Why You Should Do Your FKTs Alone

For a long time I’ve been skeptical about attempting Fastest Known Time (FKT) challenges as a group. In this post I present the reasons and the data on why you should do solo FKTs.

What does the data tell us?

I picked 9 different routes with different distances that had FKTs for individuals, but also for groups of 2, 3, and 4 individuals:

• Ozark Highlands Trail
• Pacific Crest Trail
• High Sierra Trail
• John Muir Trail
• Wonderland Trail
• New River Trail
• Torres del Paine Circuit
• Zion Traverse
• Kokopelli Trail

I grabbed that data from the FKT website and dumped it into a raw table that is available here. There are 69 FKTs in this dataset. While this selection is obviously rather limited, I believe it covers a reasonable number of different trails, trail lengths, finishing times, and group sizes to get at least a rough idea about potential trends.

To represent the data in a meaningful way, I wrote a program that first normalized the finishing times (so that they can be compared) for each route and then computed the average times over all routes, styles (i.e., supported, self-supported, and unsupported), and gender (make, female, mixed) as a function of the group size. At the end, I rescaled the data so that the relative fastest known finishing time for individuals was 1 (=100%). The sole purpose of the last step was to make it easier to quantify the slow-down (> 1) for larger group sizes.

[pullquote]”It’s better to be unhappy alone than unhappy with someone.” — Marilyn Monroe[/pullquote]

Figure 1 shows the outcome. As one can see easily, the relative finishing times increase with group size, i.e., the larger the group, the slower the times. On average, a group of 2 is about 6% slower than an individual, a group of 3 about 31%, and a group of 4 about 37% slower.

What are possible reasons for this trend? Keep on reading if you want to know more…

Figure 1. Relative FKT finishing time as a function of group size. The larger the group, the slower the time.

Moving as a group

Moving as a group means that you are only as fast as the slowest individual in the group. Even if the group decides to split up, for an FKT, you’d still have to all get to the finish together. While some part of the group could move ahead, eventually they’d have to wait for the rest of the group. In addition, groups often share skills and sometimes even gear, which may limit whether and how a group can split up. For example: only one of the group members may know the route, the group may only carry one set up maps, one GPS, etc.

One often hears that groups of two (or more) are great because one person can help the other to get through difficult moments. While that may be true and may help the person who struggles, it does not enable the group to move fast and efficiently, quite the opposite. Once again, such situations lead to the group to move as slow as their slowest individual.

It is generally hard to find partners that have equal fitness levels. There will always be some differences. I’d argue that the bigger the group, the more likely that there will be a wide(r) range of differences. Unfortunately these differences do not generally play out in favor of the group.

In conclusion, if you are moving as a group, there are really only two scenarios that can happen:

1. you are either unable to use your full potential, or
2. you are the slowest individual and are thus slowing down the group.

[pullquote]”The best part about being alone is that you really don’t have to answer to anybody. You do what you want.” — Justin Timberlake[/pullquote]

Deciding as a group

Next, let’s take a look at how groups make decisions, or more importantly what kind of issues they may face in the process of doing so. 

The first obvious fact is that group decisions take time. Making decisions requires communication, thinking, exchanging viewpoints, discussions, etc. To make decisions, the group will most likely have to stop because communication while running is difficult. A solo runner, however, does not have to stop and is thus not losing time while making decisions. 

In 1972, Irving Janis coined the term “groupthink” [1] as following: “I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons engaged in when concurrence-seeking becomes in dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. […] The symptoms of groupthink arise when the members of decision-making groups become motivated to avoid being too harsh in their judgments of their leaders’ or colleagues’ ideas. They adopt a soft line of criticism, even in their own thinking.” In other words, groups often converge to what is called a “robust average.” Groups tend to ignore or weigh-in less on outlier values, suggestions, etc.

Janis’ work is considered somewhat (out)dated. More recent work and a new ubiquity model of groupthink can be found in [2].

