Thursday, October 11, 2012
Hell on wheels.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Welcome to Fiordland
[As published in Wilderness Magazine April 2012]
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Getting away from it all
If on the other hand you thought “Did I remember to switch the gas off this morning?” Or, “I wonder when the car’s due for a service?” or something along those lines then, like me, you’re a worrier – read on.
Don’t worry (or at least try not to), you’re not alone. Most people’s heads are filled with a constant background noise of minor concerns, bills to be paid, quibbles to be reconciled, and jobs to be done.
It’s just part of being human – we’re problem-solvers by nature, so it’s only natural that we tend to focus on our problems. But occasionally we need to press the pause button on it all, just for a moment, for the sake of our sanity.

But what is actually being done when you press that metaphorical pause button? Clinical Psychologist Lisa Cohen says two mechanisms are affected; the psychological and the physical.
Psychologically it’s simple; you’re pretty much overloading your brain with sensory input. When you’re trying to balance on a pair of skis, navigate and estimate the snow stability – plus smile for the photo at the same time… you’re brain simply doesn’t have the capacity to worry.
Physically it’s a little more complex. When you put your body under the right sort of stress, it releases a bevy of unpronounceable chemicals like andrinocoticortropic hormone, serotonin, dopamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, melanocyte-stimulating hormone. The exact workings of these chemicals are a bit of a mystery even for experts like Cohen, but the overall effects are well known – heightened awareness, alleviated pain and euphoria – a natural high.
She says the combination of a clear mind and a euphoric mood often triggers a third, profoundly spiritual component whereby escapists either literally or metaphorically see God in the wilderness. Of course double-black-diamond chutes and single-track bike trails aren’t the only way to get away from it all - drugs and alcohol will do the trick too.
Cohen, who a specialist in the treatment of addiction says whether you choose to get your escape on the summit of a mountain or the point of a needle, comes down to some fairly subtle but very significant personality differences.
“[Outdoor escapists] are usually risk takers, but they’re able to channel their like for risk into healthy activities. Sometimes it may be obsessive, and they may get ‘addicted’ to it, but it’s a lot healthier than substances… and it doesn’t have the legal ramifications.
“[People who use drugs for escape] don’t have a lot of patience, or tolerance for their emotions or themselves or people,” she says. “That’s why they’re more likely to indulge in substances – it’s just easier – it doesn’t take a whole lot of planning.
“Some people will do it consciously. They’ll realize that they’re risk takers and they want to channel their risk-taking in a more positive healthy area that challenges them. They’re also more likely to have some belief in their ability to succeed in those challenges.
“Whereas people who tend to engage in compulsive use of substances tend not to have such a great belief in themselves, or if they do it’s more from a narcissistic point of view – it’s not reality based.”
However, in matters of the mind – particularly when mind-bending substances are involved – things are not always straightforward.
There are notable cases of high-functioning individuals like Keith Richards and Hunter S Thomspson, who despite elephant-killing intakes of drugs and alcohol over the years (or possibly because of it) have managed to produce some of the twentieth century’s best music and literature. Likewise there are countless cases, especially in adolescents, where relatively low doses can have life-wrecking impacts.
Cohen explains “Generally it is a problem if whatever the person is doing is affecting their family and relationships, their job and their health. If it’s not any of those – even though they may be using high levels of substances – then how do you identify it’s a problem… it certainly won’t be for the person [concerned].”
Intriguingly, if you apply that litmus test to the outdoor community you do see the occasional case of ‘endorphin abuse’, with some possible junkies cropping up much earlier than you’d expect.
Most people know George Leigh Mallory, as the British mountaineer last seen in 1924, 350m below the summit of Everest, in the words of expedition mate Noel Odell “going strongly for the top”.
He perished in the attempt sparking an ongoing debate whether he made it to the summit, beating Hillary and Norgay by almost thirty years (although the fact he didn’t survive makes it a moot point).
What people don’t realise is that, before heading to Everest, Mallory served in WWI as a member of the Royal Garrison Artillery through some of the war’s most intense fighting, including the Battle of the Somme – a campaign that cost the two sides over a million lives.
On the front he would have been exposed to the full gamut of wartime horrors; gas attacks, dead bodies, severely wounded colleagues – and as an artilleryman, the constant nagging doubt that perhaps one of his shells had gone astray and landed on his own men.
He returned in 1921, almost certainly suffering from what we’d now diagnose as post traumatic stress disorder, quit his job as a school teacher and headed for Everest.
