"Star" Gazing: Drawing Conclusions

Rick Marchand

Rick Marchand

Donkey on the Edge
Moderator
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
9,680
I remember the first time I saw "Survivorman". I was outraged... How could this yahoo call himself a survival expert? He was making rookie mistakes and stumbling though techniques that looked as if he was trying them for the first time. The next week, I forced myself to sit through another episode... only to arrive at the same conclusion. After that, I refused to watch any more because I thought it was rubbish.

How this guy got his own show vexed me terribly. I began to research him a bit and stumbled upon "Snowshoes and Solitudes". I had a hard time believing this was the same man... the show was great! This caused me to revisit the remaining episodes of "Survivorman" season one... which by then, was available on disk. I began to understand where he was going with the show and eventually gained much respect for his approach to entertainment and education.

A year later, I hooked up with a Canadian Wilderness Skills Instructor who happened to have been one of Les's earlier mentors. He shed more light on Les's personality and skill level.... a far cry from my initial impressions of the man.

I have met Tom Brown Jr. on a few occasions while attending his Tracker School. The classes he personally taught were my favorites. Not because it was TBJ teaching but rather his passion and experience was quite evident and inspiring. He seemed like a nice guy and from what a few of his peers tell me... he really knows his stuff. Hype or not, TBJ has introduce more folks to the natural world, than any other school of its kind.

I am a member of Ron Hood's site. We have exchanged emails and he seems like a genuine survival expert and a hell of a good guy...He just wants to be "one of the boys"... I respect Ron very much as does my current mentor.

Allan "Bow" Beauchamp has to be one of the most underated survival professionals out there. He doesn't advertize, he has no website, no school, videos or published books (though he has written 3-4), yet nearly every prominent instructor, knows and thinks highly of him. This guy is an enigma... which drew me to seek him out for training.

I recently saw Dave Cantebury at Blade Show 2010. He was really cool and friendly. I have seen his youtube videos and although I don't always agree with his aggressive approach, I respect his ability to get the job done.

I have never met Grylls, Mears, Bredl, Kochanski or Lundin.... but hope to someday.



My point to all this???


I am as guilty as the next guy but at what point can you legitimately draw conclusions about a persons intentions, ethics, skill level and personality? After watching some interviews? After meeting them at a trade show?... attending a class?... or simply from what others say? Lately, I have read post after post of W&SS folks jumping all over people in the "survival spotlight". They draw their own conclusions and have no problem discrediting individuals who are undable to defend themselves on the forums. I think there is no problem in criticizing the techniques or actions of a person who willingly puts them on display... but to make malicious blanket statements about their skill level or personal motivation is ignorant.... and not needed. The only thing it does for this community is start up flame wars and ruin great discussions. I realize it's the internet... a place where you don't have to look someone in the eye as you speak to them... where claims can go unsupported if you simply choose not to respond or remove your subscribtion from that particular thread... It just frustrates me to see it popping up more and more around here.

Please be considerate when you post.

Rick
 
Last edited:
Good post. I think this kinda falls into the category of giving someone a chance to prove himself rather than making a quick decision about his capabilities....not that I would ever do this....;)

I too found Survivorman a little hard to watch initially then I saw the light...He is providing a viewpoint on how to survive in difficult situations. He also introduces coach potatoes to the idea that they too can learn and maybe get outside and practice a new desired skill. Not a bad idea.

I hope that I will continue to have the desire to learn. It keeps you sharper and reminds you that you are alive.

Again thanks for the post.
 
Are you drunk today, Rick?

Depressed, maybe?

I only ask because one post was about crying. This one is about playing nice.

You need a hug, big guy?


:D
 
I think any comments made about these individuals, good or bad, is still publicity and helps get their name out there and maybe their products sold.
With all the money Tom Brown Jr has made he can live the kinda life we can only dream about, do ya think he gives a flying hoot if people on BF poke fun at his knife design or tracking claims !!!!!
 
We probably all have some knee-jerk reactions based on our own experience, or lack of it, personal bias, etc. Mine is based on personality more than anything, I guess.
Hadn't really thought about it before, but probably the main reason I've enjoyed this "Dual Survival" thing with Cody Lundin and Dave Canterbury so much is that I relate to their personalities, and share a lot of their individual traits, even if not a fraction of a fraction of their knowledge. I'm a people watcher, and frequently rewound little segments of the online videos over and over. Not watching what they're doing so much as their expressions, demeanor, and body language. Personality-wise, Cody is me before I act. Dave is me when I act. I don't relate well to the personalities from the few other shows I've seen, and that's probably why I haven't cared for any of them. If it was just one of Cody or Dave, I might not like "Dual Survival"("Solo Survival"?), either.
So I guess it's all about me:rolleyes:
I bet that's true for a lot of other people, too, though.
 
