DIR wars...Is it the name?

[Wendy]

That's the sound of the match striking the flint. You might want to look up the history of WKPP and the divers that started that project for the NSS-CDS , and how GUE split from that. Or you can ask Bill Hogarth Main.

But whatever you do, don't tell anybody I told you about this.

yes i know the history. It is found on the wkpp website. But that's not what I was referring to. I was hoping mentioning this post I had read, someone else would recall it and cross-post it here, as I can't remember where I saw it.

 

[dweeb]

I remember when I first heard about DIR, just over a year ago. As a concise summary was patiently explained to me, I turned incredulous and resistant as I found the it stood for "Doing it right".

I remember feeling an immediate alienation and even resistance, because the name suggested to me that you are either doing it THIS way, or you are doing it wrong. To me it felt like right from the start, the name sets up a conflict, since it suggests there is only DIR or DIW.

This goes to the basic philosophical issue behind many of the controversies and conflicts in politics, religion, etc.
You can't, with any intellectual honesty, hold a conviction without holding that conflicting views are objectively wrong. You can't pursue the true best way without first accepting that a true best way exists. It's a conflict of the first law of logic, that of non-contradiction, that you can't say A is true AND false at once, versus the far less upsetting relativism of our time, which ultimately devolves into a pseudo-intellectual rubber stamp for one's impulses.

Ask yourself, why does it irk you so for someone to suggest that one way is better than another? Is it because you embrace the way being labeled inferior? What of that? You can't grow without changing - if someone truly showed you a better way, would your ego bar you from positive change?
What if someone tells you they've discovered how to get to heaven, and what they tell you isn't the way you thought it was? Should you just agree, or say, that's true for you, but not for me? No - one of you is right, and the other is wrong. Your only two logically valid choices are to change, or reject his view as wrong. The thing is, there's no objective way for humans to determine which of you is right, so you tolerate each other's views, but, contrary to PC linguistic revisionism, tolerance doesn't exclude concluding that the other guy is 'wrong,' it merely means you don't try to bludgeon him into being 'right.'

The interesting thing is that true DIR divers don't claim to have THE perfect way to dive. They are merely people who have acknowledged that there IS a best way, and agreed on a rational method of seeking it. JJ and others have said, if someone shows them a RATIONAL argument for changing something, they're willing to make changes. What they reject is the idea that the best way to dive is a question of whatever makes one happy. Keep in mind, 99% of the DIR followers are CONVERTS, and a great many of those resisted at first, so most DIR people have already demonstrated more open mindedness and willingness to change than most of their opposition. In reality, DIR should be STDIR, for "seeking to do it right" but that just doesn't flow well.

Look at it this way. If hearing it called "doing it right" causes you to bristle, ask yourself, how would you feel about calling the way YOU dive "doing it right?" Would you feel comfortable using the same term to describe the way you dive? If not, then why on earth are you diving that way? If you wouldn't call it right, then by default, you're calling it wrong. Why would you dive a certain way, not believing it's right, unless you just wanted to kill yourself without having your loved ones face the stigma of an obvious suicide? Why do you turn your air on before diving? Because that's doing it right. Diving with your air turned off is doing it wrong. Now extend that to the less obvious issues - just because it gets more difficult to determine the best way, does that mean we should give up?

Sure, there are people who just accept DIR blindly, but they usually fail to fully adopt key elements (most notably, the fitness one - how often do you see someone in a DIR rig, quoting George Irvine from behind a 54 inch waistline?) If you allow yourself to have a knee jerk reaction to the name, how are you any smarter than those people?

If you object to the term DIR, you're essentially rejecting the possibility of objective truth, and as such, you're forfeiting any standing to object to anything anyone says or does, because your sense of offense depends upon the existence of some objective truth for its validity. If no one is right, and no one is wrong, then those who claim to be right can't be wrong either - if you subscribe to the whole your truth/my truth nonsense, then that's THEIR truth.
That's why true relativism is just no fun - you can't tell anyone off without being a hypocrit.

 

[FreeFloat]

I have been searching for a post, but not sure if it was on this board or on another that explained how the name "Doing It Right" was picked. It has something to do with when the WKPP was getting choosen by the state of FLorida for the Wakulla dives. I wish I could find it, as it explains everything very well. And no it had nothing to do with attitudes, and "i'm right, you're wrong" mentality.

The post is:

"Before we discuss what is or isn't DIR, we need to look at where the phrase comes from and what it means. I read that a reporter originally coined the term DIR during an interview with George Irvine III, the former project director for the Woodville Karsts Plains Project. When asked how come the WKPP was able to successfully dive with no accidents under conditions that were considered by many to be very extreme, George responded, "Because we do it right!" Supposedly, the reporter put this in his story and possibly even used it for the title.
That led the type of diving done by the WKPP to be called Doing It Right, or DIR for short. "

and can be found partway down in this thread.

 

[Wendy]

The post is:


and can be found partway down in this thread.

See I knew I didn't just imagine reading that.

 

[Rick Murchison]

This goes to the basic philosophical issue behind many of the controversies and conflicts in politics, religion, etc.
You can't, with any intellectual honesty, hold a conviction without holding that conflicting views are objectively wrong.