When asked why he needed to climb the world’s highest peak, Mallory famously quipped “Because it’s there”. I wonder if a more accurate answer, given the memories he would have been carrying with him, might have been “Because when I’m there, everything else isn’t.”
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Rebels vs Insurgents
Rebel: a person who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against the government or ruler of his or her country.Insurgent: a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; a rebel.
Insurgent RebelAfghanistan 5,450 720Iraq 2,080 879Libya 1,040 9,080Tunisia 426 2,740
Monday, December 13, 2010
Wikileaks: implications for the communications industry.

It’ll take a while for the dust to settle… and it’ll be very interesting to see what the game looks like when it does.
In reality much of the changed landscape of this ‘new game’ will only affect people directly involved in the Machiavellian cut and thrust of international politics.
However the various scandals have drawn into focus some very interesting changes in the way people share information. And if like me, you’re involved day-to-day in corporate communications (an industry that you could argue is a minor league version the international diplomacy game) then you really should be watching closely. Here are a few concepts that have caught my attention:
The scientific approach to communications.
When Wikileaks published the “Collateral Murder” tapes showing a United States helicopter machine gunning civilians and journalists they didn’t just release a ten second clip… they released the full, unedited camera tapes. Sure you could see an edited version, but if you didn’t believe the conclusions they drew, you could download the unedited version and decide for yourself. It’s what’s known as the scientific approach journalism.
The idea stems from the dusty world of peer-reviewed science journals where you don’t just publish your conclusions; you publish the hypothesis, the methodology and results too. The idea is that readers can view your data and see if they draw the same conclusions, or if they like, repeat the experiment and see if they get the same results. It’s a fairly high standard to achieve, but it’s one that clearly separates objective from subjective; fact from opinion.
In the pre-digital age, cost and logistical constraints prevented the news media from using this approach. The result was an arrangement that forced readers to rely on the subjective opinions of reporters and the subjective choices of editors. It was an imperfect system, to put it lightly.
But on the internet there is no such constraint and so we see a growing number of communications organisations showing not just the tip of the inverted pyramid… but publishing the whole thing (mummies and all).
So how does this relate to someone selling mountain biking holidays, or real estate packages?
Well, twenty years ago the column inches constraint applied to corporate communications too - so you could say “trust us you’ll love it” and people would generally be happy enough with that. But as the world’s ability to transmit and process information grows it seems likely that the businesses that say “trust us you’ll love it… but if you want proof, here it is” will be the ones who come out on top.
Of course not everyone will look at that proof; not everyone has the time. But if you’re trying to convince people to buy into your idea, be it a product, political campaign or news story; and you’re not prepared to show them demonstration videos, independent field trials, customer reviews, etcetera to back it up… then you’ll need a to think up a pretty damn good reason why not.
No more porky-pies
The second revelation to come out of Wikileaks actually stems back to an essay “Conspiracy as Governance” written by Julian Assange back in 2006. In the essay, which forms the philosophical underpinning of Wikileaks Assange argues that unjust organizations by their nature will create leaks and that those leaks will have a negative nonlinear effect on them.
“The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaptation.”Once again Assange was writing is in the context of tyrannical government regimes… but again the principles apply on a smaller scale. As the world’s ability to share information increases, organizations that behave duplicitously; whether that’s over-selling a product, over-spinning their public relations activities or just plain lying; are increasingly going to find themselves outmanoeuvred by their honest competitors.
That’s not to say you can’t have conflicting points of view and it definitely doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with everything that you do (in fact having some people vigourously dislike what you do can galvanise your supporters and actually be beneficial… but I digress). However, what it does mean is that by keeping your rhetoric and your actions in line you’ll make your organisation more effective - and more profitable.
One obvious sticking point will be the traditional difference between ‘back-of-house’ and ‘front-of-house’ communications. Communication is always going to be context specific and shifting contexts will invariably distort the meaning of the message. Anyone who’s taken their spouse to a work Christmas party will understand.
There is however a big difference between this sort of cross-contextual friction…and conspiring to deceive the public at large. It’s a hazy line I’ll admit, but with information passing between contexts more freely than ever, it’s one that professional communicators are going to have to watch very closely.
What’s your name again?
On a more technical note, it’s interesting to observe that Wikileaks was able to operate almost entirely unhindered without even having a domain name. After EveryDNS cut ties with the company claiming the denial of service attacks on the Wikileaks site were threatening its ability to serve other customers, the URL www.wikileaks.org effectively ceased to exist.
