I don’t know where the idea came from, but this concept jumped in my head months ago and never left. The question was posed, open-ended but persistent.

I posted an initial thought on Facebook and got some cool replies. I mused over the idea that “yourself” can be (over)simplified down into a set of “traits” that are on a spectrum of good vs bad. You are smart (good), you like spaghetti (neutral), and you are rude sometimes (bad). Most people are a bell curve. Some bad traits, a bunch of neutral, and some good.

That’s it. That’s you. How does that feel?

In that case, I suggested that by saying “be yourself” to someone, you might be encouraging them to display more of the neutral traits they may be downplaying or hiding. But, it doesn’t apply to the good or the bad.

The good goes without saying. You’d never encourage someone to be good, because they’re probably doing it anyways. Society values those traits, so there is no reason for them to be hiding them.

The bad, on the other hand, would simply never be encouraged. “Be more rude!” said no one ever.

Instead, they’re saying to embrace your uniqueness. Your quirks. You love Harry Potter. You get really excited about birds. I dunno. Harmless but potentially weird shit. Fuck it. Go ham.

The context also matters. You can imagine someone saying it before a job interview or a first date. In those contexts, it may be a positive comment because maybe you’d try to hide some of the more unique/weird stuff but they’re saying “Don’t!”

“It’s charming. It’s cool. They’ll like you.” The real you.

In other contexts, “be yourself” could be more negative. Maybe you’re being an asshole for some reason, and they’re telling you to chill. (This has a silver lining of some positivity because they’re saying that your true self is not an asshole. But the comment itself might be a reprimand.)

So why do we fake it?

In Covering, a book I recently read by Kenji Yoshino (it was heartbreaking and incredible), Yoshino cites psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott and his distinction between the “True Self” and the “False Self”, saying:

The True Self is the self that gives an individual the feeling of being real, which is ‘more than existing; it is finding a way to exist as oneself, and to relate to objects as oneself, and to have a self into which to retreat for relaxation.’ The True Self is associated with human spontaneity and authenticity: ‘Only the True Self can be creative and only the True Self can feel real.’ The False Self, in contrast, gives an individual a sense of being unreal, a sense of futility. It mediates the relationship between the True Self and the world.

What I love about Winnicott is that he does not demonize the False Self. To the contrary, Winnicott believes the False Self protects the True Self: ‘The False Self has one positive and very important function: to hide the True Self, which it does by compliance with environmental demands.’ Like a king castling behind a rook in chess, the more valuable but less powerful piece retreats behind the less valuable but more powerful one. Because the relationship between the True Self and the False Self is symbiotic, Winnicott believes both selves will exist even in the healthy individual.

Single quotes are direct quotes from Winnicott, the rest is Yoshino.

(There are a few other readings I’ve done recently that touch on the subject, where I’ll add here until I potentially weave them into the story later.

• One of which is the 6 paragraphs starting with “What makes you you?” from this article in Wired.
• Another is a quote from the classic Lion King that a friend reminded me of when we spoke on this subject. It’s the one where Simba speaks to his late father’s vision, who stresses “Remember who you are.”

Back to the story.)

Hiding your passion for Harry Potter is much different than Yoshino’s subject, which is your sexual orientation, race, or other traits or behaviors that are but should not be demonized. But we can draw parallels, if to a less dire degree.

The gist is that the environments that everyone lives in demand things from them, and people react by encouraging or suppressing different traits. Interestingly, this means that these traits have always been there (well, maybe not always, but I’ll address that later), they’re just hidden sometimes.

In any given day, you may find yourself in one, two, maybe more of these environments. I think about going into work (back when that was a thing!), where I’d act a bit more “professionally” then I would around, say, my most irreverent (and wonderful!) friends.

In that case, what is suppressed vs encouraged is pretty obvious. I have been known to make some crude jokes and discuss some inappropriate things at times. This is (seems to be?) an authentic part of me, but it is suppressed at work. Is the extra professionalism wrong or false? Or, instead, is the irreverence inappropriate? Neither seem so.

This gets to one takeaway I’m considering. Not “being yourself” isn’t necessarily bad if you are in favor of the changes. It’s when you’re not, when you wish you could be yourself, that it is bad.

While Winnicott/Yoshino did not demonize the use of the “False Self”, surely they would have preferred that it not be needed, especially in the potentially life-threatening cases of “yourself” being homosexual in sometimes-violently-homophobic America.

Maybe a sign of an authentic and fulfilling life is one where you do not exist in too many environments that ask you to change your behavior to accommodate the people around you.

So much more to think about/discuss on the subject. To be continued!

The post Be “Yourself” appeared first on Lee Kennedy.

(first published 11/8/15, updated 3/4/20)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. What Are The Different Anchor Cleaning Methods?
3. Detailed Steps For All Three Methods
4. Step By Step Evaluation
5. Major Risk Evaluation
6. Major Risks for Lowering vs Rappelling

Introduction

Welcome! I wrote two different intros–one for those unfamiliar with anchor cleaning and those familiar with it.

For those unfamiliar with anchor cleaning:

Thanks for checking this out! Cleaning an anchor is one of the essential skills you’ll need if you want to climb outside.

“Cleaning” is a thing you do when you’ve been climbing a climb and you want to move on and go somewhere else. Most routes require you to use your own gear to climb it (quickdraws, trad gear), so to finish the climb, you have to get all your gear off of it and then get down. This means using the fixed anchor (typically some kind of bolts/rings attached to the rock at the top of the climb) to get down. Just so you’re aware, sometimes there isn’t a fixed anchor at the top (you might have to use a tree or something), but that’s a separate issue.

There are two ways to get your gear off the climb: you can thread the rope through the anchor and have your belayer lower you to the ground (similar to what you’d do in a climbing gym) or you can thread the rope through the anchor and then rappel to the ground.

In this post, I’m going to describe each method and evaluate the safety of each.

For those familiar with anchor cleaning methods:

Thanks for checking this out! When I wrote this post in 2015, the “rappelling vs lowering” debate seemed like a pretty divisive one. Most people (in my experience) were either strongly pro-lowering or pro-rappelling. Even though it’s such a small part of the entire climbing culture/lifestyle/process, it got people fired up. 