The outcome of the groupthink behavior is poor group decisions as a result of a flawed group process and strong conformity pressures, even though the individuals may be very competent to make excellent decisions. Poor group decisions obviously lead to groups quitting and/or to losing precious time on FKT attempts. For example, they may make navigation errors.

There are many other issues with groups. To name a few:

• Shared information bias [3,4]: group members tend to discuss information that they all have access to while ignoring equally important information that is available to only a few of the group members.
• Diffusion of responsibility [5]: individual group members are less likely to take responsibility for action/inaction if others are present. For example, it is easy in groups to assume that one or several other members have specific capabilities, e.g., navigational skills. 
• Herd behavior: the tendency for individuals to mimic the actions (rational or irrational) of a larger group, even though as an individual, you would not make the same decisions.
• Overconfidence: groups tend to overestimate their capabilities.

All of these issues have the potential to slow the group down. Or, in the worst case, they lead to an FKT abort.

Conclusions

The presented FKT data (Figure 1) showed that the larger the group, the longer the finishing time. There are three main reasons for this:

1. groups can only move at the speed of their slowest individual;
2. group decisions take more time; and
3. groupthink and other group behaviors may lead to irrational or dysfunctional group decisions, which result in losing even more time.

[pullquote]”If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” — African Proverb[/pullquote]

There are many reasons for attempting FKTs, either solo or as a group. If your preference is to have a great time, you care more about the social experience, you worry about safety, or you are simply not experienced enough for making an attempt on our own, by any means, do it as a group. But know that you are potentially going to be slower. If, on the other hand, you want to maximize your chances to be fast and to succeed, go solo.

Caveats and limitations

In this post I focused on running and not on other sports, such as mountaineering. The story for mountaineering might be quite different because group speed is less of an issue and conservative group decisions can be key to safety. Also, mountaineers are mostly eager to reach the summit in whatever time it takes. To do so, the pool of group skills and knowledge can be beneficial. Thus, the conclusions from this post should not simply be applied to other activities. 

As always, there are exceptions to the overall findings I’ve been presenting here. Some groups may actually be more efficient and experienced than a single individual. Or perhaps they were just lucky. It may also be possible that less experienced and/or weaker individuals have a stronger need to form groups, which could be a reason why groups tend to be slower.  I do not have any data to verify that.

Last not least, another potential limitation of this post is the selected FKT data that I used. Although I wouldn’t anticipate a different overall conclusion, more data would allow for more robust outcomes. 

[pullquote]”Without great solitude no serious work is possible..” — Pablo Picasso[/pullquote]

Future work?

There would be a number of other interesting questions to investigate. For example,

• Do groups quit more often than individuals? I don’t have any data on this, yet, here’s my hypothesis:
  • In challenging situations, every reason to quit is usually a good-enough reason. So if one group members has to or wants to quit, it’s more likely the other(s) will as well.
  • It tends to be a lot harder to convince someone to continue than it is to make someone quit.
  • If you are mentally set on a group experience, it is hard to continue on your own.
  • Groups often share skills, expertise, and sometimes even gear. For example one set of maps, one GPS, etc. That makes it harder for parts of the group to continue.
• How do group finishing times vary between FKT styles, gender, and trail length? For example: is a mixed-gender group faster or slower than a male- or female-only group?
• Are groups more beneficial on shorter or longer trails, if at all?

To probe further

References

1. Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology today, 5(6), 43-46.
2. Baron, R. S. (2005). So right it’s wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 219–253). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
3. Faulmüller, N., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Beyond group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles: The individual preference effect revisited. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 653–671.
4. Reimer, T., Reimer, A., & Czienskowski, U. (2010). Decision-making groups attenuate the discussion bias in favor of shared information: A meta-analysis. Communication Monographs, 77(1), 121–142.
5. Kassin, Fein; Markus, Burke (2013). Social Psychology. Toronto: Nelson Education.