My weekly vid. Hope it brightens someone's surface interval.
Diving: How often is enough to maintain skills and comfort
- Thread starter jagfish
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Its never enough...
OP
LOL, the best answer...Its never enough...
- Messages
- 16,387
- Reaction score
- 5,206
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
Very logical video. I try to dive weekly May-Oct. and Bi-weekly the rest of the time, which comes to around 50+ a year. Think I could go a long time without diving at this point and be OK. Know that wouldn't have been the case for me after 10-20 even 50 dives. I didn't get OW until we moved to the coast. Never considered vacation diving once/twice yearly. Now I know the reasons that could be dangerous, possibly even after doing a refresher.
wnissen
Contributor
It probably also depends somewhat on what kind of diving you are doing. Shore diving in cold water with mediocre visibility is going to be a more dependent on skill and conditioning, compared with boat dives in warm water with excellent viz.
For me personally, I enjoy the dives more if I'm in the water every month. You can see it in my air consumption, which went up markedly after a four-month quarantine layoff. Aiming for once a month makes sure I'm there at least every couple months, which seems to be the point at which my muscle memory starts to fade.
For me personally, I enjoy the dives more if I'm in the water every month. You can see it in my air consumption, which went up markedly after a four-month quarantine layoff. Aiming for once a month makes sure I'm there at least every couple months, which seems to be the point at which my muscle memory starts to fade.
GJC
Contributor
For an individual skill like how to tie your shoes, riding a bike, performing CPR, mask clearing, regulator retrieval, tank assembly, etc. it will take 211 times of performing the skill without error before you can perform the skill without thinking about it while doing it. 211 times is also the threshold for going for a long petiod of time without doing the skill and to still be able to do it again proficiently. I don't know why I remember this, but it was mentioned in a CPR instructor course I took about 40 years ago.
10,000 hrs (5 years working full time) of practice in a profession (like music, chess, teaching, medicine, plumbing, etc.) is the minimum required to be considered a master or expert.
10,000 hrs (5 years working full time) of practice in a profession (like music, chess, teaching, medicine, plumbing, etc.) is the minimum required to be considered a master or expert.
- Messages
- 16,387
- Reaction score
- 5,206
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
Uhhh, maybe. There are some things to worry about in the tropics that don't exist in the cold climates. Fire coral, too MUCH viz (so I've heard). You may be right. But maybe if you have gotten used to the cold, all the weight, thick exposure suit, poor viz at times, etc., it might be the same after a year off as someone who is used to Aruba. Hard to say.
- Messages
- 16,387
- Reaction score
- 5,206
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
I've heard about the 10,000 hours. Not sure I agree-- have no idea how many hours I've practiced/played clarinet. The past discussion of what it means to "master" something (like the clarinet, or doing a scuba skill) comes into play.
I've never heard of the 211 times. Interesting. I would think it depends on what skill you're trying to do without thinking about it. Everyone has problems to some degree with this skill or that one. I THINK that after clearing my mask in the pool successfully once-- with one nose exhale-- probably meant I could do that the next time without thinking about it. Well, maybe after 2-3 times. OTOH, removing & replacing the unit was (for me) something I had to do many times. I probably still would have to think of the steps if I did it today.
mi000ke
Contributor
- Messages
- 1,141
- Reaction score
- 1,732
- Location
- Massachusetts & Grand Cayman Island
- # of dives
- 200 - 499
You are on the right track. The 10,000 hour "rule" was popularized by Malcom Gladwell, who writes books reporting on other people's research (implying that he came up with the ideas) and often misinterprets or over-generalizes that research because he was not trained on how to interpret or generalize research , nor the literature of the field being researched. (For any folks here who earned a PhD or other advanced research-based degree, much of your curriculum would have been focused on how to design, implement and interpret research with high quality plus a lot of analyzing the literature of your field) I've read the original "10,000 rules" article and Gladwell's misinterpretation, and a rejoinder by the original author addressing the misinterpretation and overgeneralization. Follow-on studies have even challenged the original research results. Here is a good summary of the situation:
The 10,000-Hour Rule Was Wrong, According to the People Who Wrote the Original Study
So don't feel bad about the clarinet playing! (although I understand you are a very accomplished professional) I'm a sax player who has probably played close to 10,000 hours and don't have a lot to show for it
. Made a lot more progress in the 300 hours or so spent underwater. Maybe there's a research study that shows if you practice playing music underwater you will progress faster.I'm also a (now-retired) applied economics researcher/professor/consultant focusing on the economics of knowledge and learning and who has a hair across my rectum regarding Gladwell and his ilk. Sorry for the pedantic digression, and now back to our regularly schedule discussion.
GJC
Contributor
You are on the right track. The 10,000 hour "rule" was popularized by Malcom Gladwell, who writes books reporting on other people's research (implying that he came up with the ideas) and often misinterprets or over-generalizes that research because he was not trained on how to interpret or generalize research , nor the literature of the field being researched. (For any folks here who earned a PhD or other advanced research-based degree, much of your curriculum would have been focused on how to design, implement and interpret research with high quality plus a lot of analyzing the literature of your field) I've read the original "10,000 rules" article and Gladwell's misinterpretation, and a rejoinder by the original author addressing the misinterpretation and overgeneralization. Follow-on studies have even challenged the original research results. Here is a good summary of the situation:
The 10,000-Hour Rule Was Wrong, According to the People Who Wrote the Original Study
So don't feel bad about the clarinet playing! (although I understand you are a very accomplished professional) I'm a sax player who has probably played close to 10,000 hours and don't have a lot to show for it
I'm also a (now-retired) applied economics researcher/professor/consultant focusing on the economics of knowledge and learning and who has a hair across my rectum regarding Gladwell and his ilk. Sorry for the pedantic digression, and now back to our regularly schedule discussion.
Yeah, to be a peak performer in your field, you need about 20,000 hours. But to be classified as a master or expert, you need about 10,000 hours of supervised/mentored time. That's what I got from reading Anders Ericson and Herbert Simon.
Similar threads
