Northeastern Climbing Ethics

Patrick Newill wrote:how do you feel about the use of chalk? i strongly agree with the use of chalk. i agree with the use of chalk i am undecided regarding the use of chalk i disagree with the use of chalk i strongly disagree with the use of chalk

What kind of chalk? Metolius super-dry chalk? Chalk balls? Block chalk that you have to crush yourself?

M Sprague wrote: I took it twice, just to be ornery. ;)

Be careful! You'll get a reputation! ;)

M Sprague wrote: have no sense of subtleties or drunk and bored and like to randomly check boxes.

• gets a beer and starts clicking* This ought to be fun.

Patrick Newill wrote:I had 10 quesstions to work with with survey monkey..... I chose the 10 I felt suited it best. I'm not trying to get published, I'm trying to get a grade.

In that case, I'll pass.

I strongly agree with it depends.

I did my College undergrad thesis on the Creation and Development of style and ethics in New England Climbing - it was supposed to be 40 pages for me to pass - I handed in 80+ because is not agree/disagree topic.

I took your survey so you can get a grade. In the real world, i.e. when you get to college, the questions in a survey is what gets graded not the data. The art of a survey is asking the right (neutral) questions which are not going to skew your results. The other important component is selecting the right sampling of respondents. Your sample is skewed by asking on an Internet forum. Lots of the old curmudgeon trad climbers who have an issue with fixed protection don't go online to climbing forums. Many (Ken Nichols for example) don't even have computers. So this survey would get an "F" in a college statistics class because the results (data) is skewed by poor questions and poor sampling. However, I hope you get an "A."

I guess i agree, sometimes.

i admit to being a bit leaning to f/a's that I have done while taking the survey...good or bad ?

This is Mountain Project damn it!! I strongly disagree with every question.

No offense, but this statement, "I'm more interested in number of participants rather than explanations of why opinions are what they are," is argument enough for me not to fill out the survey.

If you aren't interested in actually gaining information, just getting the number to tick upward on the page access marker, then why should anyone waste their time trying to contribute?

Poor guy...

matt c hit the nail on the head though

I filled out the survey anyway <---- good karma

Patrick Newill wrote:I agree, but this is a quantitative study. "depends" can mean many things. I'm more interested in number of participants rather than explanations of why opinions are what they are.

But forcing "undecided" rather than "depends" or "sometimes" makes your results no more quantitative. Rather, it obfuscates the opinions of people who understand the trade-offs and make informed decisions with others who may actually be undecided. In any particular instance, e.g. considering whether a particular fixed anchor is appropriate on a trad route, I am clearly decided, but that decision does not necessarily apply to all other cases. The survey appears to expect clear polarization of extreme views of "ethics", not considering that many climbers rationally evaluate each situation. The results of this survey may be "quantitative", but they will not accurately reflect reality.

matt c. wrote: so the first step in creating a good quantitative is to do a qualitative one first. When someone is trying to give you feed back like "it depends" it is an opportunity to further investigate the source of the question and actually get meaningful data. For example, look at #4 " How do you feel about the use of fixed protection on routes?" Person A could consider this question and thinks "yes, i like fixed protection because I am scared of cams and think everything should be bolted." They check ‘strongly agree’ and finishes drilling bolt for supercrack at the creek. Person B sees the same question and thinks “ I really liked that clipping fixed knifeblade after that 30 foot run out in eldo” He checks ‘strongly agrees’ and goes on his way counting hexes. In this example, two conflicting points of view are being represented in the same way. ( mostly because you put no limitation of your dependent variable). That means your question is shit. The wording of your question is actually prohibiting you from getting the quantitative information you desire. It’s kind of impressive to have a build in type one error in your question. Question 5 was a lot better about this creating limitations of your dependent variable and making it clear have it relates to your independent variable. Maybe try this with some of your other questions...

+1

chip everything down to your level, theres plenty of trees for deforestation, hang on anchors to make one pitch into two as long as you send. lie about your sends.

aka northeast westcoast transplant ethics in a nutshell, but with ivan thrown in for good measure.