What incredible BS!
I drive a Chevy, my buddy drives a Ford. No problem. It isn't a question of right or wrong - it's a question of preference.

The interesting thing is that true DIR divers don't claim to have THE perfect way to dive.

Oh?
Riddle me this, then...
"To quote Bill Gavin regarding gear, a diver must 'settle for nothing less than perfection. Those who do will discover on their own the value of such effort. Those who do not will never understand what the others are talking about'. What we have presented here is called the 'Doing It Right' system, and is a platform that is integrated completely and accommodates all contingencies and additions, but no phobias." Doing it Right Gear Configuration by George Irvine
I fail to see *any* wiggle room in that one!

how would you feel about calling the way YOU dive "doing it right?"

I'd call 'em unimaginative, unmotivated to find their own best way and someone operating short of their own potential. I would characterize the way I dive as within the set of many safe ways, never as the "right" way - any more than I'd characterize my Chevy as the "right" car.

If you object to the term DIR, you're essentially rejecting the possibility of objective truth,

Interesting perception. I do object to the term "DIR" as defined by GUE and the self-proclaimed "DIR" adherents. They, for their part, claim "DIR" as their own - and that claim is what flies in the face of "objective truth."
Rick

 

[ShakaZulu]

There is definately a link to being DIR and loosing your sense of humor, just page through the DIR forum (actually, just read this thread, nice and uptight). I like it, get's me trough my day. What is even more funny, is how the DIR dewds are fighting with each other...........dang, go beat up a REC dewd.

 

[Diver0001]

I don't know, this guy here seems to convey that attitude and he seems to be pro DIR
Read "DIR or don't do it" on this link
http://www.frogkick.nl/

Well, if you're looking for extremes you'll always find them. I would suggest that in every group of people sharing a common view about something some are more ....convinced.... and more vocal about that conviction than others. Sometimes this comes across as arrogant, sometime it *is* arrogant and sometimes it takes on such proportions that it becomes pitiful.

To come the defense of the group behind Frogkick, most of the Dutch DIR crowd (which does not include me just to be clear about where this is coming from) are moderate and the energy is positive on the whole despite the strong language of 1 or 2 of the members.

R..

 

[JeffG]

See I knew I didn't just imagine reading that.

There was another post by MHK (I just haven't found it yet) that states the story better.

It goes along the lines of George getting upset at some snafu's in the WKPP and kept telling them "Will you just do it right!!!".

and so the divers would say to each other (in a joking manner) "I'm doing it right..how about you?"

and the name stuck.

 

[roakey]

I'll say it:

I beleive that DIR is a safer and superior way to dive.

I also think that a five point harness is a safer and superior way to drive.

I dive DIR.

I don't drive with a five point harness, only a three point one. I'm comfortable with that.

If you don't want to dive DIR, just be comfortable with that decision. No need to piss and moan about it.

Roak

Ps. Too bad we're not merging anymore, this really belongs in the "hellspawn" thread.

 

[WJL]

<snip>

With maybe a very slight twist, I might add you clearly denegrate the value of exeperience compared to the value of taking a DIR-F course.

The first part stresses the team approach and the values of conforming to the group and demeans those who may hold independence, personal choice and flexibility in higher regard

The second part again clearly denegrates the value of experience and clearly implies that membership in the group and acceptance of the group values makes you superior to a diver who is perhaps much more experienced.

My take on this is that it has little do to with diving and everything to do with differring value systems and the need for some people to find quick acceptance in a group and quick affirmation of their skills and abilities as a diver. This works fine as long as the false sense of security and perhaps arrogance do not get the diver in way over their head. When things get tough, Bull$hit, slogans, and a lot of C-cards without a commensurate amount of real world experience is not going cut it.

GUE values actual assessment of ability and skill over number of dives.

It is my understanding that GUE as a teaching organization found that many divers with a great deal of experience cannot adequately perform what GUE defines as basic dive skills. This was discovered when people showed up to take cave 1 or tech 1, with hundreds or thousands of dives in their log books, and many if not most could not do such things as share air while maintaining neutral buoyancy. The Fundamentals class was introduced to ensure that divers taking GUE training in tech or cave diving could perform the basic foundation skills necessary to even undertake those courses.

GUE concluded that experience, in and of itself, was not a valid predictor of the skill level of a diver. Many participants in the Fundamentals classes can attest that despite years of experience, they were unable to meet the class requirements for performing dive skills.

The skill set taught in a Fundamentals class is well-defined, capable of reasonably objective measurement of success, and generally accepted as a valid paradigm for superior diving performance. IOW, if you pass Fundamentals, you are probably a pretty decent diver.

Just because a diver has undertaken GUE training does not make the diver "superior." What matters is actual diving ability. Performing up to the GUE requirements generally requires considerable practice and repetition. Few would find that passing even Fundamentals is "quick". Experience is certainly not discounted: GUE emphasizes that divers must practice skills and actively dive in challenging environments to gain experience and skill.

Contrary to your assertion, GUE training has everything to do with diving. In this respect, GUE is as far from "Bull$hit, slogans, and a lot of C-cards" as anything in the dive industry.

If "independence, personal choice and flexibility" is more important to you than actual diving ability, then GUE training is not for you. If you believe that experience, any experience, is more important than actual ability, then GUE and DIR are not for you.