Not All Risks Are Created Equal. Risks Relativity and Critical Thinking

Most people look at a sheer rock face and see an impossible hazard;

Alex Honnold looks at it and sees a problem to be solved

A View of the Possible

Since I was a little girl, I was impressed by the use of gross motor skills. I loved to do anything that required jumping, climbing, running, going up a mountain, but I was affected by asthma and couldn’t do any of that. It was the times when the rescue inhalers didn’t even exist. In addition, the social construct of jumping, climbing, running, and going up a mountain was that they were activities exclusive to boys. So, my asthma inadvertently spared my mother the social friction of a daughter defying the gendered expectations of the time, labels I now recognize as narrow constraints on human potential, such as the offensive qualifier: a “tomboy.”

Reeling back the subject, or sub-subject, I have always loved explosive body actions.

Honnold does amazing things with his body. He is able to do free-solo climbs at amazing heights (free-solo: climbing without rope). To the casual observer, the sheer verticality makes one dizzy with vertigo, creating an immediate perception that a fall is inevitable.

The tension between high-stakes performance and family life is often framed as a conflict of interest, where extreme risk is seen as a deviation from traditional family security. However, looking through a more critical lens, we can see this as a choice between two different operating models. Instead of a failure to prioritize safety, we may be observing a highly specialized system of mastery. One where risk is not an oversight, but a precisely calculated variable integrated into a life lived at the limits of human capability.

Is he reckless, or has he simply mastered the variables to the point that the actual probability of failure is far lower than the extreme nature of the task suggests?

My vantage point is shaped by a lifetime in sports and an appreciation for what athletes can achieve. Having raised an international gymnast, I have seen firsthand how people push themselves to do the extraordinary. This isn’t just about passion; it is about a specific understanding of how systems of movement and risk actually work.

Risk Management is a core discipline of my professional work. I have managed critical, complex projects where rigorous risk assessment is not optional; it’s a core requirement of the system.

When I look at these athletes, I don’t see recklessness. Because of my experience with high-level sport and complex project systems, I see the skill and the calculation. I understand the risk because I understand the mechanics behind it.

RISK AND THE PERCEPTION OF RISK

Perception of risk is our own intuitive assessment of the probability and severity of harm, shaped by cognitive, emotional, and social factors rather than strictly by objective statistical measures. In practice, people often perceive risks as just the impact of the consequence without applying critical thinking to systematically analyze all the elements that contribute to the risk. 

But let’s analyze what is risk, and what is not.

While Modern standards like ISO 31000 define risk as “the effect of uncertainty on objectives,” and explicitly note that this effect can be positive/opportunities, negative/threats, or both, in what I’m discussing here, it refers specifically to threats, negative outcomes, losses.

Risk is not what could happen. 

Risk involves considering both the chance of an event happening and the impact of its consequences, which can be expressed either mathematically or qualitatively.

Risk relativity is the idea that the level of risk is not absolute but depends on context, perspective, or points of comparison; the same event or activity may be perceived or assessed as higher or lower risk depending on circumstances.

Per definition, risk is the product of the likelihood that something happens and the severity of the consequence. 

Likelihood goes from rare to almost certain. Consequences go from negligible impact to catastrophic. 

CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCE

The consequence of falling free-soloing is definitely catastrophic. Whoever falls doing this, is definitely going to die. 

So for the same event, for Alex, for anyone, and for me, the consequence of falling is going to be the same (i.e., catastrophic = death).

And here is what I believe many people stop. On the consequence, and on the perception that risk is just that, the consequence.

BUT… WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD?

What is the likelihood that Alex Honnold falls from a free-solo climb?

The likelihood that will help calculate the level of risk?

Is it rare? Unlikely? Possible? Likely? Almost certain?

I think it is, of course, possible that he falls, but I don’t think it is likely, let alone almost certain. Hear me out, keep reading.

If I attempt it I will die. Not may die. I will. It is not even almost certain. It is absolutely certain. 100%. I don’t have practice nor experience,  I have zero grip strength, and my core strength is not winning any awards. To complete the picture, I will freak out. Other professional rock climbers may have the strength, may have a lot of climbing hours but not free-solo experience. Others may have free-solo experience but not as much as needed. Others may not have the mental power. Others may simply don’t have that drive, or just don’t want to do it. And that’s perfectly fine. The comparison here is not to compare climbers but to compare likelihoods and to highlight how the risk is relative.

So if I follow the critical thinking process through my favorite critical thinking tool, the Ladder of Inference, a tool I have been using for more than 20 years, I can say that Alex observes, selects and analyzes the data he has available from his training and his physical health. He makes assumptions based on the knowledge the analysis provides him. Those assumptions allow him to draw conclusions in regards his ability to free-solo. And then he establishes what he believes the risk to be and he decides to act on it.

If I put my opinion in a risk cube to evaluate risks, where the vertical axis is the likelihood estimated by me as “possible,” and the horizontal axis is the severity of the consequence, which we know is only one, death, Alex free-solo is a high risk. But Alex knows way better than me. I don’t even know him, but I do think that he may very well consider his likelihood “unlikely” because he has the data in his hands, and he knows what he is able and not able to do. That level of likelihood would result in a moderate risk. Still a risk, but not as high. 

What is the likelihood that I, or an amateur fall from a free-solo climb?

