A different take on Master Scuba Diver

[The Chairman]

A bash is calling you an a-hole instructor. Saying you're a "part of the problem" is certainly a bit abrasive, and while I think he's wrong, he's entitled to his opinion. We are not the thought police. The post saying that I was lying about teaching full neutral still exists, but it's so old, that I can't search back that far. That was even more abrasive than what was said about you, yet I survived. Yes, it was posted in ignorance, but I just made my case that there was nothing impossible about teaching neutral from the beginning and that the results were amazing. As I inferred, he later jumped on that bandwagon and posts as if it were his idea. The result is that the concept has become rather popular now and THAT's what's important to me. I would love to see it become mainstream even if I never got a bit of credit.

Think about it... if we removed all controversy, this would be a boring, boring place. A little spice livens the dish and compels people to read, often breaking out the

 

[Pipehorse]

Below is copied from Wikipedia. I think this is appropriate to this conversation given the accusations of semantics. Applies to a great many skills scuba or otherwise. Hopefully after training the person is at the conscious competence level as described below. Problem with a great many scuba divers is they don't scuba enough to reach level #4. I applaud the OP getting training, regardless of the agency or what it is called.

1. Unconscious incompetenceThe individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognize their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage. The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.[5]
2. Conscious incompetenceThough the individual does not understand or know how to do something, they recognize the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. The making of mistakes can be integral to the learning process at this stage.
3. Conscious competenceThe individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires concentration. It may be broken down into steps, and there is heavy conscious involvement in executing the new skill.[5]
4. Unconscious competenceThe individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.

 

[tursiops]

A bash is calling you an a-hole instructor. Saying you're a "part of the problem" is certainly a bit abrasive, and while I think he's wrong, he's entitled to his opinion. We are not the thought police. The post saying that I was lying about teaching full neutral still exists, but it's so old, that I can't search back that far. That was even more abrasive than what was said about you, yet I survived. Yes, it was posted in ignorance, but I just made my case that there was nothing impossible about teaching neutral from the beginning and that the results were amazing. As I inferred, he later jumped on that bandwagon and posts as if it were his idea. The result is that the concept has become rather popular now and THAT's what's important to me. I would love to see it become mainstream even if I never got a bit of credit.

Think about it... if we removed all controversy, this would be a boring, boring place. A little spice livens the dish and compels people to read, often breaking out the

Well, OK, but it is difficult to respond with mitigating or additional-information comments when you are attacked personally. So the comments stop and the abrasive, incorrect, self-serving posts remain. He wins by perseverance and bullying, not by useful input. I personally ignore most of his incessant repetition of "I'm great" and "everybody else sucks" but I fear for those with less experience and thinner skins.

 

[kinoons]

I have been fortunate enough to be on both sides of the training coin. I spent several years as an EMS instructor and frequently take on APRN students as a preceptor. My initial college degree is in EMS with an emphasis on education/adult education.

I also have learned from instructors during my EMS and nursing career as well as my scuba and flight instructors.

On thing I have noticed in EMS, Nursing, scuba, and flight world - the “disagreement” between the community at large and the training agencies on what minimal competence should be.

Often times the community at large expects better skills and knowledge from new <insert activity here>. I have been criticized for passing paramedic and nursing students that other (non teaching) professionals suggest were not strong enough. My retort is “they meet the minimal standards”. If they meet the standards, they pass. That’s the gig; that’s how it goes.

Do I try to train past the standards if the student is ready for it? Absolutely. But that’s not the requirement and should not be expected of the student.

More than once I passed a paramedic or nurse who wanted to be hired at the same agency I worked, or was employed in a different position at the agency. When asked by management how they did, I would say they passed, but they need more training to meet our internal standards; do not send them off on their own yet.

Most recently I learned to fly. In only 20+ hours am I the most proficient pilot? Absolutely not. There are plenty of situations I should not put myself into. But on a good VFR day in locations with light to moderate traffic can I safely take off, perform a flight, RTB and land? Yup I can. My instructor and I discussed that I now have a license to learn when I passed my checkride. Over time it is expected that my skills will continue to grow as I continue to fly and place my self in appropriately more challenging situations.

 

[The Chairman]

Below is copied from Wikipedia. I think this is appropriate to this conversation give the accusations of semantics. Applies to a great many skills scuba or otherwise.

1. Unconscious incompetenceThe individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognize their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage. The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.[5]
2. Conscious incompetenceThough the individual does not understand or know how to do something, they recognize the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. The making of mistakes can be integral to the learning process at this stage.
3. Conscious competenceThe individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires concentration. It may be broken down into steps, and there is heavy conscious involvement in executing the new skill.[5]
4. Unconscious competenceThe individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.

This is good, but it raises the question: how do we define competence? Every agency defines it differently for each and every skill. Even worse, every instructor has a slightly different definition within the scope of their agency's definition.

when you are attacked personally.

Don't look for an attack with each and every criticism. Why were your feelings hurt? Because someone has a lesser opinion of you? Please!

How often are we accosted with businesses asking for our opinions, our input? They pay big money to get us to tell us what we think. To get that input free is a true bonus! I always see input or criticisms as a bonus even if they are a bit painful. I learn from each and every one, even if I feel they are partially or completely off base. Why not? It's free input.

Over time it is expected that my skills will continue to grow as I continue to fly and place my self in appropriately more challenging situations.

Good for you. Diving, flying as well as most of life, is all about limits. Some are mandated like a speed limit or NDL and some are simply personal. It's best to know your limits and honor them.

 

[tursiops]

Don't look for an attack with each and every criticism.

Sorry, that was not criticism. Criticism requires some basis for the criticism, otherwise it is an intended insult and attack. I do not criticize his teaching; I can't, all I have his is repeated over-and-over claims that he does it neutral. La de dah. So do MANY instructors, myself included, I so assert, therefore it is true. He apparently has a very negative view of all other instructors, which I suppose is due to a great deal of insecurity, but it comes across as pure bullying.

 

[The Chairman]

He apparently has a very negative view of all other instructors,

Okay, and now you're criticizing him. Would you call that a bash? Or are your criticisms more valid because it's you?

We are all passionate about Scuba. Don't mistake someone else's passion as hate.

 

[tursiops]

Okay, and now you're criticizing him. Would you call that a bash? Or are your criticisms more valid because it's you?

We are all passionate about Scuba. Don't mistake someone else's passion as hate.

It is as much a bash as I dared to make; a real bash would be much more to the point but would not be any more informative.

 

[The Chairman]

It is as much a bash as I dared to make; a real bash would be much more to the point but would not be any more informative.

I can't stop you from being butt-hurt over this, I guess. I agree with you on most everything else.

 

[Leatherboot69]

To be fair, and not knowing any of the posters, it did seem like an unnecessarily personal criticism. I don’t think it added anything useful to the thread to single others out for no reason-the mudslinging and fundies-or-nothing dogma can be off-putting. I’ll leave it there.

On a separate note, it does seem that PADI, in it’s evidence-based-wisdom tempered with commercial reality, has laid down minimum standards to become a safe diver and to provide the foundation for further learning. Individual instructors, in their own anecdotal experience-based wisdom, think that there should be additional standards on top to make people ‘competent’ or even ‘excellent’. I don’t think that’s the right approach. We could all do a really comprehensive OW package (like BSAC) but the longer and more complicated training is, the fewer people will take up diving. At OW level, it doesn’t matter whether divers have perfect trim or can dive on Nitrox. They need to be safe under conditions similar to those in which they trained. Anything else can come later in subsequent courses.