Thal, all your lighthearted jabs have a knife concealed underneath them.
What is it about a group of folks who choose to dive a certain way, using a system that fits their needs better than the one you expouse that makes you so mad? I've read and respected your posts in many other areas of this board, but when it comes to DIR, you are admittedly ignorant, with no wish to understand this system, yet overly willing to criticize these things you don't understand.
What is your sig line again: "Too often ... people enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought"
Personally, I've begun to suspect that you don't really mind the 'proscriptiveness' of DIR, just the fact that its adherents are not all following what you proscribe.
Tom
Tom, you're way wrong, but I'll try not to make the same mistake with you that I did with GI. I respect systems (including DIR), I am an advocate for systems (especially) for developing recreational and technical divers, I have been an adherent, acolyte, and perhaps even an avatar of a very rigid system that predates DIR by at least thirty and perhaps as much as 50 years. I really could care less how you, or Bob or anyone else dives, that's your business, but I learn, through discussion and calling a spade a spade and challenging strongly held central dogmas, be they PADI, GUE or whatever. And I've been around the block enough times to be able to see both through and beyond most all of the hocus pocus and name calling and BS. But I can only learn when someone can show me something that I have not already seen, analyzed, reduced, resynthesized and incorporated into what I do; or when someone can, as a result of a perspective that I never been exposed to, show me something that I missed. Trace has done that on a few occasions, so has Lynne, and Bob and a few others. But for you to think that I have some actual interest in changing the way in which you dive ... give me a break.
Given all that ... I still can't figure out why people like Thal and Dumpster Diver like to hang out in this forum. They have their own set ways of doing things and aren't the least bit interested in what or why DIR divers do what they do. They just seem to like to come here to stir things up. That's not why this forum is here.
If you're not the least bit interested in DIR, please just go enjoy your diving the way you like to enjoy it. Because what you're doing here does amount to trolling, and whether they're enforced or not you are violating the rules for posting here.
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
I''m here because, frankly, it is one of the few places that I get a chance to learn things that I do not already know, that I get to try on different perspectives and that I get a chance to exchange opinions with people who have moved beyond inane questions with obvious answers like, "Fin pivots, good or bad?" If exploring issues by poking at strongly held central dogmas, or by suggesting that that are alternative approaches that are equal, or better, is trolling ... then so be it, but frankly that is not my intent, nor do I feel it is the case. For me it is naught but honest dialectic ... truth seeking.
... Cutting through all the freediving world BS, relaxation, in any form, is the secret to being able to hold one's breath. ... The more comfortable and capable the diver is at doing breath hold dives, the greater chance that diver will be able to stop, think, act and find the ability to somewhat relax and slow the heart rate down prolonging a breath hold need in an emergency.
Exactly. I've made over ten thousand dives, I can honestly say that in the last eight thousand, or so, I've not had anything occur that raised my pulse rate even a smidgen, except for some interesting wildlife encounters. Nothing that required cat like reactions springing overtrained and precise muscle memory, that kept me from imminent death, damage or danger. But ... I have been in spots where I had to say to myself, "slow down, relax, work through this, you know that you've got plenty of time ..." I like having both going for me, but I don't kid myself, if I had to choose one or the other approach, it'd be the slow, steady, thoughtful one ... every time, all the time.
Thal, I, like you, believe in the merits of freediving ability for every diver and there are other very sound and safe methods besides DIR. However, the strength of DIR that no other system has met, until now, is the massive amount of divers who can be placed in the water with the incredible ability to be on the exact same page and support one another efficiently from recreational teams to technical teams to true explorers.
That's simply not true, for example, the research diving program at Berkeley has been doing exactly what you describe since the early 1960s.
GUE created an "army of one" with higher standards than the industry has had in decades. While some confidence-building and self-survival techniques may be missing, the quality and standards for trim, buoyancy, propulsion and gas sharing have never been performed with such precision by so many and rehearsed so often under high stress situations. I have needed my freediving breath hold ability in both my Tech 1 classes, first with Andrew Georgitsis, then Bob Sherwood. The GUE swim standards are pathetically low according to some, but I promise you, my friend, that higher standards for breath holds somehow creep into Tech 1 even if you think you are so close to your buddy that you are sharing DNA.
But, please, gentleman ... continue ...
I agree completely, when have I ever said otherwise?
You're still seeing mostly Internet-DIR, which tends to be Fundamentals-focused, Equipment-focused, and Rote-Process-focused. At tech/cave levels you need to start to learn how to think underwater.
I agree with Lamont. Internet DIR is definitely centered around fundamental skills, equipment and protocols, as this is the first introduction to the system.
However, the goal of DIR is definitely not to be "mechanical, equipment based, and inflexible." The goal is as you described in a previous post:
The UTD video blog on
Protocols are a Stop Gap discusses this issue in more detail.
In the tech/cave classes, you are consistently pushed to think underwater. Of course, if the base skills aren't good, it'll be hard elevate out of the details, see the larger picture, and make the best decisions.
Your pointing out the patently obvious, a tautology. Of course the further along a diver gets, the more likely it is that he or she will start to think about their diving as opposed to just doing things by rote. I pointed that out back in January:
The definitions below are based in on nursing definitions that my wife turned me on to in:
Benner, P (1984)
From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice, Menlo Park CA, Addison-Wesley
There was a time when a certified diver was competent, now they are almost always a novice, rarely a beginner. There was a time when an instructor was an expert, today one is lucky to find one that is proficient.
