifeIsGood]

Winter in the mountains starts on the solstice and ends on the equinox.

Best example so far! Try explaining to a non-peakbagger that you don’t want to start your hike before 3:50pm on 12/21/26, because then it “doesn’t count” as a winter ascent.

[Veory]

Excellent point by Veory (as usual)!

Thanks boss

“Highest 100 peaks in Colorado,” etc. So much simpler and much more aesthetic.

100 is just as arbitrary, it only sounds nice and round because we happen to use base 10 due to the number of fingers on (most of our) hands. If we had 53 (or 58, 59, whatever) fingers on our hands we would just call the 14ers the top 10 and it would sound really nice and round!

I do find the 300' prominence rule can be hard to explain to non-peakbaggers. A peak counts if its 300.1, but not 299.9. Gotta pick something though! Ultimately we can't ever get rid of arbitrary distinction unless we simply run off vibes and never compare anyones efforts to anyone else. If you know anything about human nature, that ain't gonna happen.

[LifeIsGood]

obsessing about "the 3000' rule" by people who aren't going for FKTs.

Yes! Great one! There really are people out there who believe we should all have to re-hike Mt Bierstadt, Mt Sherman, Handies Peak, etc., as their standard routes are less than 3,000 feet of elevation gain.

[LifeIsGood]

the 300' prominence rule can be hard to explain to non-peakbaggers

Another great example. A first-time hiker will be very confused why we are telling them that “this mountain” is on our checklist, but “that mountain” is not, because the saddle between them is less than 300 feet deep.

[Eli Boardman]

[Peak lists that DO make sense would be: “7 Summits” (the highest mountain on all 7 continents, “Highest 100 peaks in Colorado,” etc. So much simpler and much more aesthetic.

State boundaries are even more arbitrary and capricious than units of measurement (feet) or number systems (base 10). Even continents aren't necessarily well-defined or agreed upon (cf. Elbrus vs. Mont Blanc, Kosciusko vs. Cartensz). Even the notion of sea level, or the idea that mountains deep under the ocean don't count, both display human cognitive biases. Mermaids would probably have seamount lists...

[rijaca]

Several topics have been discussed recently, in which some forum members have sounded irrational.

In fact, a number of statements have been made that would sound completely nonsensical to someone wholly outside of peakbagger culture, such as:

“I always walk around (even on a flat boring summit), and ensure that I have touched every possible highest point.”

“People should go back and re-climb Crestone Peak, in order to count it on their checklist, now that it has been determined that the East Summit is very likely a few inches higher.”

“People should not check off Mt Bross, on their peak list, if they stayed on the legal trail, just barely below the summit.”

Rather than re-hash these topics here, I am interested in what else can we include on this list of irrational thought processes, that the people seem to think they are 100% correct about???

That there are 58 14ers in CO.

[LifeIsGood]

Even continents aren't necessarily well-defined or agreed upon (Elbrus vs. Mont Blanc, Kosciusko vs. Cartensz).

Okay, I guess it is true that even the 7 Summits list is confusing: Mont Blanc really is the highest mountain in Europe. A glance at a map tells most rational people that Mount Elbrus is outside of Europe.

And Australia really is a continent, so Mount Kosciuszko should be on the list, versus Carstensz Pyramid (aka Puncak Jaya), which is considered the highest point of “Oceania,” according to the Reinhold Messner List.

I have summitted Mont Blanc and Kosciuszko.

And I HAVE summited Mauna Kea in Hawaii (and Mauna Loa), therefore I have stood atop the HIGHEST MOUNTAIN IN THE WORLD, as it is 33,500 feet above the ocean floor (but really it’s only 13,800 feet above sea level).