In “Free Solo,” there is a sequence in which the filmmakers attempt to establish just how deadly free soloing is by invoking the names of several famous dead climbers who were well-known for free-soloing. Many of these people, however, didn’t actually die free-soloing. The film doesn’t explicitly state that they do, however, so it’s not as if the filmmakers committed any kind of factual error. But they were attempting to lead viewers into believing that free soloing is deadlier than it is by including this segment.

It’s obvious why they did this: if viewers are made to believe that “even the very best free soloists can and often do die,” it raises the stakes for Alex Honnold, the main character of the film. It’s a technique that works well, too. “Free Solo” is a great film because we see Honnold free solo El Cap and rationally know that he will be fine, but emotionally feel as if we might witness the death of the world’s best rock climber—because it could happen to him, just like it has happened to many before him.

It is remarkable, actually, to consider how few of the most famous free soloists actually died free soloing. Dan Osman died rope jumping. Dean Potter died wingsuit BASE jumping. Michael Reardon was (allegedly) swept away by a rogue wave. Marc André Leclerc and Hansjorg Auer died in (separate) avalanches. Brad Gobright rappelled off the end of his rope. Only god knows what happened to Ueli Steck, but he wasn’t technically free soloing when he fell in the Himalaya.

There may be a fallacy in associating free soloing with death potential, just as there is a fallacy that causes most people to feel more scared to fly airplanes than drive cars, even among those who understand what the real statistics say. In other words, free soloing just feels immediately, viscerally, and obviously deadly and dangerous in ways that rappelling doesn’t, even though many more climbers have died and will continue to die rappelling.

(Also: of course, it would also be a fallacy to say that, because so few of the best climbers have died free soloing, free soloing is therefore safe. So few climbers even free solo; often those who do tend to be really good climbers, which is precisely the thing that makes free soloing “safe.” Hence, this may be an example of the McNamara fallacy. However, it might be true to say free soloing, in fact, is very deadly for climbers who are not really good climbers. But mediocre climbers tend not to free solo; therefore, we don’t really know.)

Having written lots about risk, consequences, death, and many of the attending questions of whether it’s “worth it” or if one’s motivations must be “pure” for it to justify the risk to themselves or others, I am of the opinion that … it’s really fucking complicated. The reasons why are complicated and so much of the moralizing and hand-wringing about these topics tends to become paternalistic.

Complicated questions and nuanced takes don’t make for good headlines. Readers, or so editors often think, won’t click on esoteric subjects like climbing if there isn’t a hook that confirms their priors, which is that climbers always continue to do the thing that will ultimately kill them—the thing about which they are too dumb and too blinded by their own ambition and driven by their inflated egos to recognize will lead to their demise.