The ethics of the sport speak to our morals much more than the actual climbing does, which is a testament to how passionate we are and how much it means to us. That’s really cool, no matter where you stand on the subject.

That being said, I realized in 2015 that there wasn’t a good resource for the “rappelling vs lowering” issue online. There are forum posts that just add to the flame war, but there’s no breakdown of the methods and assessment of the risks. So I attempted to create one (and, in 2020, decided to update it).

For everyone (here on out):

My goal here is to cut through the mess and get to the real differences between the two options (there’s actually three options since there are two lowering methods). So, I broke down the methods into their individual steps and compared them. Then, I removed either 1) steps that are the same in all three methods or 2) steps that do not add significant risk. What was left was the actual steps that contribute to major risks of the climber.

Note the title–this is by no means a perfect science. But, even when I was going through the process of writing the post, I was surprised at how enlightening it was. Even if it’s not perfect, I hope it helps further the discussion and/or help new climbers understand the issue.

One last point: to keep it simple, keep in mind that I’m just covering a reasonable use case scenario. This means it will cover 95% of routes/anchors at popular crags, not backwoods adventure cliffs or special cases like incredibly steep terrain or routes that traverse like crazy. I’m talking about straightforward, single-pitch routes for the climbing majority–5.6-5.12 climbs that run up terrain that is anywhere from slabby to gently overhanging.

Let’s get into it.

What Are The Different Anchor Cleaning Methods?

Let’s start with some quick summaries.

For rappelling, there is just one way to do it. You get to the top, clip into the anchor, thread the end of the rope through the anchor, and rappel down.

Lowering is slightly more complicated, as it has two variations. Both require you to thread the rope through the anchors like you do with rappelling, but instead of pulling the rope all the way to it’s midpoint and rappelling down, you just tie back into it and get lowered by your belayer. The two variations just differ in how exactly you thread the rope.

The “original” method had you untie completely and thread the end of the rope through the anchor (just like if you were rappelling), tie back in, and lower. A number of years ago (something like 2015?), a “new” version started rising in popularity. Instead of untying and threading the end of the rope through the anchor, you stay tied in, pull up a bunch of slack, thread a bight (or bend) of rope through the anchor, tie into that bight, and lower. The idea was that, by always being tied into the rope, you were “always on belay”, and this was safer.

This method is not always possible, as the anchor has to allow for your bight to pass through it. If you have a really thick rope or the anchor uses small chain links as the rappel points, you may have to rappel or lower via the first method. But, as crags get outfitted with newer, wider rappel rings, the cases where you can’t do this method are becoming increasingly uncommon.

Okay so that’s the gist. Now let’s look at each method in step-by-step detail.

I’m sure people will have slight variations of each of these, but I think you’ll agree that these are fine distilled versions. In all three cases, the steps start when you’ve finished the climb and reached the anchors. If you’re really interested in this discussion, read this part carefully, as it’s important that I got this right to your satisfaction.

Detailed Steps For All Three Methods

For each method, I’ll first list the steps via bullet points, then I’ll show them via gifs, then I’ll embed a full Youtube video.

(Note that the steps/YouTube videos are for side-by-side comparison purposes only–they’re not the full instructions on how to climb, clean, and descend a route. Also, I haven’t updated the gifs/videos in a while so they may not match up exactly with the lists anymore, but they should be close.)

Method 1: Rappelling

List

1. Climber clips in direct.
2. Climber says “Off belay!”.
3. Belayer takes climber off belay.
4. Climber pulls up a bight of slack.
5. Climber ties a figure-eight on the bight.
6. Climber clips the figure-eight to their harness.
7. Climber unties.
8. Climber threads end of rope through the anchors.
9. Climber pulls the rope until both ends are on the ground.
10. Climber sets up the rappel.
11. Climber engages brake hand/friction hitch and/or asks for fireman’s belay.
12. Climber tests the system, then removes in-direct anchor.
13. Climber rappels.

Gifs

Video

Method 2: Lowering (The Untie-Retie)

List

1. Climber clips in direct.
2. Climber pulls up a bight of slack.
3. Climber ties a figure-eight on the bight.
4. Climber clips the figure-eight to their harness.
5. Climber unties.
6. Climber threads end of rope through the anchors.
7. Climber ties back in.
8. Climber says “Ready to lower!”.
9. Belayer pulls slack out of system.
10. Climber tests the system, then removes in-direct anchor.
11. Climber says “Lower!”.
12. Belayer lowers climber.

Gifs

(Note about next gif: at first, I’m untying the rope from my harness, which can also be done during Step 6.)

Video

Method 3: Lowering (The Bight-Pass-Through)

List

1. Climber clips in direct.
2. Climber pulls up a bight of slack.
3. Climber threads bight of rope through anchor.
4. Climber ties a figure-eight on the bight.
5. Climber clips figure-eight into belay loop w/ a locking carabiner.
6. Climber unties.
7. Climber says “Ready to lower!”.
8. Belayer pulls slack out of system.
9. Climber tests the system, then removes in-direct anchor.
10. Climber says “Lower!”.
11. Belayer lowers climber.

Gifs

Note on the video below: I took a second video of this method that includes the full process, including having the quickdraws in the anchor and your rope through it, and having to clean them as part of the process. The video will not match the gifs exactly but is a better representation of what the steps would be in a real climbing scenario.

Video

Step By Step Evaluation

So, let’s evaluate. To do so, we’re going to look at each step in the context of adding risk, the idea being that if you do that specific step wrong, you could cause an accident.

Keep in mind that two steps may both look important or “risky” (like “Climber ties back in” and “Climber unties”), but only the first one will cause an accident if you do it wrong. Untying wrong will only waste time.

(It ends up that undoing something you did previously typically never adds risk. When you do it the first time, though, it can.)

When I mention a step, I’ll note where it came from using “#.#”, which means “Method.Step”, so “3.1” is the 1st step in Method 3, or “Climber clips in direct”.

I ended up finding 4 “groups” of steps in this comparison:

1. Steps that were identical across all three methods and added no risk–these can be removed.
2. Steps that were unique in each method, but added no risk–these can be removed.
3. Steps that were identical across all three methods and did add risk, but added the same risk to each method–these can be removed.
4. Everything else that was unique to each method and added unique risk–these were the steps that mattered, so they stayed.

