Does this explain the "Why" of it?

[GlennM]

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 dilemma and choices may change if the environment changes.

[Axelrod]

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.

This is not the first time you've written this fantasy, your interpretation of events. Just because you've imagined it and are convinced of it doesn't mean other people think so too. It's not as complicated as you think. It was an emergency, not a challenge.

We have similar mountains near our house; such a mountain presents no difficulty. The only difficulty is climbing a 7-meter-high rock, equivalent to a three-story building.

[GlennM]

 I suggest that at a moment in time, the hikers were presented with a worrisome dilemma to either try to achieve Ortoten at great personal risk (not a reasonable risk), or give up the quest. Neither choice was desirable, but it was a choice affected by changing conditions.

[Axelrod]

It's hard to argue with the subject of someone's total imagination

[GlennM]

I understand your comment. It is not my intention to ramble. The why of things is always harder than the how of things. My post was about one aspect of decision making which is resolving a dilemma. The subject of the thread was a question. I understand your answer is no. I trust there is no disagreement on what dilemmas are. I offer it as a tool.

[SURI]

What kind of decision? They had already been doomed to death (some) before the hike.

[GlennM]

Suri, your comment can be interpreted in more ways than one. You could be implying that they were targeted for elimination on at some early stage of the trip. I am guessing that Zolo was planted in the group in this theory. You could also be suggesting that like a Greek tragedy, there was no choice in their situation and like billiard balls struck by a cue, they were each set on a trajectory which had but one outcome.

I propose that even if free will turns out to be an illusion, we know that hard choices can be defined as several types. It is easy to choose between two good outcomes. It is more a matter of conscience and self control when choosing immediate gratification and knowing a price will be paid later. Finally, there is the situation where a choice has to be made between two unsavory options.

I can imagine the hikers put in any of these situations. It makes me wonder whether Igor led by consent or not. Put another way, when dealing with their dilemmas, did they decide as a group( consentual) or was it top down decision making?

Naturally, there are those on the forum who would argue that none of it mattered because it was assassins, not weather that sealed their fate.

[SURI]

I believe you are over-analyzing everything scientifically, which is only complicating your efforts to crack the case.

The die had already been cast before the trek even began. Someone was heading for Otorten, someone only for Kholat Syakhyl, and specifically on February 1st. That is why it was necessary to employ delaying tactics starting January 31st.

[GlennM]

The tragedy is six decades old, If information is being withheld from the forum because a book is being written, OK. If not, then  put some meat on the bones of your theory. . On the one hand you get the satisfaction of being the first to say it your way and be praised for your insight. On the other hand, you may suffer criticism because like most theories, discrepancies are ignored.. An approach avoidance dilemma, yes?

[SURI]

I don't need to write a book. When I read various publications, I can see that the truth has been known for a long time. For instance, the 1963 letter already mentioned. It probably annoys you that you haven't discovered it yet. So, go for it! Nobody gave me any advice either.

[GlennM]

Go find your own food for thought. I get it.