You’d think they would have been dead in the water, but the site was still easily locatable via Google at its numeric IP address: 213.251.145.96 and continued to run more or less unhindered.
So what? Well, the old marketing adage: “build a better mousetrap and the world with beat a path to your door” is generally quoted as a description of how things used to be done – before the wonders of modern marketing. It seems these days, with a little help from Google the saying is true once again… especially if you’re looking to catch very big, corrupt mice.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Time to get out there!
Thursday, November 18, 2010
A bad week on New Zealand’s roads.
Five cyclists were killed by cars this week on New Zealand roads. That’s a massive number for such a small country and as you can imagine it’s created a bit of a storm in the media. At the eye of this storm has been the question: how do you stop the collisions?
Between the cyclists’ lobby groups, the politicians, the police and readers’ online comments there’s been a swathe of suggestions. Some like increasing driver and cyclist training make a bit of sense, others like licensing cyclists and forcing them to pay registration fees (with a view to reducing the number of cyclists on the roads) seem somewhat less sensible.
The one idea that’s been conspicuously absent from the debate is that perhaps these cyclist fatalities are simply ‘system accidents’; unusual and undesirable, but statistically inevitable behaviour in a complicated tightly coupled system. The term, originally coined by sociologist Charles Perrow, is most frequently used in the context of aviation – more specifically aviation crashes.
Think about it like this; your average 747 has somewhere in the order of six million parts. If for the sake of argument we average it out at ten possible states per-part; working, worn, bent, broken, intermittently failing etc. Then you end up with ten to the power of six million as the number of possible states for your 747 a few of which will cause a crash. It’s a really mind bogglingly complicated system - and that’s just the mechanical side of it!
Likewise commercial aircraft have time-dependent processes (you’ve got to land before you run out of fuel) rigidly ordered processes (you really should put the undercarriage down before you land) only one path to a successful outcome (the runway is your only realistic option as a place to land) and very little slack (the ground is really, really unforgiving when you’re travelling at 300km/h). It’s what’s called a tightly coupled system.
When you consider it, it’s not really surprising that despite the best efforts of some of the most intelligent minds on the planet, these planes do occasionally fall out of the sky. For a great many years crash investigators would look for a single cause that caused the crash (usually blaming the pilot) but thanks in part to Perrow’s theories these days investigators tend to focus on the system as a whole.
Now, cast your mind back to cycling. Again it’s a mind boggling array of different interacting parts; every car that passes a cyclist is its own complex system; the road itself is a fantastically complicated mix of cars, trucks, busses, pedestrians, signs, potholes and puddles; and the drivers and cyclists themselves are subject to an almost infinite array of mental and physical states... about the only simple thing in the equation are the bikes.
And don’t take this the wrong way, but the average driver on New Zealand’s roads possibly doesn’t take their responsibilities as seriously as the first officer on the flight deck – I doubt you’d see them texting or doing their hair while taking off.
As far as room for error goes, it doesn’t get much closer than cycling on the road. Each car that passes a cyclist is a ton or more of hardened steel passing at high speed within a metre of an unprotected body that’s looking the opposite direction. If it were a workplace the Department of Labour would shut the place down pronto! At that speed and that proximity, it only takes a small failure in any one of those systems – a sneeze, a blowout, an unexpected pothole – to trigger a series of events that ends in a fatality. Sadly in the last week we’ve seen it happen five times.
Now don’t get the wrong idea, I’m not saying that cycling fatalities are simply a fact of life and we should get used to them. The point is that just like in aviation, in looking for solutions to the problem we probably shouldn’t worry too much about looking for a single cause or adding more checks and balances – stiffer penalties, better signage and more legislation.
The logical answer seems to be to focus on making the whole system simpler by reducing the number of interactions between sub systems, by separating bikes and cars into separate lanes for instance or de-coupling the system by reducing speed limits (at least in built up areas) to give people a bit more time to react.
The question of how to make cycling safer does sadly bring up another aviation concept – the catch 22. In countries like the Netherlands where the average person cycles 2.5 kilometres per day, the death rate is about 1.4 people per hundred-million kilometres cycled. In the USA where the average person only cycles 0.1km per day the death rate is almost 27 times higher at 37.5!
It seems that more cyclists makes for more political clout, which produces more bike paths, more driver training, lower speed limits – and thus makes cycling safer. But when getting into the saddle means taking your life in your hands, who’d be mad enough to ride a bike.