Let’s look at each of these.

Identical Steps, No Risk

First, lets get rid of all of the steps that are exactly identical in all 3 cases, and do not add any risk anyways. They are:

1. Climber pulls up a bight of slack (1.4 / 2.2 / 3.2)
2. Climber unties (1.7 / 2.5 / 3.6)
3. Climber tests the system, then removes in-direct anchor (1.12 / 2.10 / 3.9)

The last one is important, but if you remove your in-direct anchor and you fall, it’s not because you did that specific step wrong–it’s because something else went wrong. Either way, the risk is the same in all three methods.

Unique Steps, No Risk

Next, let’s remove steps that are not identical across all three methods, but pretty clearly don’t add risk:

1. Belayer pulls slack out of system (2.9 / 3.8)
2. Belayer takes climber off belay (1.3)

Identical Steps, Identical Risk

Next, there’s one step that is the same in all three methods, but it is risky:

1. Climber threads end of rope through the anchors (1.8 / 2.6 / 1.3)

Threading the anchor is a crucial step in that, in all three cases, that thread is what you’re going to be lowered through or rappel off of. If you mess it up (you thread it through your carabiner instead of the anchor…not sure how else but I’m sure it’s possible), there will be an accident.

It’s risky, but it’s not uniquely risky to any method, so we’ll take it out.

I do want to mention that, for Method #3, because this rope is your backup until you clip back in after threading it, you have to make sure the rope stays clipped to something as you are threading it. If the rope isn’t running through draws or a quad or whatever you have at the anchor and your in-direct anchor fails before you’ve clipped back in, you will have an accident. So keep at least one thing clipped.

One more aside here: after you’ve cleaned a few times, you’ll start to realize that the position of the threaded rope vs the gear in the anchor (draws, lockers, etc) is important in how much of a pain in the ass it is to clean. The reason being, when you go to test the system, the threaded rope will become taut and will pull everything in and down. If your anchor or in-direct anchor is inside or under the rings, they can be really hard to get out.

To prevent this, just clip your rope anchor and in-direct anchor on the outside of the rings. That way, when the rope goes taut, you’ll have plenty of room to grab your stuff.

Similar Steps, Unique Risk

Let’s start with the first step in all three methods.

1. Climber clips in direct (1.1 / 2.1 / 3.1)

While this same step happens in all three methods, it is uniquely risky in two. That’s because your in-direct anchor is your only backup for parts of Methods 1 and 2. If you mess it up somehow (you set up your personal anchor wrong, you clip it to the wrong thing) and it fails, there will be an accident.

For Method 3, your in-direct anchor is merely there for you to temporarily unweight the rope while you thread a bight through. If it were to break during that step, you may fall a long way, but you shouldn’t hit the ground.

Next, lets look at the steps having to do with the various figure-eights.

1. Climber ties a figure-eight on the bight (1.5 / 2.3 / 3.4)
2. Climber clips the figure-eight to their harness (1.6 / 2.4)
3. Climber ties back in (2.7)
4. Climber clips into the figure-eight w/ a carabiner. (3.5)

In these cases, we have the opposite situation. For the steps dealing with a figure-eight on a bight, Method 3 is the only one where that is risky. For Methods 1 and 2, you’re just tying it and clipping it to your harness so you don’t drop the rope. If you did drop it, it would be annoying and someone might have to come rescue you, but it wouldn’t directly cause an accident. For Method 3, it’s your only attachment point as you get lowered. If you mess that up, there will be an accident.

The other figure-eight (the figure-eight-follow-through) is uniquely risky in Method 2, as it’s the only time you use that knot to get you back to the ground.

Okay almost done here. How about the parts where we actually rappel or lower?

1. Climber pulls the rope until both ends are on the ground (1.9)
2. Climber sets up rappel (1.10)
3. Climber engages brake hand/friction hitch and/or asks for fireman’s belay (1.11)
4. Climber rappels (1.13)
5. Belayer lowers climber (2.12 / 3.11)

These are the last steps for all three methods.

As you can see, getting back down safely is more complicated for the cleaner when rappelling (there are simply more steps you have to get right), and either way, your belayer not lowering you safely is out of the scope of this discussion, as it would apply even if you weren’t cleaning the anchor. If we’re just assessing risk based on what you do as the cleaner, this means rappelling is uniquely risky.

Now, the communication between the two of you about which method you are going to use is a factor, so let’s address that.

1. Climber says “Off belay!” (1.2)
2. Climber says “Ready to lower!” (2.8 / 3.7)
3. Climber says “Lower!” (2.11 / 3.10)

These are all the communication steps when cleaning. Poor communication is a serious risk for the lowering methods, and it has caused a number of accidents and deaths already.

If you go to rappel but your belayer thinks you’re going to lower, there’s no risk (they would just be wondering why you need SO much slack). If you go to lower but your belayer took you off belay, there will be an accident.

As such, the two lowering methods are uniquely risky. I’ll put the “risk” on the “Climber says ‘Lower!’” step, as that would be when the accident would probably happen.

Okay that’s it. Let’s look at what we have left.

I’ve crossed through the steps we’ve removed and color coded the remaining steps that add risk. These are the exact moments that cause accidents when cleaning.

Method 1: Rappelling

1. Climber clips in direct.
2. Climber says “Off belay!”.
3. Belayer takes climber off belay.
4. Climber pulls up a bight of slack.
5. Climber ties a figure-eight on the bight.
6. Climber clips the figure-eight to their harness.
7. Climber unties.
8. Climber threads end of rope through the anchors.
9. Climber pulls the rope until both ends are on the ground.
10. Climber sets up rappel.
11. Climber engages brake hand/friction hitch and/or asks for fireman’s belay.
12. Climber tests the system, then removes in-direct anchor.
13. Climber rappels.

Method 2: Lowering (end)

1. Climber clips in direct.
2. Climber pulls up a bight of slack.
3. Climber ties a figure-eight on the bight.
4. Climber clips the figure-eight to their harness.
5. Climber unties.
6. Climber threads end of rope through the anchors.
7. Climber ties back in.
8. Climber says “Ready to lower!”.
9. Belayer pulls slack out of system.
10. Climber tests the system, then removes in-direct anchor.
11. Climber says “Lower!”.
12. Belayer lowers climber.

