Episode 004 What Stories Taught Me About Risk

Title: What Stories Taught me about Risk Intro: Lezlie Silko said, “I will tell you something about stories…they aren’t just entertainment. Don’t be fooled. They are all we have.” We all have stories. We all tell stories. If I told you how I fell 100 feet off a rock climb, you’d start thinking of your own stories, one you’d like to tell in response. Maybe a bigger/better, or someone you know did X. It’s part of our conversation…how we relate to each other. But stories are so much more – tune in today for the unexpected discovery I made while studying the stories of hikers, bikers, skiers and rock climbers. An insight into how we all manage risk! s I conducted 16 interviews of people who participate regularly in outdoor recreation – human-powered sports in wild places such as mountains, rivers, and deserts. The interviewees consisted of eight men and eight women between the ages of 22-75 years old. Their sports of choice included: mountaineering, road biking, mountain biking, skiing, snowboarding, SUP (stand up paddle boarding), white water kayaking, desert backpacking, and river rafting. Each shared personal stories of exploits, that I then structurally analyzed for risk using Labov and Walestsy’s structural analysis model. What that means, in a nutshell, is that these cool guys – Labov and Walestsy, broke down the personal narrative and found a pattern in the way stories were told. By breaking the stories into the parts L&W defined, you can evaluate different structural aspects of a story. So let me share an example so this will make sense– Example Story from Alex, one of the outdoor recreationalists that was a part of this study He said, and I’m quoting word for word, “ I was on a climb for charity, a mountain climb, I’m not a mountain climber, but we were climbing a mountain in Chile called Aconcagua. And, a, it was really, really, really, really, really really cold, like 40 below. Now this is the opening section of the story that L&W call the ( ORIENTATION). The story goes on:  And, on the day before the summit day I was feeling extraordinarily strong and then all of the sudden lost feeling in my feet and literally couldn’t walk. I mean I absolutely couldn’t do it.  This is the second section of the story that L&W call (COMPLICATING ACTION). The story goes on:  It was a small group and so it was a choice, let’s leave Alex and we’re going to go push for the summit. And they got me all set up. My friend Eric decided he was going to stay with me, long time friend, and the short part of the story is, that in 40 below temps, he… we said, let’s give it a shot and see if I can warm your feet up. We didn’t think there was necessarily something wrong, they had just gotten so frozen they had lost circulation. This section is the section L&W call the (EVALUATION): And so, he put my feet under his jacket and into his armpits… … and 10 minutes later after him screaming in pain about how cold it was, I got feeling back and we went for the summit. This is what L&W call the (RESOLUTION). I said:  Not only did you summit, but you saved your feet! Alex: I’m not sure. I think it would have… like circulation would have ….. ya, he did a lot of wonderful things for me with that armpit moment… That last final statement is what L&W call a (CODA) So, why does this breakdown matter? The reason it matters, in this case, was that after I had collected all their stories, broken them into L&W’s structural parts, the result of my analysis brought 2 things to the forefront: 1. Risk was the roving master and was allowed in any and all parts of the stories – in everything from the orientation to the coda – risk could show up anywhere in this group’s stories. And 2. Risk received little fanfare in the narratives and was often quickly passed over. Now, The scattered, but certain nature of risk within the narratives show that risk...