Mount Meru, located in the Himalayas, is a mountain that is 6,660 meters high; that if you want to understand within a national reference, it would be the equivalent of climbing 7 times the "Angel Falls" (979 m) the largest waterfall in the world, in Venezuela.
Beyond being a really high mountain, it is famous for its difficulty of climbing, multiple failures gave it that reputation, and only elite climbers can afford to climb, since it requires mastering all the climbing techniques: ice, rock and wall. A crucial issue to be taken into account by climbers is its last section, called "the shark fin" which is considered the most complicated part of climbing, and constitutes a completely smooth rock wall that requires several days of effort and perseverance to reach to the cusp.
It was not until 2011, that 3 expert climbers Conrad Anker, Jimmy Chin and Renan Ozturk, reached the top of Meru. Beyond sounding attractive and victorious, this journey involved several previous climbs, tragedies, climatic, health and nutritional difficulties; all for a single purpose, to be crowned as the first to reach the cusp of Mount Meru.
3 years earlier, these same climbers made their first attempt, at that time, a few meters from reaching the top they were without food, breath and at 10 G ° below 0; the physical exhaustion and the unpredictable climate of the mountain put them beyond the limit and forced the climbers to discern their goal, then try again years later, regardless of the previous failure, preparing and learning from their past mistakes, obtaining Thus the desired success.
After the previous review and considering the multiple risks that the crossing entails, the question we should all ask ourselves is: What led these climbers despite the adversities, to conquer the shark fin?, After touching the death 3 years before, why did they rise again? Is there any basic theory that can explain the decision making that includes a possible death accordingly? Then we will test it.
González Labra (2012) makes a good presentation on some of the existing theories to explain the decision-making process, a process that is worth highlighting, we carry out continuously. The basis of any decision consists of 4 key aspects: raise the decision, generate all possible alternatives, evaluate its probability of occurrence and the consequences that each alternative can bring, to finally choose the one that best fits the problem; In general, it is believed that all subjects make decisions in a logical and rational way, however, there are some authors who affirm that in everyday life this does not happen and they propose other ways of understanding the decision-making process of individuals. For the purposes of the situation analyzed on this occasion, we will focus on the descriptive theories of the decision, and more specifically on that so-called portfolio theory.
In the experimental situations framed within the descriptive decision theories, there has been an evidence that individuals are inclined to take risks if the problem they face is raised in terms of possible losses, instead, if the subject If you are exposed to a situation explained in terms of earnings, you will find yourself significantly less willing to take risks to ensure you have no losses.
Bearing in mind that the decisions we make are affected by our willingness to take risks. What could motivate a group of people to live the odyssey presented in the documentary? This question aims to find its resolution in the portfolio theory. This approach suggests that the preferences of individuals to take risks are due to the individual perspectives of the possible gains based on the risks that must be taken to be able to receive them, therefore, what for some individuals is perceived as a possibility too risky (how to reach the top of the "Shark Fin"), for others these possible losses have a lower value. Following this line of thoughts, the climbers on both occasions where they made the decision to make the excursion, demonstrated to assess the risks as something less significant than the profits of making the trip, these gains that they would obtain vary from, to fulfill their mentor's dream , gain experience and achieve a feat never before done.
The curious thing about this situation is that it is presented a second time, since despite having failed on the first attempt and having paid some serious consequences, the climbers decide to return the gains on the losses they already experienced so well, added to the accidents between both ascents. A case that we could highlight in this situation is that of Renan Ozturk, who was the first to express his doubts about continuing the escalation in his first instance and yet again makes the decision to carry out the expedition, we could assume that this is present being the least experienced of the three, and therefore has greater reservations to take risks, but these doubts seem not to be significant enough to affect their decision making. Taking these previous considerations, we would be able to say that as a group they not only share similar profit and loss thresholds, but also, their failed first attempt only acted as a motivator for the second time, since it was seen as an opportunity to minimize aversive situations and maximize those pleasurable of the second attempt.
Individual differences are clearly a key factor in this whole process, as well as context and sociocultural influences. That is why the path to a rational decision is composed of the management and application of various strategies, and it is the subject who will adapt them according to the benefit or loss that he can perceive from what he is doing. Precisely, from that evaluation and choice of alternatives is that errors and reasoning biases can occur. The heuristics arise as a fast and adaptive strategies, which can help to issue simple answers, but which are not necessarily correct since important aspects are omitted.
In the case of Meru, the heuristic of representativeness stands out in which the climbers may think that as they had already climbed other mountains, this would entail the same amount of effort, thus underestimating Meru's reputation.
For his part, in the documentary Jon Krakauer explains that "the game in climbing is to approach the limit as much as you can, but without wanting to take a risk‘ stupid. " Through the heuristic "climb the slope" this situation can be explained. The route that seems most direct towards the goal is chosen at each step, similar to when the climber marks the route that he and his companions must follow, although this can only mean that the route is the most effective for the moment.
In addition, this heuristic highlights that one of the drawbacks is that there is a local maximum point (minimally satisfactory solution) where it is not guaranteed to have found the best possible solution; This could be reflected during the first ascent, when the climbers achieve a maximum point of effort but it was not the expected goal and must return. The other problem that is addressed for this heuristic is the impossibility of generating states that move momentarily away from the goal, that is, one always works forward without allowing a step back.
Climbing this mountain is one of the most difficult tests for mountaineers due to its multiple risks and unforeseen inconveniences during the trip, the three of them being experts in mountaineering with years of practice and studying the different conditions they would face recognized the risks of each of the parts of the mountain to perform the best movements and tactics when climbing, as observed during the documentary when they alternate position as they go up since each one has more knowledge in an area than the others, this It is of the utmost importance in the ascent because they must evaluate all the possible scenarios, always keeping in mind that a false step could delay them from achieving their goal, or cost them their lives.
In summary, climbing is a multifaceted task, which requires certain individual characteristics to become an expert in the subject, some of these are high intrinsic motivation, outgoing personality, efficiency in solving problems, adaptability, and the main characteristic for the subject, low risk aversion. Not all individuals would be able to face an expedition of such magnitude on more than one occasion, the perseverance shown by our climbers demonstrates a very interesting case for the study of decision making, and constitutes a perfect example to explain how individual differences They affect our way of assessing the risks and gains of each problem to which we are continually subjected. "Meru, odyssey in the Himalayas" proved not only to be an entertaining and fascinating documentation, but also an educational material and from which we can draw new insights into the thinking of individuals.