Method 3: Lowering (bight)

1. Climber clips in direct.
2. Climber pulls up a bight of slack.
3. Climber threads bight of rope through anchor.
4. Climber ties a figure-eight on the bight.
5. Climber clips figure-eight into belay loop w/ a locking carabiner.
6. Climber unties.
7. Climber says “Ready to lower!”.
8. Belayer pulls slack out of system.
9. Climber tests the system, then removes in-direct anchor.
10. Climber says “Lower!”.
11. Belayer lowers climber.

At this point, we’ve pretty much removed any fluff that doesn’t have a significant impact on the risk of each method. What remains are the major safety considerations.

This makes sense because these are typically the talking points whenever someone discusses the pros/cons of each: “What if they tie their knot incorrectly?” or “What if they set up their rappel incorrectly?”.

They boil down to 5 “major risks”, which we’ll go over now.

I call them “failures”, but that is just a general term. The way I’ve been thinking about it, these “failures” can happen in one of two ways:

1. There is a “direct” failure (where you directly set something up wrong, like by threading the rope wrong)
2. There is an “indirect” failure, where something happens after you set the system up that causes it to fail (like you fall on your in-direct anchor, let go of the rope while rappelling, etc).

I may try to delve into this into a different post, but for now let’s leave it at that. Anyways, here are the 5 major risks:

1. Belayer-Climber Communication Failure
2. In-Direct Anchor Failure
3. Rappel Setup Failure
4. Figure-Eight-Follow-Through Failure
5. Figure-Eight-On-A-Bight Failure

Major Risk Evaluation

For each major risk, I start with a Summary, recapping the issue, then I mention some ways you can Minimize the risks, then I give a Final Verdict of my thoughts on it. A friend designed some cool little “badges” for each risk, which I’ll show and then use in a final tally at the end.

Major Risk #1: Belayer-Climber Communication Failure

Summary: While the effect of this “failure” doesn’t happen until the end of the cleaning process, the failure itself happens before you even leave the ground. So let’s address this first.

Even if you’ve climbed with someone for years, a quick “by the way, I’m going to rappel” or “I’m going to lower” during your pre-climb equipment check will take care of this. If you haven’t climbed with someone much it’s especially important, and you may even want to ask them if they are comfortable with the method you prefer. Maybe they’d rather you do a method they’re comfortable with. Who knows.

If this doesn’t happen, it can be bad, and there are multiple documented cases of this specific failure causing deaths.

Minimizations: One big minimization that comes to mind here is assuming. We all know what assuming does, but in this case, it can be a good thing.

If everyone always assumes the climber is going to lower, this risk disappears.

Remember that if they end up rappelling, it’s not a problem. But the opposite is.

Final Verdict: As Method 3 is becoming more and more popular, the AAC and other official climbing organizations have started to recommend it when they teach lowering or request it to be done at their crags. If this keeps happening, people really can assume that cleaning = lowering, and we may get to a time where this communication error effectively no longer exists.

We can begin to make that change ourselves. Because of this, this is a major risk now, but I could see it being gone soon, so in the final tally, I’ll make it 50% transparent like it’s disappearing.

Major Risk #2: In-Direct Anchor Failure

Summary: As we said before, this risk is unique to Methods 1 and 2 because it is your only point of safety during parts of those methods.

Interestingly (Importantly?), this is the only major risk that is risky during the anchor cleaning process. All the remaining risks will only come into play at the end.

Minimizations: There are ways to minimize this risk, both logistically and experientially (is that a word?). Logistically, you could always clip into two different spots on the anchor, or could clip into the master point of the existing anchor (that is itself attached to two points of the anchor). This would address the (rare but possible) case where a single point breaks because you’d have a backup.

Experientially, you can make this safer by using an anchor that is known to be bomber (PAS, Quick Adjust, a loop of webbing/cord/sling) and using it in it’s exact intended way every time. What doesn’t qualify is if you’ve ever used something random off your harness because you didn’t bring the right material with you, or if you used something in a weird way in a pinch.

One example that comes to mind is a person that used a quickdraw as their anchor and went to “double it up” to get close to the anchor. Unfortunately, they didn’t realize that, when they “doubled up” the quickdraw, they were attached in a way where only the rubber loop around the dogbone was holding them, and it snapped and they fell.

Final Verdict: Any time you only have one piece of gear holding you to the rock is a precarious one. We do it all the time, but it is key that you only have to have one thing go wrong for major incidents to occur. As such, this is a major risk for Methods 1 and 2.

(Btw, these graphics are not supposed to show what a failure would look like. They’re just symbolic representations.)

Major Risk #3: Rappel Setup Failure

Summary: If you’ve ever rappelled before, this one is pretty clear. The rappel only works when a few things are set up correctly. If you miss something, you’re gonna have a bad time.

If you include all types of rock climbing (not just the single-pitch stuff we’re discussing here), rappelling is one of the most dangerous parts of the sport. People get complacent. It’s often done at the end of the day; you’re tired, hungry, maybe it’s already getting dark. Especially in a multi-pitch situation, you may even be feeling extra lazy because you’ve already done all the rock climbing, and “all you have to do” is get down. This context makes rappelling especially dangerous.

Also, compared to our other major risks, multiple things are required to be set up correctly:

1. Both ends of the rope have to reach the ground.
2. You have to thread the rope through the belay device correctly and lock the carabiner.
3. You have to lower yourself without accidentally letting go of the rope.

Compare this to Method 2 (where you just have to tie back in), and you can see it’s a bit more dangerous due to the complexity.

Minimalizations: Luckily, you can minimize the first and third requirements above. For #1, getting a rope with a bicolor or bipattern feature is a huge help. Even the traditional middle marked rope will work, just know that that mark will fade rather quickly, so you’ll have to re-mark it frequently for it to actually be useful. To have even more backups, you can tie knots in the ends of the rope so you don’t rappel off the end if you get there.

Unfortunately for the above, it’s common to be climbing on/cleaning someone else’s rope. That rope may have been cut on one or both ends, the middle mark could be faded, or it could even be too short to reach the ground either way. So keep this in mind–before you go to clean an anchor, talk to whomever owns the rope and ensure you’ll be able to get down.