Pitdog.... I don't this is about hurting business or offending these guys... it's about how you choose to conduct yourself. Are the ethical issues of slander directly proportional to the wealth or fame of the individual it's directed toward?
 
Magnussen said:
Pitdog.... I don't this is about hurting business or offending these guys... it's about how you choose to conduct yourself. Are the ethical issues of slander directly proportional to the wealth or fame of the individual it's directed toward?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I've seen the posts which bought this on Rick. I have yet to learn of any survival celebrity that I do not hold in high esteem, yeah even Bear Grylls.
All these guys actually ' get out there ' and do this stuff, it's easy for armchair survivalists to sit at their keyboard with a coffee in hand and critisise.
Sure some of them do things that are at times questionable but often that is to make their programs more dramatic. Take the episode of dual survival where Dave Canterbury went out into the dark with the fire torch to check the traps, that stunt was requested by the production team for added drama.
To me all these shows inspire us to get off our backsides and get out there and try this stuff which what it's all about eh !:thumbup:
 
Pit.... I wasn't singling out any posts in particular... I've just noticed that whenever a well known survival personallity is mentioned there are those who see it as an oppourtunity to run them down. Like I said, I don't mind it when the comments are directed toward specific actions or techniques... It when we get statements like "Tom Brown is only in it to make money" and "Bear Grylls has no idea what he is doing". In my mind, I'm thinking "Show me how TBJ's courses are that much more expensive than any other out there?" and with regards to Bear, "Yes, he is extreme, to say the least but where is the proof of his LACK in skills?".

When someone on the forum posts a "friction fire" or "shelter making" thread, I'm sure there are plenty of folks who may not agree with them. Yet (and thankfully), I don't see members piling on and defaming the OP. I think we all can agree that it would be a horrible thing to start doing. Then why is it okay to do it to a public figure? Would you still type those statements if the individual was an active member in W&SS? Actually, you would receive an infraction from the mods. So that makes me ask... Are we doing it just because we can get away with it? and are we not doing it to eachother out of the "fear of Mod"?

Rick
 
I don't believe there is any such thing altruism. Whatever motivates these celebrity types whether that be money, the impression they have power through knowledge, or just plain feeling good about themselves for doing what they may perceive as a good deed, whatever, there is a reward. If you want the reward you take the lumps, simple as that. When it stops being rewarding enough get the hell out of dodge. Easy.

I believe there are plenty of people out there that have the kind of skills these celebrity types have but rather like those that tastefully give to charity they just get on with it unannounced. When the information somehow leaks out so a particular target individual can take an accolade I tend not to spot coincidence. What I see is a reward hunter, especially so if they play up to it or encourage it. Not a glory hunter necessarily but one seeking a pay-off through reward never the less. The lumps must be factored in to a costs / benefits model. When the lumps outweigh the rewards quit doing it.

Personally, most of the time the celebrities themselves aren't my issue. I can swerve them easily enough by not buying their books or watching their TV shows. What often grates on me is the “my mate John says...” mentality. I didn't come here to hear about what X's mate John thinks I came here to find out what X thinks. And I'm more adamant about that here than I would be sitting in a group of people out in meatspace. There “my mate John thinks...” would just be bloody boring person likely to be socially excluded. Here, with the anonymity of 'puter land any one of these celebrities could already be here writing under a pseudonym. That makes the “my mate John thinks...” all the more silly. John could already be speaking for himself. Here's an idea; let's ignore him 'till he does, and then take what he says on merit alone. After all that's no better or worse than I'd expect anyone else to be treated in the avoidance of the “does he take sugar?” thing.
 
Magnussen said:
Pit.... I wasn't singling out any posts in particular... I've just noticed that whenever a well known survival personallity is mentioned there are those who see it as an oppourtunity to run them down. Like I said, I don't mind it when the comments are directed toward specific actions or techniques... It when we get statements like "Tom Brown is only in it to make money" and "Bear Grylls has no idea what he is doing". In my mind, I'm thinking "Show me how TBJ's courses are that much more expensive than any other out there?" and with regards to Bear, "Yes, he is extreme, to say the least but where is the proof of his LACK in skills?".

When someone on the forum posts a "friction fire" or "shelter making" thread, I'm sure there are plenty of folks who may not agree with them. Yet (and thankfully), I don't see members piling on and defaming the OP. I think we all can agree that it would be a horrible thing to start doing. Then why is it okay to do it to a public figure? Would you still type those statements if the individual was an active member in W&SS? Actually, you would receive an infraction from the mods. So that makes me ask... Are we doing it just because we can get away with it? and are we not doing it to eachother out of the "fear of Mod"?

Rick
Click to expand...

