Whether or not you go insane when exposed to emotional stress has nothing to do with your character or personality. It’s biochemical. I hate the way that this article says “it’s impossible to predict who will go insane and who won’t” and it’s universally accepted when it’s not true and is based on untrue and harmful fuzzy thinking. It’s like saying “it’s impossible for man to fly” which may have been true in a practical sense a thousand years ago but it was never actually true. If more people had appreciated that, maybe we would have been flying much earlier.<p>The reason he says it’s impossible is because he thinks it’s based on subtle aspects of personality traits which are ephemeral and impossible to grasp.<p>Of course you can predict who will go insane. There are specific biochemical pathways that are responsible. In the future when we have mastered them we will probably find that there are certain obvious traits that correlate strongly to the disposition. It is often the case that the simple truth was hiding right in front of us.
Got a couple of my dad's old employment performance reviews yesterday from his time overwintering in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It's a standard list of 21 questions applied to each person, each question scoring from 1 to 5, so not dissimilar to the sort of performance review many of us will be familiar with. Some of the questions could even conceivably appear in an IT performance review, e.g. "2. His work is well planned and organised" and "7. He utilises his technical knowledge". However, given the nature of both working and living with people in close confinement and in adverse conditions, there are definitely a few questions you wouldn't see for the typical office job (although arguably we should:-), e.g.<p>- "10. He is well liked by his associates"<p>- "12. He is stable and well adjusted"<p>- "13. In restricted living and working conditions, he is not a source of friction"<p>- "19. He has no distasteful personal characteristics"<p>- "20. I would select him to live and work with under adverse field conditions"
I read Michael Palin's book on HMS Erebus last year and in addition to being quite interesting all around, it went into great detail about the every day lives of sailors during that era based on the detailed logs kept by the ships.<p>The short answer: They were all expected to chip in and help entertain their fellow shipmates and keep up morale. In addition to music and songs, they'd write and perform skits, tell stories, have holiday contests between ships (usually they sailed in a group of at least two) and more.<p>Here's the man himself: <a href="https://youtu.be/KhsxTSbsVeo" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/KhsxTSbsVeo</a>
>Scott became famous through the courageous manner of his death<p>For most of my life I was told it was Scott's fault for bad leadership. Recent research shows otherwise, and blames a bad lieutenant.<p><a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005102638.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005102638.h...</a><p>Fascinating stories, that gave me fuel to be an adventurer. Shackleton is one of my great heroes and I cannot recommend highly enough becoming familiar with the story of the Endurance. Crushed in ice, far from anywhere yet all survived. Incredible incredible tale.<p><a href="https://www.history.com/news/shackleton-endurance-survival" rel="nofollow">https://www.history.com/news/shackleton-endurance-survival</a>
If you're ever in Oslo I can really recommend visiting the Fram Museum[1] which houses the Fram, the ship Amundsen used to reach the Antarctic (among other things).<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fram_Museum" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fram_Museum</a>
Not quite the same thing, but I've always been struck by Ranulph Fiennes's personality and how perfect it seems for the kind of expeditions he did. He is the complete opposite of a drama-lama, he seems incredibly even tempered and stoic about everything. The same goes for Elen MacArthur, the round the world solo sailer. This seems like an essential characteristic of a successful explorer, you don't want drama, argument or emotional instability in places like the arctic.