For the #3 requirement, you can set up a “third hand” or some other friction hitch as a backup. This requires bringing up a bit of cord, an extra locker, and a bit of extra time to set it up, but once you get used to it, it’s rather quick. If that’s not your preference, you can just ask your belayer to give you a fireman’s belay. With one of these backups, you can accidentally let go of the brake strand and the friction hitch or your belayer will catch you.

There’s another minimization that’s a major one, and it applies to all of the remaining risks: testing the system first. If you test your rappel setup before taking out your anchor, you can fix it before committing to it. This is highly recommended but can be skipped if you’re going too fast or get complacent.

Final Verdict: Even with these minimizations, you can’t make the “threading the rappel correctly” part objectively any more foolproof. That means that it is a major risk, but can be even more major if you don’t have the other minimization tactics in play.

Major Risk #4: Figure-Eight-Follow-Through Failure

Summary: For Method 2 (the first lowering method) this is its unique risk. It’s pretty straight forward. You have to tie back in, just like you did on the ground before you started climbing, except this time you have to do it while you’re hanging from the anchor.

Getting the end of the rope through your tie-in points can be a bit of a pain in the butt if you’re fully weighting your anchor, but otherwise it’s something that you may do multiple times when you go climbing. This means that you likely have a lot of practice with it, but it also might mean that you don’t even think about it when you do it, and if something distracts you or you’re tired or it’s getting dark, you may go too quickly and miss something.

Minimizations: I’m not sure there are many tangible minimizations here besides just focusing on your knot and double checking it before you use it. Something I personally attest to is:

If you start tying your knot, do not stop until you are finished.

There’s a reason this is especially important to me. Years ago, I was about to climb a route in the gym. I tied my first figure-eight, put the end of the rope through my tie in points, and then threaded the end back through the figure eight that first time…but then I stopped to put on my shoes. I did not remember to finish my knot. I climbed the route, didn’t fall and sat back to get lowered from the top.

Luckily, gym ropes are so fat and the belay bar had so much friction, I didn’t even notice until I went to untie my knot. Myself and my belayer were both quite spooked.

All that to say–while tying a figure-eight-follow-through may be second nature to many of us, don’t take it lightly.

I’ll repeat the other minimization: testing the system first! If you do this every time, this risk basically disappears.

Final Verdict: As this is your only attachment point while being lowered, and it’s reasonably easy to make a mistake, this stands as a major risk for Method #2.

Major Risk #5: Figure-Eight-On-A-Bight Failure

Summary: This is the unique risk for Method #3, and once again it’s pretty straightforward. At the end of that method, you’re being lowered via this knot and the carabiner with which it’s attached to you. If any of that gets set up wrong, there will be an accident.

To do this right, you need to do two things:

1. Tie the knot correctly.
2. Clip the carabiner to the right spot & lock it.

#1 here is an interesting one. Besides the major example of the figure-eight-follow-through (or double bowline if you’re one of those weirdos) when we tie in to climb, we tie a number of knots climbing. But how often is an incorrectly tied knot the cause of an accident? Most knots kinda fall apart if you don’t tie them correctly, so it’s kind of a self-correcting issue (this is hilariously true for people first learning to tie a munter/clove that try to clip into their “knot” and the whole thing unfurls into nothingness).

Also, really any knot that can be tied into the middle of the rope will work here, so you can’t really tie the “wrong” one. You can use a fig-8, overhand, clove, etc. As long as it stays tied when weighted, you’re fine.

#2, on the other hand, has always thrown up red flags for me. Every time I clip in and see that I’m about to trust my life to a single (seemingly tiny at the time) carabiner, I’m always on edge a bit. I wonder if people have started to clip in with two lockers or two non-lockers or otherwise added a redundancy?

Minimizations: This seems similar to the previous risk in that there isn’t much you can do to minimize the risk. You can practice tying the knot, make sure you lock the carabiner, or just pay extra attention. But there aren’t any tricks here. Just make sure to test the system before you trust your life to it.

Final Verdict: This one can’t be avoided if you’re going with the thread-the-bight-and-lower method. While maybe difficult to mess up, if you do, it’s going to be bad. So this is a unique risk for Method 3.

So there we have it. That should cover every major risk for each method, unless you can think of something I haven’t. So, here’s the final tally.

Major Risks for Lowering vs Rappelling

 Method 1: Rappelling

Method 2: Lowering (end)

Method 3: Lowering (bight)

As far as a quantitative evaluation goes, it’s a pretty close race. Method 2 loses with 2.5 major risks, Method 1 has a solid 2, and Method 3 has 1.5. If people really do start to assume everyone is going to lower, that would change to 2/2/1, making Method 3 pretty clearly the winner.

Does this mean you should lower with a bight every time? No.

Maybe it looks like it has fewer risks, but this is still a pretty subjective issue. For example, I used to include a risk that talked about “worn or faulty gear” in the anchor, making the point that lowering puts more stress on the anchor than rappelling (which is true), and if the gear was manky, rappelling was safer.

I took this out because in our “reasonable use case” scenario, anchors are solid. There are plenty of examples of sketchy ones, but they’re rare at popular crags. That being said, you should still check each bolt/anchor you are about to use. It may be rare to find one in bad shape, but the consequences are high.

Also, if you’re going to a new crag, you can’t assume they’ll be okay with lowering. It’s generally accepted at most areas around North Carolina (where I’m from), but we took a trip out to Tennessee Wall recently and it seemed like the ethic there leaned more toward rappelling. This was seemingly because they don’t have as active of a community that comes around and replaces worn anchors, like they do at the New. So check what the ethic is before you go somewhere new, or ask a few locals when you get there.

For what it’s worth, the AAC has been endorsing Method #3 for a while now, and there are people much smarter than me over there looking at accident reports and assessing common risks. I’d call that a vote of confidence.

Either way, your best bet is to learn all three methods and then pick what is best for you in each situation. You’ll be able to adapt to situations more readily, which is a great skill to have as a climber in general.

That’s it!

