assume or not to assume?

[Scythe13]

(17 September 2013, 00:39)Grumpy Grandpa Wrote:

(16 September 2013, 19:10)Scythe13 Wrote: I get what you're saying P1.

As SD said to me when we last met up, prepare for the worst case scenario at all times, and then hope it doesn't happen. That old man in the wheelchair....suicide bomber, as far as I'm concerned!!! Staying WELL AWAY!!!!

Hey!! I'm listening in here..... ( )

HAHAHAHAHA Very funny mate. We all know you're too optimistic to be a suicide bomber GG, even though your name hints otherwise.

[bigpaul]

(16 September 2013, 21:44)Geordie_Rob Wrote: Regarding how far people can walk.

Myself & some mates done a 100km charity walk a couple of months back in the hills & we done that in just over 22hrs. That included plenty rests. Me & 2 of my mates had done loads of training leading up to it. My other mate done virtually no training. While we all felt it by the end, we still all completed it (granted we had a lot of supplies - high calorie food & plenty water). And that was only for a few quid for charity. I imagine if our lives depended on it, we could've gone a lot further & a lot longer.

My point is, don't underestimate how far some people can walk

young, fairly fit men doing it for charity, carrying nothing, probably in reasonable weather is one thing, now add in carrying pretty much everything you own on your back, wet weather, possibly winter, with young children or old people, you'll be travelling at the pace of the SLOWEST person, now recalculate your miles per hour...day after day after day!!!

[Scythe13]

(17 September 2013, 09:38)bigpaul Wrote:

(16 September 2013, 21:44)Geordie_Rob Wrote: Regarding how far people can walk.

Myself & some mates done a 100km charity walk a couple of months back in the hills & we done that in just over 22hrs. That included plenty rests. Me & 2 of my mates had done loads of training leading up to it. My other mate done virtually no training. While we all felt it by the end, we still all completed it (granted we had a lot of supplies - high calorie food & plenty water). And that was only for a few quid for charity. I imagine if our lives depended on it, we could've gone a lot further & a lot longer.

My point is, don't underestimate how far some people can walk

young, fairly fit men doing it for charity, carrying nothing, probably in reasonable weather is one thing, now add in carrying pretty much everything you own on your back, wet weather, possibly winter, with young children or old people, you'll be travelling at the pace of the SLOWEST person, now recalculate your miles per hour...day after day after day!!!

I get what you're saying mate. I largely agree. But let's just play one little scenario out.

There are a group of 20-30 people travelling together. Very possible, e.g. parents whose kids school together. Rugby team and their families. Gym mates and their families. The who is not important. They all set off down a road together. As they travel, a group of 8 are told to scout ahead and see what's there. Suddenly you potentially have a group of guys, young, fit, and ready to fight, adrenalin pumped, moving in on you. The remaining 12-22 could just meander along until they reach you, hours later.

By looking at worse case scenarios, it makes you more prepared incase they do happen.

[bigpaul]

on the other hand, those 8 or so fit men scout ahead..probably miles ahead...leaving the older vulnerable ones open to attack.

---

do not split your forces, General Custer found that out the hard way!

[Scythe13]

Which is why you'd leave a good few strong protectors with the main group.

[bigpaul]

the point of scouts is, the should not be that far ahead, the need to be close enough to run back and warn the main party of trouble ahead.

[Scythe13]

(17 September 2013, 10:28)bigpaul Wrote: the point of scouts is, the should not be that far ahead, the need to be close enough to run back and warn the main party of trouble ahead.

You're kind of missing the point mate.

You're right, a group should travel the speed of their slowest members, etc. But what if there is a second group? A forward moving group, or something like that.

Having assumptions that those things are not there could very easily lead to being unprepared for the possibility, which is entirely what P1's initial post was on about.

Yes a group should be slow. They should be hungry, they should be tired, they should be unmotivated. But what if they get a second wind, a moment of hope, a moment of motivation. It does not take a lot of incentive to make a starving person ready to kill with all their effort. They'll have adrenalin pumping heavy, and that makes them even more dangerous than a well fed motivated person.

Saying this wont happen, or that won't happen, and making assumptions about the weakness of everyone else, is a huge danger. Underestimating and pigeonholing people is going to lead a person into a god-complex, and that can easily see them dead!

Take my wife for example. She's physically fit, strong, good looking, and such a kind caring person. You wouldn't expect her to be able to punch with the best of them hu? She's got one hell of a punch, and I'm working with her to make that even harder. Give her a shotgun or air-rifle or normal rifle, and I'd put money that she can shoot better than well over 90% of people. I know this because I've seen it. She is one of the last people I would be pleased to be hunted by! I've seen her run half marathons running fully blistered after half way, and still coming in with a phenomenally competitive time. I'm not doing this to big up my wife. I'm saying that underestimating a person and people in general, is a real danger for a person to do.

---

And even if the point of scouts is to warn the main group, what if the scouts don't realise that they are meant to warn the main group, opting instead to go in, guns blazing, and come back to the group with resources like food and water? A group might be meant to act a certain way, but there's no telling how they'll act/react/respond, and thus is the beauty of people.

[bigpaul]

the title of the thread is "assume or not to assume" and I think your assuming a heck of a lot. people being people, and having been around a lot longer than you have-I know people will not behave how you expect them to....if i'm gonna assume then assume the worst of people-sooner or later they'll prove me right! however I think some of us give people more credit than they deserve.

[Scythe13]

(17 September 2013, 12:23)bigpaul Wrote: the title of the thread is "assume or not to assume" and I think your assuming a heck of a lot. people being people, and having been around a lot longer than you have-I know people will not behave how you expect them to....if i'm gonna assume then assume the worst of people-sooner or later they'll prove me right! however I think some of us give people more credit than they deserve.

That may well be true mate, but I'm still placing myself in the bottom 50% of the population for ability, in my mind. If I find it out to be otherwise, then my odds of survival are much better. If I mentally place myself in the bottom 50%, it forces me to keep my game at the top of what I can, but also focuses me on pushing through my limits and striving for improvement.

Also, it may be more credit overall, but there will be exceptions to the rule, and those are the ones to be concerned about and plan for.

[bigpaul]

(17 September 2013, 12:41)Scythe13 Wrote: That may well be true mate, but I'm still placing myself in the bottom 50% of the population for ability, in my mind. If I find it out to be otherwise, then my odds of survival are much better. If I mentally place myself in the bottom 50%, it forces me to keep my game at the top of what I can, but also focuses me on pushing through my limits and striving for improvement.

don't sell yourself short, you have youth and fitness on your side which is a plus, whearas I have a lifetimes experience of people!