We Act in a World of Uncertainty, Not Probabilities

We act in a world of uncertainty, not probabilities,

by William L. Anderson.

The Sierra Nevada of California are rugged and beautiful

mountains, and they are located only

about an hour east of my home in Roseville.

We can see them on clear days and many times

we have driven east to go snowshoeing, cross-country skiing,

or taking in the scenery around Lake Tahoe.

They are also something else, dangerous.

Every year, people die in those mountains

by falling off cliffs, drowning, or even running into trees

while skiing at the numerous resorts in the Sierra.

People also succumb to avalanches, which

are common in the mountains of the American West.

Last week, an avalanche killed nine backcountry skiers

in the Sierra's who had made the trip

to engage in storm skiing, making it one

of the worst such accidents in US history.

We often can see the mountain, castle peak, where they died

from elevated places in our town.

It doesn't look deadly from our vantage point far away,

but last week, it was a killer.

A couple of days after the skiers were killed,

Wes, an acquaintance of mine, was driving home

on I-40 in Knoxville.

On weekday afternoons, traffic often is heavy,

and it isn't unusual for it to come to a stop.

Wes came upon a traffic jam that had turned into a pileup

as the driver in front of him hit someone who was stopped,

and he then hit that driver from behind,

although the initial contact was not serious.

Unfortunately, the driver behind him was driving

his large pickup truck much too fast,

ramming into Wes and landing on top of his car,

killing him instantly.

His was the only fatality in that chain reaction.

In the tragedy on the mountain,

people have long understood and appreciated

the peril of avalanches in the Sierra Nevada,

and many, including the local and state authorities,

are asking why the skiers who were hit with the avalanche

were in that spot in the first place,

given the snow conditions that day.

No one, however, is asking why Wes was on I-40

that day when he had the fatal accident.

Yet in both situations, someone died.

We can speak about the risk of taking to the freeway

every day, using probabilities that might say something

like one has a 0.5% chance of dying on I-40 in Knoxville

during rush hour traffic or something like that.

I am using that number as a random example,

not stating a probability that someone might have calculated.

Likewise, when nine people met their deaths

near Perry Peak on February 17th,

the snow that broke away from the steep mountain slope

was not governed by probabilities,

nor can we say it was a random event.

An avalanche expert from Blackbird Mountain Guides,

the company that provided the guides leading

the ill-fated ski trip, explained on social media

how the newest snowfall had led to avalanche hazards,

and that people should be careful when

being out in avalanche prone areas.

The conditions were ripe for avalanches,

and probably everyone in the ill-fated 15-member group knew it.

They chose to be out on the mountain anyway.

One could have worn this group about being

in an avalanche prone area, and certainly the guides

who were well-trained and even certified

in detecting avalanche conditions understood the dangers.

They were listed as experts,

and the women they were leading in the group

were also experienced in backcountry skiing.

In other words, all 15 had much experience skiing

in these conditions, and were hardly rank amateurs.

At this writing, we do not know if any of the 15

had the experience of being in an avalanche before.

After all, people do survive avalanches,

sometimes by sheer luck, and sometimes

by using techniques and equipment developed

that increase one's chances of living through it.

Certainly, every person in the group

knew about avalanche survival techniques,

and also were well aware of avalanche conditions,

but sometimes knowing something and knowing it well

can work against someone when a dreaded event actually

happens.

Anything beyond what I've written is speculation.

What we can safely assume is that these skiers knew

there were avalanche dangers.

All of them carried avalanche detection beacons

and chose to be in that fateful place.

Obviously, one can assume they did not

expect an avalanche to occur, but understood the dangers.

One cannot use probabilities here.

Either an avalanche occurred, or it didn't.

We cannot know if someone in the group triggered it,

or if the snowpack simply moved when it became too heavy.

All we can know is that it happened.

Likewise, probabilities are useless in examining

the death that my acquaintance wears.

Instead, it was something that just happened,

and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mises and probability, Ludwig von Mises

writes that human action is not governed

by laws of probability.

He notes that when people act, they

carry out plans in the realm of uncertainty.

Whether this was or was not the most appropriate plan

depends on the development of future conditions,

which at the time of the plan's execution cannot

be forecast with certainty.

He continues, future needs and valuations,

the reaction of men to changes in conditions, future scientific

and technological knowledge, future ideologies

and policies can never be foretold with more

than a greater or smaller degree of probability.