A few thanks: Thanks to my good friend Cory Livengood for creating the graphics for me. He’s a busy guy so I am incredibly grateful to him for helping me out. My MS Paint graphics would have been ugly! Also thanks to Erica Lineberry, Bob Silk, Maya Kaelberer, Stefan Jeglinski, Bill Webster, and my brother Logan Kennedy for helping me edit, clarify, and summarize the post! It was a beast of an endeavor and their feedback was super helpful in keeping it digestible and unbiased.

I hope it’s insightful and helpful. Please comment or email me with any feedback and I’ll keep this thing updated. Cheers!

The post Rappelling vs Lowering: A Semi-Scientific Study appeared first on Lee Kennedy.

Don’t just do the typical “oh I’m so busy…” response that is self-serving and too general to be meaningful (see the post below for more thoughts on that).

Instead, assume they’re actually interested in what’s going on (if it’s obvious they’re just making small talk and they don’t really care, something short and sweet like “oh it’s good, thanks” should be plenty).

Feel free to take a second and think about how you’re feeling about work that day/that week. If the pause/silence is uncomfortable for you (it shouldn’t be!), make it obvious that you’re thinking by looking up, saying “hmm…”, “good question…”, etc.

Then, if there is something you’re particularly excited or stressed about, say that. “Man this X project has been tough because of Y” or “I am loving working on Z”. Give a genuine but brief response and gauge their reaction. If they just say “great”, then maybe move on, but this gives them a chance to ask more questions if they’re interested.

If they do show some interest, I’ve found that asking someone “what would you do in this situation”, regarding something you’re struggling with, can be an interesting conversation starter. This will give them insight into what you’re dealing with while also tapping into their brain and their problem solving skills. Or, just go into more detail from your first comment.

Either way, keep it brief until they show more interest. I’d guess most people asking this question aren’t looking for a long conversation. This way, you can answer appropriately and move on if you need to or, hopefully, have a nice “connecting” conversation with a friend.

Now on to the original post!

I work at a coworking space. Yesterday, I ran into someone I hadn’t seen in a while and she asked me “How’s work?”.

I was about to respond about how it was pretty good. I was making good progress with existing clients, helping grow Omigo, and should start a new project soon that is going to be exciting.

But before I could respond, she assumed:

“Crazy?”

“No.” I said. “Why do people always say that? It shouldn’t have to be crazy at work.“

After thinking about it, I remembered that this person works at an agency, and I’ve talked to at least two other people that work there. All of them talk about how much work they have to do all the time. This expectation seems to be prevalent, especially in white collar service jobs like marketing, SaaS, etc.

Why is that?

If you’re one of these people, I know it isn’t always an option to work less than that. That’s normally because of one of two options:

1) You take pride in telling people you are busy. This may be conscious or subconscious (take a second and think about it).

You may not be directly to blame here. The modern American workplace has deemed overwork as “class and status maintenance“.

If you work that much, it seems, you must be very important. If someone says they worked a 35 hour week (or even 40!), they’re clearly just not that badly needed, right? (Wrong.)

2) Your company/boss has deemed it mandatory. If you don’t work that much, you will lose your job, whether immediately or over time after you are deemed an “underperformer”.

If you fall under category #1, I worry about you, but at least you’re the one digging yourself into that hole.

If you’re in category #2, I have a question for your boss.

If you are the boss of someone that has to work more than 40/45 hours a week, how do you not feel terrible about that?

To be clear:

I’m not talking about short term crunches that are the exception to the rule. Sometimes you have to get something out the door. But this should not happen often.

I’m not talking about people choosing to work more hours because they are passionate about the business, or because they’re hourly and they’re choosing to work more to bring home more money. In both cases, these people should be able to cut back to ~40 hours and everything should be fine.

I’m talking about people for whom these extra hours cause stress, not joy. Cause nightmares, or bad eating habits, or bad spending habits to compensate for the nightmare that is their work day.

If the people that report to you have nightmares about work, how does that make you feel?

If your business is dependent on people working 50+ hours a week, what kind of business is that? Is your business model to burn through college graduates, expecting them to leave after 1-3 years, and then hire someone else to replace them?

If your partners expect this kind of work, why haven’t you put your employees first and changed how you do business with them?

If your clients expect this kind of work, why haven’t you told them they’re not paying for that many hours or, alternatively, raised your prices and then hired some help?

If your business model simply requires that much time per person, how valuable is your work?

I cannot understand the people that allow this to happen. The video game industry caught a lot of flack last year after reports of terrible work stress (aka “crunch culture”) came out following games like Red Dead Redeption II (“We were working 100-hour weeks”) and Anthem. Luckily, they’re finally getting called out about it.

America was founded on cutthroat capitalism. I get it. And sometimes that means that, in order to beat a competitor, you have to work 60 hours a week while they’re working 50.

But a new model is developing, and I hope it accelerates. Tobi Lutke, CEO of Shopify had a great Twitter thread in December about how they view employees at Shopify.

He says:

“In some places average tenure is only 18 months. Yes, you might want to work everyone 80 hours to make that work. On-boarding is expensive so you skip it. You need value day 1. The relationship is exploitative…When I hire someone at Shopify we can make the assumption that we work together for a decade.”

There’s a lot more to his thread, but my favorite quote is:

For creative work, you can’t cheat. My believe is that there are 5 creative hours in everyone’s day. All I ask of people at Shopify is that 4 of those are channeled into the company.

-Tobi Lutke, Shopify CEO

I think this applies to more than just traditional “creative” work. All work is creative in some way. And he expects you’ll get 4 good hours of work done each day. Other research confirms this. And I’m sure everyone that’s reading this agrees. You can’t be “on” for 8 hours straight. Or if you are, you can’t sustain it for long.

I’ve heard much of this philosophy before, most notably from the crew at Basecamp, especially their CEO Jason Fried. They even wrote the book on the subject, rejecting the workaholism that is so prevalent today.

I hope Basecamp and Shopify’s model continues to develop. Companies like Patron, Gumroad, and Twitch can help (if you’re good enough, you can quit your job and be funded solely by your “fans” on these platforms), and I hope more come along.

I wish people could work less, take more paternity/maternity leave, and have other hobbies that bring meaning to their lives. We can help by starting to question when extra hours are a requirement. Join me in doing so!