Aren’t we measuring Alex’s risks based on our perception of risk? Based on what we believe we know, are capable of, and what the emotions that knowledge generates? Based on that risk is just seen as “the consequence”? 

Let’s go through what the likelihood of Alex falling depends on. 

It depends mostly on things that Alex can control, like his physical strength, practice, experience, expertise, mental power. In addition, in less scale, depend on things he can’t control, for example, a natural event, mainly the weather. In regards the weather, this could be mitigated ensuring the event is done when a window of opportunity is available.

So the likelihood in this case, mostly depends on Alex’s abilities. He knows what he is capable of doing because he has been doing it for years. Nobody is saying that he cannot fall. He indeed CAN fall, but the likelihood of falling decreases with the strength of his body. It decreases with the thousands of hours he has put in the gym, in the hangboard, the campus boards, and in many rocks he’s climbed to achieve perfection. The likelihood of falling decreases when he increases the ability to work his mind to control it as much as he can.

MITIGATION

Regardless of the likelihood being unlikely, possible, or likely, this is far from being a low risk event with a catastrophic consequence.  Hence, Alex needs mitigation plans in place.

If for simplicity I use the four general ways to mitigate risks, avoid, reduce, transfer, accept: 

• Avoid: It is a fact that he won’t avoid it because he wants to do it.
• Reduce/mitigate: He takes steps to lessen the likelihood of happening, but there is nothing he can do to lessen the severity of the consequences of free-soloing.  If he falls, he dies. Period. A helmet won’t help; ropes are out of the question.
• Transfer: He can’t transfer the risk. It’s his own. 
• Accept: Here you go. Alex accepts the risk. 

Alex’s grip is ridiculous. He can do pull ups just grabbing the bar with the tip of his fingers. His core strength is brutal. His flexibility is the needed flexibility to be able to move and locate his legs wherever they need to be located. He practices every single day for hours. He has been doing it for decades. His nutrition and sleep are carefully in sync with his needs. 

He puts all in a blender, and the result tells him: today is the day, or, today is not the day. Like when he attempted to free-solo El Capitan for the first time, and after climbing for a while  he decided not to pursue it that day. 

His critical thinking came to play. He checked in his mind all the elements that play a role in the likelihood, and he understood the risk. His critical thinking was there to tell him: today is not the day.  

And as cliché as it sounds, that day “it was not worth the risk.” So he bailed out.

That day he AVOIDED the risk. 

But the day arrived when all conditions were in check. So, Honnold went back to El Capitan, and he free-soloed the granite monolith of 3,000 feet (~900 meters) on June 3, 2017 in 3 hours and 56 minutes.

Almost nine years later (January 25, 2026) he achieved the feat of free-soloing Taipei 101, a 101-story skyscraper, 1,667 feet (~500 meters) tall. He did it in one hour and 31 minutes.

Successful. Without rope. 

Was he reckless? 

The Logic of the Extraordinary

This write up is not to praise, judge, or criticize Alex Honnold’s decision of doing these climbs. It’s his life, a life he owns.

I am simply using his climbs (which I greatly admire) with my opinion for the sake of risk assessment. 

I’d say: No, Alex was not reckless at all. 

He takes the risk, because he has mitigated the likelihood of the event occurring, and he has accepted the risk. 

He knows he has a bag of tricks built through thirty-five years of his life, since he started climbing when he was five. Through thousands of hours practicing serious climbing. Through falling and getting up again. Through learning what works and what doesn’t work. Through doing free-solo here and there. Through doing those pull-ups with a hangboard. Through evaluating data. Through understanding the risk, meaning the likelihood combined with the severity of the consequence. Through applying critical thinking, changing what he needs to change to decrease the likelihood of having a catastrophic event. 

Risk combines the chance of an occurrence with the seriousness of its consequences. Risks are relative. They are not fixed values; instead, they depend on context, perspective, and the specific circumstances of the endeavor. 

In Alex Honnold’s case, as one of the most amazing athletes of our time, mastery is the variable that recalibrates the system. He proves that risk is a dynamic calculation rather than a static hazard.

When the likelihood of an event is high, and the severity of the consequences is high, the risk is extreme. 

When the severity of the consequence is major or catastrophic, we need to do everything in our power to reduce the likelihood of the event happening. 

When we know that the likelihood of something happening is likely, or almost certain, we need to ensure the severity of the consequence is as low as possible, because if it’s catastrophic we would need to revise our approach.

The safest bet is always when the likelihood of the event happening is low, and the severity of the consequences is also low. It makes the risk negligible.

When the risks are moderate to high, we need to have mitigation plans in place. We need to ask: Can we avoid it, reduce/mitigate it, transfer it or simply accept it ?

Each component that plays a role in risks of any kind must be analyzed in all of its aspects. 

Critical thinking allows us to observe, select and analyze the data we have. With the data, we will make our assumptions and we’ll draw our own conclusions. With that, we establish what we believe our risk to be and we take actions.  We make decisions. 

With the data, analysis, and risk assessment, we are able to make the best possible decisions; if not, our perception of risk can outweigh the objective measures when making choices. 

Our choices depend on the risks we face, but risks are relative. We need to understand how relative they are.

————————————-

Photo Attribution: Fox Sports, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons