Before debating skills vs. equipment, please consider Risk Compensation

[rstofer]

Yes, however my long-winded post above uses the word "perceive" for a reason. People should be free to make fully-informed choices about risk. I have an ethical problem with situations where people are poorly informed about the risks they are assuming.

For example, if I am in my LDS and the inexperienced salesperson tells me that a Spare Air is obviously safer than no spare air, it would be nice if there is someone else to help me understand under what circumstances the spare air actually makes me safer.

If I am perceive that the Spare Air "solves my OOA problem," I may engage in riskier behaviour than if I didn't carry the Spare Air, making me actually less safe with it than without. The problem is not my having the choice of whether to carry the Spare Air, the problem is that my perceptions of risk and how it is affected by carrying a Spare Air are distorted.

Whereas if I truly understand what it can and cannot do for me, I may choose to train more or stay closer to my buddy or save my money for a set of doubles. Again, I have choices, but I really ought to make a choice while fully informed of my options and their trade-offs.

JM2C.

Where do you propose to get 'perfect information'? You can't make an informed decision without being informed. But by whom? The salesman? The Internet? Your marginal dive buddy?

I don't debate your explanation of the idea that traffic accidents increased after the installation of air bags. It's a fact! People do drive more recklessly when they believe they will be protected. I don't find it a stretch to assume divers would do the same thing.

But since everybody lies (according to the world renowned expert House), there is no source for perfect information except what you can deduce for yourself, probably from first principles. In this regard, the smart will survive and the less smart will perish. That's the way Darwin saw it and I agree. It actually helps the species, you know.

Richard

 

[Thalassamania]

...the smart will survive and the less smart will perish. That's the way Darwin saw it and I agree. It actually helps the species, you know.

Richard

With all due respect (and completely off topic) that is not how Darwin saw it. Darwinian evolution has to do with the a change in the frequency of a particular trait (we now call gene) in the breeding population, which may have nothing to do with living or dying.

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

the smart will survive and the less smart will perish. That's the way Darwin saw it and I agree.

If I may hijack a thread I started... Mike Judge says otherwise and I agree with him. Darwin says the fittest will survive. Smart != Fittest.

 

[Gombessa]

If I may hijack a thread I started... Mike Judge says otherwise and I agree with him. Darwin says the fittest will survive. Smart != Fittest.

Since we're already on this Darwinian tangent, Darwin never said anything about "survival of the fittest." Strength, health, constitution, etc. have nothing to do with it. Reduced to soundbites we're all used to, the mechanism of natural selection really only contemplates "survival of those that survive."

 

[TSandM]

The original post was really an excellent one.

It reminds me of the discussions about Nitrox. One of the arguments for Nitrox is that it lowers your risk of DCS, but it doesn't, because people use it to extend bottom time.

The idea that any modification designed to improve safety can be at least in part defeated by behavior changes as a result of perceived risk reduction is a great thing to think about. Thanks, Reg.

 

[redacted]

Going into an environment in which we can not naturally survive isn't a risk?

No more so than flying in an airplane or driving down an interstate. As long as you are adequately prepared, risks are minimal with all those activities.

 

[mikemill]

But it is still a risk. You can't say that flying and driving aren't risks just like you can't say that diving isn't a risk.

 

[Dan Weidert]

The original post was really an excellent one.

It reminds me of the discussions about Nitrox. One of the arguments for Nitrox is that it lowers your risk of DCS, but it doesn't, because people use it to extend bottom time.

The idea that any modification designed to improve safety can be at least in part defeated by behavior changes as a result of perceived risk reduction is a great thing to think about. Thanks, Reg.

I agree with both of TSandM's points. Your post is excellent Reg, and Nitrox is an excellent example of Risk Compensation.

So, if the process of Risk Compensation is the problem we are talking about, is teaching risk analysis/assessment a solution? If so, how do we encourage that amongst ourselves until the concept catches on?

Dan

Dan

 

[sambolino44]

I think this is a very interesting premise and topic for discussion, and I applaud the OP for bringing it up. I hope you don't mind that I'm posting this before reading the whole page at the Wikipedia link.

It seems to me that it may be useful to make a distinction between individual behavior and populations as a whole. I think many of us may have had the thought, "Well, maybe those other dweebs do this, but I certainly don't!"

I wonder if there's any info about what other personality traits individuals who are more likely to engage in risk compensation may exhibit, and how they compare with individuals less likely to compensate. What I'm getting at is the possibility of being able to predict behavior. I have a suspicion that individuals prone to risky behavior are more likely to compensate, but I wonder what the facts are. It may be that a more reliable predictor of risk compensation may indeed be one's views about personal responsibility.

Also, I'll bet it's true that an individual may be more likely to compensate (or compensate more) one time, and less likely another time. I wonder what the factors are for that.

 

[redacted]

But it is still a risk. You can't say that flying and driving aren't risks just like you can't say that diving isn't a risk.

Or getting out of bed in the morning or taking a breath (or not taking a breath). Yes, they all involve some risk. All in the category of every day, routine risks we constantly manage with no special thought or consideration once we have prepared ourselves.