What do you do with your 1 hour of creative time at home each day?

The post “How’s Work?” appeared first on Lee Kennedy.

———————————————————————————————

We use the “IMPORT RANGE” function in Google Sheets frequently. It’s crucial when trying to work with the behemoth of admin documents we have. Luckily, it’s a pretty straightforward function. All it does is pull in a cell from another sheet into the sheet we’re working in. But, there’s one problem with it: if you’re working with a big document and you want to fill the function down or across, it doesn’t work. Luckily, I found a solution!

First, in case you don’t use it, let me show you how it works.

The IMPORT RANGE Function

Google will tell you that the function looks like this:

=IMPORTRANGE(spreadsheet_key, range_string)

Here’s what that means:

spreadsheet_key: Every Google Sheet has a URL that looks something like this (“https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vXc1-xuRjdUmakIO5jvuOe4qcbcASPF_…“). The spreadsheet key is that string of gibberish after the /d/. So, in the case above, 1vXc1-xuRjdUmakIO5jvuOe4qcbcASPF_axvWDVsY9h26p0.

range_string: This is just the cell from the target sheet that we’re looking to import into our working sheet. We’ll need to include the sheet name and the cell name. So, if we want to pull what’s in cell A1 from our target sheet called “New Document”, we’d just use the standard notation of New Document!A1.

Putting it together, this is what our function would look like (notice that both parts of the function have to be surrounded with double quotes):

=IMPORTRANGE(“1vXc1-xuRjdUmakIO5jvuOe4qcbcASPF_axvWDVsY9h26p0”, “New Document!A1”)

That’s it! So here’s an example. I have three documents I’m working on. Test Doc 1, 2, and 3. Doc 2 has client contact name information in it, Doc 3 has client location information in it, and I want Doc 1 to be a hub that has both contact name and location information in it.

We could manually copy and paste the info from 2 and 3, but if we change those frequently, we may want to have it dynamically pull that information. So, we use IMPORT RANGE.

So let’s grab the “Contact Name” info from Test Doc 2. To do so, I went to Test Doc 2 and grabbed the spreadsheet key from the URL, the sheet name, and note that I want to pull the first contact name, which is at cell B2.

So my formula in cell B2 of Test Doc 1 looks like this:

=IMPORTRANGE(“1vXc1-xuRjdUmakIO5jvuOe4qcbcASPF_axvWDVsY9h26p0”, “Contact Info!B2”)

Then, hit enter. The first time a spreadsheet tries to communicate with another spreadsheet, we’ll have to authorize access between them:

Once we do that, we should see the data from our other sheet!

So here’s the tricky part. Normally with a function, we’d be able to “fill” it down and it would change the function to match the new area. I’ll show you an example.

Let’s say instead of referencing a different sheet, the client names were in the same sheet but just in a different column and we were just referencing them there. In that case, the formula would just refer to the other column, or in this case, it would be “=D2”:

If we fill that down, it will fill the rows correctly:

Notice how the new formula changed from “=D2” in row 2 to “=D4” in row 4. But if we try to do that with the IMPORT RANGE function, nothing changes. It imports the same cell every time:

The reason is in the name of that part of the function: range string. A string is text–it’s not a row or column or number like a function normally has. A spreadsheet can tell what you’re doing when you try to fill a formula down that is referencing a cell–you probably want the formula to reference the cells below the original. If you’re filling it to the right, you probably want it to reference the cells to the right of the original.

If it’s a string, it can’t tell that you’re referencing a cell, it just sees the letters and numbers that make up “Contact Info!B2”.

So. How do we dynamically reference that cell so that it fills correctly?

The ADDRESS, COLUMN, and ROW Functions

The answer is a function called ADDRESS. It’s a pretty meta function. Google says it “returns a cell reference as a string” when you input the row and column. So say you tell it row 1, column 1, it will return “A1”, but it will return it as a string and not the actual cell. Sound familiar? That’s exactly what we need for the “range string” part of the IMPORT RANGE function to work.

Here are the full details of the address function. It looks like this:

=ADDRESS(row, column, [absolute_relative_mode], [use_a1_notation], [sheet])

That means:

row: Simply, the row number you’re referencing.

column: The column you’re referencing. Keep in mind this is a number not a letter, so A would be 1, B would be 2, etc.

[absolute_relative_mode]: This is optional. You can tell the function whether you want it to use absolute or relative references. I leave this out.

[use_a1_notation]: Also optional. You can use A1 or standard (R1C1) notation. I leave this out as well.

[sheet]: Also optional, but this one is useful. You can tell it the name of the sheet you’re looking for in case there are multiple sheets in the doc you’re pointing to.

So if we want the B2 cell in Test Doc 1 to grab the B2 cell in Test Doc 2, we just need the range string in our IMPORT RANGE function to reference the current row and column. Luckily, there’s a simple way to do that using the ROW and COLUMN functions. If you use the formulas of just “=ROW()” and “=COLUMN()” with nothing in the parenthesis, you’ll get the row and column of the cell you’re currently in.

You can see this below. I added the ROW functions to cells D2, D3, D4, and D5 and it gave me the row numbers. I added the COLUMN functions to C6, D6, and E6 and it gave me the column numbers.

This means we can use these formulas within the ADDRESS function. The final formula would look like this:

=ADDRESS(ROW(),COLUMN(),,,”Contact Info”))

Which just means “give me the address of the cell in the “Contact Info” sheet of the same row and column of where I currently am.” Note that commas separate each part of the function, so because we’re skipping the first two optional parts, you have to put three commas in between the column and the sheet name.

So, to pull it all together, we can use this in our IMPORT RANGE:

=IMPORTRANGE(“1vXc1-xuRRvvDA5jvuOe4qcbcASPF_axvWDVsY9h26p0″,ADDRESS(ROW(),COLUMN(),,,”Contact Info”))

We can now fill this down and it will work perfectly. The row() and column() functions change when we fill it down and it returns the range string the IMPORT RANGE function needs.

