Does this explain the "Why" of it?

[GlennM]

With special thanks to Teddy for providing an inspiration.

Any tough decision falls into one of three categorical types, commonly known as dilemmas. These choices are (1) approach-approach (choosing between two equally desirable outcomes). Example, the donkey who starved by being tied between two stalls of hay. Next (2) is approach-avoidance (drawn to and repelled at the same time) Example, overeating. Example, wanting to take the medicine, but hating the side effects. Third (3) avoidance-avoidance (choosing the lesser of two evils) Example, a court sentence to pay the fine or do the time. Example, choose between the devil and the deep.

The choices are you do, you don’t or you procrastinate.

The DPI, for me, is the result of procrastination in choosing between the lesser of two undesirable outcomes. This is an avoidance-avoidance dilemma. Let me explain. They tried out of stubborn determination to reach Ortoten twice. The second attempt found them stalled at elevation 880 on 1079. In deteriorating weather it was “damned if we do and damned if we don’t! dilemma.  “We can’t go forward under these conditions or we retreat and be defeated” Either way they lose grade 3 certification, they forfeit time, money and to a degree reputation. In the extreme, they gamble with their lives by going forward. They may have thought.” We can wait, we can hope.” As is often the case with dilemmas, they do not choose. Indecision is a decision.

For me. The loss of reputation is what eventually killed them.

Since they were “stuck on the horns of a dilemma”, their solution was to eventually choose, but the choice was interfered with. It was affected by a change in circumstance. The circumstance was that their tent became inadequate to shield them from the elements, especially cold. Their new choice and way out of the dilemma was "we cant go forward or back, but we can go elsewhere." To leave the tent is to “roll the dice”, so to speak, and hope their odds of success improve by retreating to the woods.

The dilemma then becomes a gamble, with the odds of making it to the woods, surviving and returning to the tent weighed against time.  There were no other identifiable outside influences two or four legged that affected the gamble.

Again, I think a sense of personal pride, reputation and controlling the odds by wishful thinking sealed their fate.

I do not know how successful they would have been if they had chosen. If they decided to resolve the dilemma by breaking camp, retreating back past Boot Rock, to the labaz and home, would it have ended any differently? I don’t think so. I can not imagine team dismantling that camp in the height of bad weather either before or after the tent was collapsed. One would naturally wait it out, and I think they would proceed with the hike. I think the moment in time when they could have made a meaningful choice was when they were beaten back the first time.

Finally, at the root of it all is the matter of free will and fate. For me this is the essence of the DPI. Everything else is just details. It is clear from my post that people can make choices. Arguably this demonstrates free will. It is also evident that the forces of Nature have cause and effect, but not decision making. No matter how the tourists worked their way out of their dilemma, Fate was going to win. In gambling it would be called the house’s advantage.