Malcolm Gladwell and the possibility of a fight

[Nicknonora]

The users outside the United States might not be familiar with the writer Malcolm Gladwell. He writes and speaks about economics in a practical way. One of his videos relevant to DPI explains how a Columbian airliner ran out of gas while circling JFK Airport in New York. Basically, the Colombian co-pilot never got around to telling the air-traffic controllers "We're running out of gas and we need a runway now!" He just kept hinting at it and saying "please." The JFK ATCs are notoriously pushy and overbearing and take charge. The Colombian airline is very top-down, with the pilot being autocratic. So the co-pilot was used to being deferential. Which led to him not being insistent enough, even in a life or death situation. 

When people look at the DPI, they put a rational framework over the events. It seems like an irrational but explainable approach might be better. In particular, considering group dynamics and leader/follower dynamics seems like it warrants consideration.

I was reading one of the scenarios in the Simplest Credible Scenarios thread, that of a fight breaking out among the hikers.  First, these things seem relevant to me:

1) Reading around, there seem to be three possible alphas in the group: Dyatlov, the leader; Doroshenko, the guy who chased off a bear; Semyon, by virtue of age and experience. Each one ends up in a different place.

2) There's obviously a potential romantic rivalry over Zina between Dyatlov and Doroshenko. Judging from diary entries, Zina and Doroshenko seem like they might be a classic "They're a couple even when they're not a couple."

3) Tensions in the tent may have been bubbling. Dyatlov has led them off course. They're cold, tired, irritable. Finally, something set it off.

Dyatlov and Doroshenko get into a fight, inside or outside the tent. Doroshenko decides to leave the camp in the heat of the moment and persuades the other Yuri to join him, convincing themselves they can build a fire beyond the treeline. They leave.

At this point, Zina would be in shock. Her ex-boyfriend and best friend/admirer/whatever just had a fight over her. Her ex-boyfriend is walking out into severe danger. She goes to try to find them and bring them back. Maybe Dyatlov storms out after her. OR maybe she screams at Dyatlov and forces him to go with her. Rustem tags along or soon leaves thereafter. That would leave the Ravine 4 still at the tent.

Eventually, those five end up at the tree. Either 1) the tensions are still there and the Yuris refuse to return; or Zina and Dyatlov start arguing again. She storms off, back up to the tent. Dyotlov and Rustem follow. They die at different points and never make it back.

The Ravine 4 stay put for a while, but eventually leave the tent to try to find the others. They follow the fire to the cedar tree where the Yuris are freezing to death. When they get there, they decide it's too cold and/or too dark to turn back. Based on military experience, Semyon instructs the group to start digging a den. They decide that's a better option than trying to make it back in the dark. They raid the bodies of the Yuris for clothes. They have some kind of fall that causes the major injuries.

Obviously, this doesn't account for a few points. Most importantly, who cut the big hole in the tent, and when and why. But it gives an explanation that relies more on emotional dynamics, leadership dynamics, and the realization that the decisions don't need to be made in a perfectly rational way by the entire group, only a few need to make the choices, and the other follow.

[jarrfan]

There definitely was some arguing going on by the males that the two females did not state or did not know about and wrote about it in their diaries.

If one or two stormed out without appropriate attire, whoever went after them had time to get their gear on before going after them and anyone in the tent would have insisted they did that, I would assume.

As far as the tent, there were 3 small horizontal cuts made from inside the tent, that has been professionally stated. The big hole in the tent in the front was made by the searchers as they came upon the tent, used the ax to cut the tent open to see if there was anyone in the tent.

The cuts in the tent had what may have been knife strikes close to the cuts, but they may have been there before. The cuts are through the seam in the fabric which is very confusing in many ways but would assuredly make one swipe with a knife hard to effectively cut and they would have had to pause to cut through the seam even with a sharp knife. If it did slice through the seam, it would have had to have been razor surgical sharp.

If they left the tent by command from someone, I could see them sealing the tent, thinking they may be able to go back in. If it was a severe threat, I can't see why they would stop and tie the tent closed. Just my opinions.
 

[Star man]

The users outside the United States might not be familiar with the writer Malcolm Gladwell. He writes and speaks about economics in a practical way. One of his videos relevant to DPI explains how a Columbian airliner ran out of gas while circling JFK Airport in New York. Basically, the Colombian co-pilot never got around to telling the air-traffic controllers "We're running out of gas and we need a runway now!" He just kept hinting at it and saying "please." The JFK ATCs are notoriously pushy and overbearing and take charge. The Colombian airline is very top-down, with the pilot being autocratic. So the co-pilot was used to being deferential. Which led to him not being insistent enough, even in a life or death situation. 

When people look at the DPI, they put a rational framework over the events. It seems like an irrational but explainable approach might be better. In particular, considering group dynamics and leader/follower dynamics seems like it warrants consideration.

I was reading one of the scenarios in the Simplest Credible Scenarios thread, that of a fight breaking out among the hikers.  First, these things seem relevant to me:

1) Reading around, there seem to be three possible alphas in the group: Dyatlov, the leader; Doroshenko, the guy who chased off a bear; Semyon, by virtue of age and experience. Each one ends up in a different place.

2) There's obviously a potential romantic rivalry over Zina between Dyatlov and Doroshenko. Judging from diary entries, Zina and Doroshenko seem like they might be a classic "They're a couple even when they're not a couple."

3) Tensions in the tent may have been bubbling. Dyatlov has led them off course. They're cold, tired, irritable. Finally, something set it off.

Dyatlov and Doroshenko get into a fight, inside or outside the tent. Doroshenko decides to leave the camp in the heat of the moment and persuades the other Yuri to join him, convincing themselves they can build a fire beyond the treeline. They leave.

At this point, Zina would be in shock. Her ex-boyfriend and best friend/admirer/whatever just had a fight over her. Her ex-boyfriend is walking out into severe danger. She goes to try to find them and bring them back. Maybe Dyatlov storms out after her. OR maybe she screams at Dyatlov and forces him to go with her. Rustem tags along or soon leaves thereafter. That would leave the Ravine 4 still at the tent.

Eventually, those five end up at the tree. Either 1) the tensions are still there and the Yuris refuse to return; or Zina and Dyatlov start arguing again. She storms off, back up to the tent. Dyotlov and Rustem follow. They die at different points and never make it back.

The Ravine 4 stay put for a while, but eventually leave the tent to try to find the others. They follow the fire to the cedar tree where the Yuris are freezing to death. When they get there, they decide it's too cold and/or too dark to turn back. Based on military experience, Semyon instructs the group to start digging a den. They decide that's a better option than trying to make it back in the dark. They raid the bodies of the Yuris for clothes. They have some kind of fall that causes the major injuries.

Obviously, this doesn't account for a few points. Most importantly, who cut the big hole in the tent, and when and why. But it gives an explanation that relies more on emotional dynamics, leadership dynamics, and the realization that the decisions don't need to be made in a perfectly rational way by the entire group, only a few need to make the choices, and the other follow.

That is not a bad explanation.  I’m not sure that any of those who went looking for ones that stormed off would do so without proper cold weather clothing though.  Also there are other things that don’t seem to make sense.  But it is certainly a credible explanation.

Regards
Star man

[Nigel Evans]

Not a credible explanation imo. E.g. Rustem  (probably the strongest)  was only wearing  one valenki (felt boot) leaving the other in the tent.

From memory they cut 10 slits all at head height.

And it leaves the core question unanswered - why leave so much warm clothing in the tent? Only two people were sensibly dressed for the conditions.