Do lost people really go round in circles?

[British Red]

What's new is that they've actually done proper research on it.

Does this in any way alter the fact? Or merely mean that some people are now willing to accept something that others already knew?

I am always confused by how a fundamental truth somehow becomes more credible because someone claims to have "researched it". Surely it is no more true, or in fact credible, than it was before?

The reality is that this is a phenomenon not only known but clearly one that has been repeatedly demonstrated for a long time.

Some bloke conning a grant to prove something that has been proved repeatedly before doesn't alter a known fact surely?

 

[Chinkapin]

Yes, Red, your right, of course, but it was shown to be true earlier by the "wrong" people, if you get my meaning.

i.e. those lacking the "proper" credentials.

 

[gregorach]

Did anybody actually read the linked article? This latest research shows that the idea that you will always tend to go in the same direction because you have a dominant leg is false.

"It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so"

 

[British Red]

I did indeed read it. As I kid I grew up knowing "people who try to walk in a straight line on Dartmoor when the fog rolls in will get horribly lost very fast unless they have a navigational aid".

WHY they walk in erratic paths was less pertinent. What mattered was the fact that they do. They did then, they do now. This has been known for decades (more likely millenia)

It strikes me (having read the article), that back then people knew it happened but they didn't know why. After "proper" research, someone else knows it happens, but doesn't know why. I can't spot any advance there.

To me "why" is not the issue. The point that saves your life, if lost in fog without a compass, is that it will happen.

Not having a go, it simply seems to me that this research has shown something that everyone knew anyway, and that speculation as to the cause is not the lifesaving information here.

Red

 

[gregorach]

When you have advice such as

Bob Carrs book suggests that adding a set amount of weight (I can't remember exactly but think it was about 1lb (0.4kg)) to your non-dominant side would be enough to counteract the natural tendancy to turn and bring you back on line.

finding out that it's got nothing to do with a "dominant" side is actually quite important.

 

[British Red]

Why do you think thats important Dunc? Interesting possibly but that shouldn't be confused with important (within the context of Bushcraft). I suggest that a poll of how many people on this forum have ever added a 1lb weight from their dominant side in an attempt to counteract navigational drift would indicate it isn't really a factor in people veering off course.

Surely the normal advice of "don't walk without a directional reference" is what matters?

 

[gregorach]

Fine. I originally just thought it was interesting. That OK with you? Or do I need to run any prospective threads past you in future? Seriously man, what's your problem here? I'm having a hard time believing that you're "not having a go", since all sorts of less interesting and relevant threads pop up all the time without you wading in to dismiss them. Is your problem with me specifically, or is it just with anything tainted by "science"?

 

[British Red]

Easy Dunc, I'm just intrigued by the idea as to how something that was pretty much accepted as fact before has changed?

The original article states

Souman was interested in the widespread belief that lost travelers end up walking in circles, a belief that has never been properly tested but has nonetheless become firmly entrenched in the popular consciousness.

Given the experiences related here, it strikes me that it has been demonstrated again and again - and that members here have participated in those demonstrations. It also strikes me that there are vast bodies of eveidence from Search and Rescue teams that show it happens.

Is it not okay to point that out? It is indeed interesting, but a polite challenge to whether it has proved anything is acceptable surely?

Red

 

[gregorach]

Well, it's disproved the extremely common belief that everyone has a bias towards one direction. If you don't think that's interesting or worthwhile, fine, but it's clearly something new.

Plus, the entire history of science is one of disproving things that people thought they already knew. If it proves something that people thought they already knew, that's still a valuable result. This has done both - it's proved that people can't walk in a straight line without reference points, but that they don't have a bias towards a specific direction. What everyone already "knew" turns out to be only half right.

 

[Pict]

Driving on a long trip through rural Pennsylvania late one night (pre-GPS) we were on unfamiliar ground on winding roads trying to get to my parents mountain house. At one point we stopped at an intersection by a railroad track where a dead skunk had left his calling card. A half hour later I pulled up to an intersection with a railroad track that smelled of skunk. We both looked around and realized we had made a complete loop. Mac

 

[Mastino]

Well, I noticed that after 5 beers, the circles get really tight...

 

[BOD]

It is the hikers who walk in smaller circles without the beers that worry me!


Another thought, completly unscientific of course, I have noticed that people who turn their head e.g. to talk to the person behind while walking usually veer off to the one side while the head is turned.

Assuming a chatty companion, or worse a nagging one, might not the propensity to favour one side while talking over one's shoulder result in a bias to the other side?

What we need is research on how disoriented pairs walk and the subset of that - the married hikers and established partnerships.