Novice: Diving knowledge is minimal and solely 'textbook.' It does not connect decisions with actions and ignores the context in which the action are taken. The available suite of skills rigidly adhere to learned rules, other responses are not readily available. The possible use of knowledge for planning is without situational awareness and lacks discretionary judgment. The diver has available only rational decision making tools, nothing is intuitive or holistic. Individual actions are seen (and taken) in isolation with no conception of, or capability to deal with, complexity. Performance is unlikely to be satisfactory unless closely supervised.
Beginner: The diver has developed a working knowledge of key aspects of tasks and appreciates that complex diving situations exist. Since situational awareness is limited, all attributes and aspects tend to be treated separately and given equal importance. Though the diver begins to use global characteristics of situations that are recognized from limited prior experience, problems are primarily solved by using rote guidelines for action that are based on situational attributes. The diver is starting to make rudimentary attempts to decide on appropriate actions in context, but is limited to applying actions as a series of steps, and thus can not be expected to successfully resolve complex situations. Though supervision is needed for the accomplishment of the overall task, straightforward tasks are likely to be completed to an acceptable standard, and the beginner is able to achieve some steps using own judgment.
Competent: The diver now has a good working, as well as some background, knowledge of diving and as a result can deal with knowledge in context. Recognition of relevance is now present. Actions are seen, at least partly, in terms of longer-term goals. The diver is able to cope with simple multiple, simultaneous, competing inputs. He or she sees actions (at least partially) in terms of longer-term goals. The diver performs best with standardized and routine procedures, but is able to achieve most tasks using own judgment and can engage in conscious and deliberate planning. Skills are fit for the purpose intended, though may lack refinement.
Proficient: Posses a depth of understanding of the disciplines that make up diving, as well as those specific to diving, so that the diver can make a holistic assessment in context, rather than just an analytic one. The diver can deal with complex situations holistically, and decision-making is more confident. Performing to a fully acceptable standard is routine, as is seeing what is most important in a situation. Deviations from the normal pattern are quickly perceived. Decision-making is less labored. Maxims are used for guidance, but there is understanding that conclusions will (and should) vary according to the situation. The diver sees the overall 'picture' and how individual actions fit within it. The diver is able to take full responsibility for own work (and that of others where applicable).
Expert: The diver is capable of making correct decisions on an intuitive basis (e.g., no longer needs to rely on rules, guidelines or maxims) and posses authoritative knowledge of the disciplines that make up diving that leads to a deep tacit understanding, and a holistic and intuitive grasp, of situations. In complex situations, the diver moves easily between intuitive and analytical approaches, using analytic approaches used only in completely novel situations or when problems occur. The diver sees the overall 'picture' and simultaneously grasps alternative approaches. He or she is comfortable taking responsibility for going beyond existing standards and creating original interpretations using a vision of what is possible. Excellence is achieved with relative ease.
... but I often wonder why he posts in the DIR forum ...
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Already answered ... no?
People with a lot of experience such as yourself and Thal make this argument all the time. Unfortunately a diver like myself might read that statement and say "yeah screw this im buying an RB after all" way before we were ready. Personally as a diver im in that stage of "knowing what I don't know". I dont trust in my ability to make an informed decision about deviating from a structured dive program and to do so would merely inject more likelihood of error. I've seen a few tech divers do this especially in regards to RBs.
I am absolutely convinced that GUE/UTD is the best approach for tech diving, especially for new divers. Believe me if I saw something else out there that was better I would switch in a second. Emphasis on the word "saw" someone on a dive forum isnt going to convince me to do so
Maybe one day I will decide that I am ready to get off this train... ask me again after Cave1/Cave2 and Tech2. Maybe by then I will feel informed and experienced enough to do so.
I'm here for my own learning, if at the same time I can open the door a crack for you by letting you know that there are other valid approaches out there, which it is unlikely that you will ever see or have contact with, that's fine too. As I suggested in an earlier post:
I think those approaches (DIR, NAUI-tec, etc.) are so far superior to what is available to the average diver that I would encourage anyone trying to better their skills to (at least for some period of time) adopt one or the other and embrace it wholeheartedly until they find it somehow limiting. If they never experience that feeling, then great ... they will have had an incredibly successful and fulfilling diving career, and what could be better?
... I know an instructor in the Bahamas who is an NSS-CDS cave instructor who dives Hogarthian and is the best cave diver you'll ever have, but never took a GUE or UTD course. Her mentors at NSS-CDS were the original GUE cave gurus like Tyler and Tamara. She can wear a chain mail shark suit one day, freedive over 100 feet the next, wear ScubaPro recreational gear to teach a DSD class in the afternoon, cave dive in a Hogarthian rig and drysuit and sidemount solo for exploration dives in tight tunnels. She stands on the bottom feeding sharks, is fluid and graceful freediving with a flutter kick, she may be on her knees in a pool demonstrating mask clearing, then, be the perfectly trimmed dive buddy in backmount, and finally go it alone to places no one else may ever see, wiggling through tight spaces like a marine under barb wire. Her head is so in game on so many levels most will never touch her abilities.
...
It's not the philosophy, but the ability to philosophize that makes the diver. Bruce Lee said, "Absorb what is useful."
...
It takes a village to raise a child so, son, as Parker Turner told George Irvine, maybe it is time to take the cotton out of your ears and stick it in your mouth?
That's a joke.
I agree DIR is the best way for a new diver to approach diving. So, go become a great DIR diver, then make me proud and come back here and take my job or Thal's.
Amen Brother Malinowski ... amen!
factor, if I eventually die? Why is it that scuba diving must be where anal retentiveness is applied to safety, but DIR divers are allowed to go fishing and ride motorcycles? Fishing, according to Manswers is the world's most dangerous sport. Why doesn't George Irvine need a "DIR" to catch that record fish he brought in last summer? Why is it that, if a diver dies, he's branded a loser, but if a motorcyclist dies, it was just an accident - could have happened to anyone?