One last trick. The third column isn’t going to work like this because the column (C) doesn’t match up to where you want to grab the info from in Test Doc 3 (B). So, a simple edit of the IMPORT RANGE function is all it takes (the change is bolded):

=IMPORTRANGE(“1ONvf5LVFoDbPoFmNn07q8Qy9XteOC41zSqAYADNTOr8”,ADDRESS(ROW(),COLUMN()-1,,,”Location Info”))

We’re referencing a different spreadsheet, so I updated the spreadsheet key and sheet name. But, the tricky part is that “column()” is now “column()-1”. The orginial “column()” would have returned a 3 (meaning C) but we want a 2 (meaning B), so a simple minus one gets us there.

The final doc:

That’s it! Our doc will automatically update and we’ll be able to fill the formulas down if we add new rows in the future.

If I’m missing anything or if you’ve tried this and it doesn’t work, email me and I’ll help you out!

Cheers!

</end of original post>

———————————————————————————————

New Stuff!

As I was porting this over, I realized two things:

1) Linking to the example docs may help some people, so here they are:

1. Test Doc 1
2. Test Doc 2
3. Test Doc 3

2) You can make this example a little faster if you had an especially large spreadsheet with many columns. So, in the “Test Doc 3”, the original setup is in the “Simpler” tab, but I added two “Fancier” tabs. The “Fancier (Reference)” tab is a table for VLOOKUPS and the “Fancier (Final)” tab is the original table using those VLOOKUPs.

The Fancier version just makes it so that you don’t have to write different formulas for each column–as long as you include the lookup data in the “Reference” tab, you can have as many columns as you want and you only need one formula.

Cheers!

The post How To Fill An Import Range Function With Dynamic References appeared first on Lee Kennedy.

Growth Marketing Toolbox 166: Analytics Tools for Ecommerce

The post Ecommerce Tools Podcast appeared first on Lee Kennedy.

What makes someone stop blogging and what makes someone start again?

I can tell you about the first part.

In May 2014, I got married to my girlfriend of three years. It hadn’t been a perfect relationship (are they ever?), but she really wanted to get married and I really wanted to prove my commitment to her despite our imperfections.

That September, she said she wanted to leave. She moved out in February, we were separated for a year, and got divorced that next Spring.

I had started at a new job in mid-2014 after leaving my first “real” job of four years. The combination of these two events threw my life into a tailspin. For months, I was three different people: the one trying to save my relationship, the one leading a department, and the one pretending everything was normal around my friends. It was…painful.

I’m a big believer that–for all but the most major of problems–any negative event in your life, over time, can cause positive outcomes double or triple the size of the negativity. I just finished reading Even Cowgirls Get The Blues and it happened to touch on this new perspective you can gain rather poetically:

Perhaps a person gains by accumulating obstacles. The more obstacles set up to prevent happiness from appearing, the greater the shock when it does appear, just as the rebound of a spring will be all the more powerful the greater the pressure that has been exerted to compress it. Care must be taken, however, to select large obstacles, for only those of sufficient scope and scale have the capacity to lift us out of context and force life to appear in an entirely new and unexpected light.

For example, should you litter the floor and tabletops of your room with small objects, they constitute little more than a nuisance, an inconvenient clutter that frustrates you and leaves you irritable; the petty is mean. Cursing, you step around the objects, pick them up, knock them aside.

Should you, on the other hand, encounter in your room a nine thousand pound granite boulder, the surprise it evokes, the extreme steps that must be taken to deal with it, compel you to see with new eyes. Difficulties illuminate existence, but they must be fresh and of high quality.

This theory proved resoundingly true for the divorce.

Until three years ago, I was a very achievement- and progress-oriented person. Being a pretty high D on the DiSC scale, it was easy to quantify progress that way and was a large part of how I gauged my self-worth. This focus, along with the fact that I hadn’t learned the huge importance of empathy in every day life, meant that I placed lower emphasis on social motivations. In short, I was selfish.

This led me to see many relationships as transactional, even though I didn’t know it at the time. When I discovered my relationship with my wife was largely so, it was a huge wake up call. I went to some therapy (never a bad idea no matter where you are in life), talked with some friends, and spent a lot of time thinking about how I was living my life. I came to realize how shallow it had been. I started to turn the slow engine of self-shaping in a different direction.

In addition to personal motivations, I was also very focused on career progression. I put a lot of value in learning new skills at work. I would often eschew other priorities to go to meet-ups. I dreamed of starting my own company. And I had a blog.

Those are lower priorities now.

Now, my goals have changed. I still value career progression, but it’s not a higher priority than my relationships. Now, my priorities are that people enjoy being around me and enjoy being my friend.

The person this matters most for is my partner. I met a wonderful woman two years ago who is the love of my life–not because our relationship is perfect but because we are both aware that it isn’t and we want to grow in a direction that supports and heals the other. Just a few months ago, we went on an amazing trip to Thailand and I proposed to her and we plan to get married later this year.

For everyone else, it’s been slower going. This was the second time in my life I went through a breakup and people inevitably had to choose a side. Everyone loses and it sucks. With persistent friends and in making new ones, I’ve striven for more meaningful conversations and deeper connections. In dealing with people on a daily basis, I’ve learned a ton about validation, empathy, navigating others’ defensiveness, and avoiding my own.

It’s still a work in progress. But when I’m able to focus on these goals, I feel much better about how people feel around me.

I’d say that’s all a huge positive outcome of this whole situation. Sometimes you gotta get punched in the gut to realize you were fuckin up.

What makes someone start blogging again?

My girlfriend and I have lived together for over two years now. We both have normal jobs, a few hobbies, and a Venn Diagram of friends. We’ve settled into a weekly routine, which is nice. Go to work, go to the gym or see a friend during the week, go on a trip or to an event on the weekend.

This is all fine, but toward the end of last year, we found that more and more of our free time was spent looking at our phones or vegging out on Netflix. Scrolling through yesterday’s Instagram or half-watching a show we’re half-interested in. So we decided to remove these vices for “Offline October”.

It’s crazy how much free time you have during a week you’d otherwise call “busy”. Have you ever just sat outside for an hour and not looked at your phone? It’s way cathartic.

During this experiment in October, I was looking for ways to deflect my time-spending away from mindless crap. I figured one way may be to try this blogging thing again. Just not like last time.

If it ends up taking hold again, great. Either way, here’s to improved priorities . May you find your own.

The post To The Last Three Years appeared first on Lee Kennedy.