Every action refers to an unknown future.

It is in this sense always a risky speculation.

While Mises ultimately writes about entrepreneurship

and how the Austrian school paradigm is uniquely

suited to explain the role of entrepreneurs within an economy,

one also can apply this to all human action.

People act and they act with purpose,

sometimes that purpose being complex,

and sometimes it being simple.

In both examples listed in this article,

people were trying to get home.

With Wes, it was the simple matter of getting on I-40 West

and getting off at an exit and driving home,

something he had done many times before.

Because it was at about 4.30 p.m.,

traffic was heavy, as one would expect at that time

and almost surely, he had been in situations

in which he had to come to a full stop on the freeway.

Anyone who has driven in West Knoxville in the afternoon

is familiar with the heavy Westbound traffic patterns.

And the possibility that traffic will stop at one point or another.

Furthermore, every freeway has bottlenecks and merger locations

that bring so many cars to a restrictive point

that traffic will predictably slow down or even stop.

Yet the accident itself was a unique event.

Falling under what Mises called case probability.

Case probability means we know with regard

to a particular event some of the factors

which determine its outcome.

But there are other determining factors

about which we know nothing.

As for the skiers, they too were trying to get home.

Their scheduled stay in the frog lay cuts was concluded

and most of them had obligations at home and at work.

They would have known that there was avalanche danger

as the heavy snowfall had fallen upon layers

of older frozen snow that provided an unstable base

for the new snow as it piled up.

No doubt they spoke about the danger before they left.

The dangerous conditions would have been no surprise

to the members of the group.

As the conditions would have made avalanches almost inevitable.

For that matter had they stayed two more days,

the danger still would not have fully passed

as the crews that recovered the bodies on Saturday

four days after the tragedy.

First had to use techniques to stabilize the slopes

where they were working in order to avoid triggering

another snow slide.

While it was clear that the skiers were facing avalanche danger,

something they understood,

would the guys themselves having been certified

in avalanche detection and recovery?

The avalanche that took those lives was a unique event

as Mises would have described.

Furthermore, while they took the root-rated most dangerous

as opposed to a flatter but longer path,

one should assume that they had reasons

as to their particular choice.

We emphasize uncertainty for a reason.

The New York Times claims quoting someone

who had been in that same area a few days prior.

If the party had simply stayed until Thursday, Mr. Gensheimer said,

the members would have walked out alive.

What the backcountry world is grappling with now

is why they didn't.

However, we don't know that statement to be true,

even if it comes from the New York Times.

As pointed out earlier, there was still much danger

from avalanches four days after the tragedy occurred.

All we can know is that the forecasted avalanche danger level

in that area was lower on Thursday.

And then what had been forecasted for that fateful Tuesday,

but that alone was no guarantee to safety.

The New York Times notwithstanding conclusion.

In a world of uncertainty, we often

look to experts for guidance.

Forgetting that having expertise in something

is no guarantee of satisfactory outcomes.

Each of the guides that lost their lives in the snow

slide had training, certification, and experience

in avalanche detection and rescue.

Yet they and six of their clients, who also

were expert backcountry skiers,

fared no better than would have been the case

with rank amateurs on skis.

Likewise, the other drivers near West last week

made it to their destinations, even

though they were not better motorists

with more expertise in driving.

It wasn't West's lack of safe driving skills

that led to his death.

Instead, he happened to be in the path of another driver

who failed to keep control of his vehicle.

In both cases, the only way to have prevent the loss of life

was not to have been in that location in the first place.

With the case of the skiers, they chose

to be in a snowstorm.

When avalanche dangers would have been higher,

then they would have been at another time,

while in the event with West, he was repeating an action.

He had taken countless times before with no ill effects.

Death occurred in both situations.

It is fitting, then, that Mises should

have the last word here.

Understanding, as always, based on incomplete knowledge,

we may know the motives of the acting men,

the ends they are aiming at, and the means they plan

to apply for the attainment of these ends.

We have a definite opinion with regard

to the effects to be expected from the operation

of these factors.

But this knowledge is defective.

We cannot exclude beforehand the possibility

that we have erred in the appraisal of their influence

or have failed to take into consideration some factors

whose interference we did not foresee at all,

or not in a correct way.

For more content like this, visit mises.org.