Your observation/speculation regarding the bigger men makes good sense to me. It reminds me (in a way) of a story a friend of mine told me about climbing Mount Kilimanjaro. He said the larger, more physically imposing men couldn’t handle the climb well, whereas smaller thinner men (and women) adjusted more easily. Could it be that, in a physical as well as a mental way, the body that is used to putting forth less physical exertion is more brutally shocked by the contrast of a harsh environment?
Yes, it could be, but, as I said in the essay, I lean more to psychological causes. In none of the accounts from WWII did I see physical causes, only attitudinal. Frankl noticed the better educated had a better survival rate. The musselmammer just gave up and died. A study looking for characteristics of stress- resistant personalities came up with, challenge, commitment and control. That finding might not translate to the camps. Your anecdote about the mountain climbers seems to support the Andersonville observation .
Oh I agree—I think in the context of concentration camps it’s more a question of psychological resilience than physical. I think the physical factors apply more directly to the mountain climber context. But the underlying ‘rule’ seems still to apply to both (that a higher maintenance baseline leads to less adaptability to drastically sub-optimal conditions).
I also think the varying theories you’ve laid out have a large degree of overlap or intertwinement with one another. Really interesting post and a unique angle on human resilience 👏
Yes, it could be a perfect storm of factors. I had to reread your last sentence, about "higher maintenance," an example of a clear, concise writing, packing a lot into one sentence.
Your observation/speculation regarding the bigger men makes good sense to me. It reminds me (in a way) of a story a friend of mine told me about climbing Mount Kilimanjaro. He said the larger, more physically imposing men couldn’t handle the climb well, whereas smaller thinner men (and women) adjusted more easily. Could it be that, in a physical as well as a mental way, the body that is used to putting forth less physical exertion is more brutally shocked by the contrast of a harsh environment?
Yes, it could be, but, as I said in the essay, I lean more to psychological causes. In none of the accounts from WWII did I see physical causes, only attitudinal. Frankl noticed the better educated had a better survival rate. The musselmammer just gave up and died. A study looking for characteristics of stress- resistant personalities came up with, challenge, commitment and control. That finding might not translate to the camps. Your anecdote about the mountain climbers seems to support the Andersonville observation .
Oh I agree—I think in the context of concentration camps it’s more a question of psychological resilience than physical. I think the physical factors apply more directly to the mountain climber context. But the underlying ‘rule’ seems still to apply to both (that a higher maintenance baseline leads to less adaptability to drastically sub-optimal conditions).
I also think the varying theories you’ve laid out have a large degree of overlap or intertwinement with one another. Really interesting post and a unique angle on human resilience 👏
Yes, it could be a perfect storm of factors. I had to reread your last sentence, about "higher maintenance," an example of a clear, concise writing, packing a lot into one sentence.
Thanks Fred—I enjoy our conversations because I feel I can drop those kinds of zingers freely!
Interesting story. I enjoy reading all your stories. KTR
Thanks, Karen, that means a lot to me.