What would you estimate his chance of death was in doing this climb? 1%? 5%? Most people would call someone who takes on that kind of deadly risk for nothing more than accomplishment and legacy, ie by choice, a daredevil.

If free soloing is not usually thrilling, or adrenaline inducing, but something you approach with care, methods, and preparation... what's the point of the induced-risk? Why not take on a similar challenge that's more difficult, minus the non-trivial probability of dead, like most other climbers do?

Gamers find themselves introducing more and more arbitrary challenges to make their accomplishments more difficult to achieve. The difference between gamers and free soloers, is that when gamers fail, they don't destroy, to various extents, the lives of all the people that loved and supported them as a side-effect of their failure, all because they thought it was a good idea to introduce deadly activities into their lives.

How is this not daredevil behavior?

I think that this is probably the biggest misconception about Alex. Pad your estimates of death with a couple of 0's, that is, 0.01% (even less) chance of death. From this article others have posted https://www.outsideonline.com/2190306/why-alex-honnolds-free...:

> “It would be so easy for you—you know you wont fall on 5.12,”

In essence, he is so good at climbing, this is like going up a really long ladder for the average human. Sure, rungs on the ladder could break, but even I could climb a ladder 3000ft tall with enough endurance training and not fall. At least, most likely not fall.

To answer your question about the thrill, in multiple interviews, he says that free soloing is the "ultimate test". Akin to closed book and no calculators. Can you really claim that you've mastered a subject if you were allowed to use aids? This is the way he views free soloing.

When you view it like this and reduce the chances of dying to be less than driving on the freeway, I think it is less daredevil behaviour and more the ultimate passion for his craft.

On what basis do you think his odds of death on a given climb are less than 0.01%?

The guy has done the route many, many times with a rope. You could sort of work out a probability based on how many times he has had to save himself with the rope. (I'm not sure he ever has)

downvoter: justify yourself. Do you object to making the calculation this way, or what?

So is Formula 1 / NASCAR driving, deep sea diving and even innocuous things such as Sky Diving carries a lot of risk of death and injury which we casually ignore. Alex and other free soloist climb the rock multiple times charting the route, memorizing it, studying the environment and weather and then attempting the challenge. Alex had climbed El Capitan multiple times in the prep for going free solo until the time he can do the climb literally blindfolded. Folks sometime read these stories and assume he just walked to that rock for the first time and started climbing. That's not the case. Risks are there no doubt but it's no different than risking your life Base jumping or White Water rafting.

First, this is like climbing trivia! Who is the mystery user?

Question: do you still free solo? My impression is that there are plenty of ex-free soloists who are still alive (Peter Croft being one of the most notable). I suppose Croft still does some ropeless stuff high in the Sierras, but he seems to stick to a rope when doing more technical climbs. There are, however, fewer older free soloists who still solo at or close to their limits.

You are spot-on about the soloists attitude, however. The NPR article leaves out the fact that Honnold attempted the solo previously, but downclimbed because conditions were right.

You would not be posting this if you were dead, this is selection bias.

Existing as a counter example to someone's categorical claims is _not_ selection bias.

> People who solo regularly are usually not adrenaline junkies. They're not thrill seekers

Why solo, then?