Rick, while I agree with your overall point, I see a couple of things at play. Some people are envious that someone else is getting recognition and/or financial reward. This can be further provoked by what they percieve as hero worship, which may escalate their denigration of the "expert" to correct for the percieved imbalance. And of course, that Bear is just a tool! :D
 
Rick, I think this is a good thread, with excellent timing. Not regarding a specific incident but a slow trend in how the forum deals with public survival/bushcraft experts. I am fortunate enough to email with Les a few times over the years. I got his contact info from a member on Doug Ritter's ETS forum and found him to be an extremely well versed bushcraft expert. I was first introduced to him by stumbling across "Snowshoes and Solitude" and was immediately hooked. He spent a year in the bush without modern equipment for his honeymoon. I asked him a few episodes into Survivorman why he was purposely failing at some of the tasks and he said that if he were to show what he could do after decades of practice, then the viewers would not be likely to try it themselves. He said that by showing a couple "failed attempts" he hoped to keep people from getting discouraged when they tried the skills themselves.
 
baldtaco-II said:
I don't believe there is any such thing altruism.
Click to expand...

Exactly, those that think there is, are only fooling themselves. You need to gain from your actions, period. If you think Mother Theresa didn't gain something from how she led her life, you are mistaken. There is a give and take within everything you do.



baldtaco-II said:
What often grates on me is the “my mate John says...” mentality. I didn't come here to hear about what X's mate John thinks I came here to find out what X thinks.
Click to expand...

Yes!.... that's another thread, though... HA!



Rick
 
Pritch said:
Rick, while I agree with your overall point, I see a couple of things at play. Some people are envious that someone else is getting recognition and/or financial reward. This can be further provoked by what they percieve as hero worship, which may escalate their denigration of the "expert" to correct for the percieved imbalance. And of course, that Bear is just a tool! :D
Click to expand...

I think nailed 90% of the problem right there.:thumbup:


Did you know that 86% of posters make up staticical numbers on the spot?... and only 35% of them are even close to the actual figures..... give or take 7%?
 
Magnussen said:
Exactly, those that think there is, are only fooling themselves. You need to gain from your actions, period. If you think Mother Theresa didn't gain something from how she led her life, you are mistaken. There is a give and take within everything you do.





Yes!.... that's another thread, though... HA!



Rick
Click to expand...


You're talking egoism/selfishness as a virtue?

I think generally you get two types of celebrity detractors: the jealous and the valid criticism couched in ad hominem.

The jealous are just bashing on someone because they are getting recognition, they have a show, etc... and these types are just shredding every detail they can find as a way to say: "See, this person has a show and I can see all the mistakes he is making. I should have my own show, I could do better."

The valid criticism couched in ad hominem is usually: "This idiot is wrong because _____________," then they will go on to list the reasons without launching too big a verbal barrage.

I'm guilty of calling Bear a putz on several occasions. I'm also guilty of calling TBJ several colorful dysphemisms. Which is discourteous and very ugly, something I'm trying hard to rectify.

Rick is causing some serious thought here today. I can hear the brainstorms way over here in Kentucky! :thumbup::thumbup:
 
People call Bear but whatever he does in his shows doesn't take away from the fact that he was one of the the youngest Brit's to climb Everest, Served alongside the SAS, was awarded the honorary rank of Lieutenant Commander in the Royal Naval Reserve, became the youngest Briton to climb Ama Dablam, a peak described by Sir Edmund Hillary as "unclimbable", the list goes on !
 
KEmSAT-Survival said:
You're talking egoism/selfishness as a virtue?
Click to expand...

I don't recommend being selfish.... I suggest that you become self-centered. My definition of that word is a bit different than the popular dictionary definition...

Self-centered - concerned solely or chiefly with one's own interests, welfare, etc.; engrossed in self; selfish; egotistical.:thumbdn:

I prefer the alternate definition of...

Self-centered - independent, self-sufficient, well balanced:thumbup:

Balance is the key word here. You should strive for balance in all that you do. There is an exchange taking place in every action you perform. It can only be good or bad, right or wrong... there is no nuetral. If it has what you perceive as value, the results are positive and you are satisfied.... but you must take into consideration the other half of the transaction. Is the other party satisfied too? If not, you lack balance and only bad things can come of it. It is all based around how you want to live your life, I guess. I don't believe that you will be smited for living an unbalanced life.... but I do think it is unhealthy.

Just thoughts.....
 
selfishness as a virtue basically means that the people who follow this theory of ethics think everything a person does gains them something, no matter how small. Take your Mother Theresa example: she gained no money, but a person who subscribed to the selfishness as a virtue/egoism school of thought would say her satisfaction in helping others was what she gained.
It's kind of a vague theory. Not to mention one that can't be proven or disproven, it also explains every answer -- which is such matters is kind of a no-no.

I wasn't meaning selfishness as a value judgement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top