Etymology of the word 'Stroke'

[NudeDiver]

When you're doing extreme stuff...

Have a protocol. That's great. Have a system that works. That's great too. Be conservative - change only when required. Even greater. But - again - addressing the perspective has described a few posts ago - being completely unwilling to discuss foreign ideas or the rationale behind one's own ideas is not a goal I should aspire to or a state of being that I have much respect for.

 

[NudeDiver]

I think that some of the DIR people got very tired of recovering bodies and seeing people getting killed or hurt by engaging in activities (procedures and gear utilization)
that they felt was clearly inferior. They tried hard to disseminate the reasons why certain things were not as good as others and attempted to enlighten people as to what was required of an individual, of a team and also what equipment was more likely to "get-you-out-alive". I don't think that they put forth arbitrary standards without a lot of experience and good reasons.

That's great...but it completely misses the point I am getting at.

 

[NudeDiver]

....Get where the term comes from?

No. I have no idea what this post has to do with the discussion at hand. But that's OK

 

[LIVES4SHARKS]

I have learned a great deal in my short dive career by diving with those who take the sport very seriously. They have made me a munch better diver as a result. Those people were cave and/ or DIR trained divers. From what I understand who they call strokes, it's those people who talk the talk...but when you drop them in for the dive, they cannot handle themselves; ie, no buoyancy control, a ton of gear that has no real relevance, cannot navigate, have no buddy awareness, or hold stops without holding onto a line for dear life. They are the ones that blah blah blah about how many hundreds of dives they have done, but they are the diver that is WALKING on the bottom and destroying everything their fins come into contact with. I think a stroke has a broad range and can encompass a number of different types of divers that we all encounter. For me, the stroke is the person I pray to God I don't get paired up with, but who I tend to keep my eye on because he is the one most likely to have trouble.

Carolyn:shark2:

 

[Thalassamania]

Have a protocol. That's great. Have a system that works. That's great too. Be conservative - change only when required. Even greater. But - again - addressing the perspective has described a few posts ago - being completely unwilling to discuss foreign ideas or the rationale behind one's own ideas is not a goal I should aspire to or a state of being that I have much respect for.

Who ever suggested that anyone is unwilling to discuss anything at all? I sure never did. I just will not discuss it in the midst of an operation. Anyone who would, or would tolerate such a discussion at such a time is a fool. Everything has its time and place.

That's great...but it completely misses the point I am getting at.

Okay, what is the point your getting at?

No. I have no idea what this post has to do with the discussion at hand. But that's OK

Read the OP?

 

[LIVES4SHARKS]

A funny thing I happen to Google:

Stroke-test


This is a fun test of your ability to discern a "stroke" within the DIR philosophy. Have Fun!

Carolyn:shark2:

 

[seaducer]

Who ever suggested that anyone is unwilling to discuss anything at all? I sure never did.

Actually, I thought you did you say that when you said:

Parker was always willing to explain why he wanted something done a certain way. He was also (usually) willing to listen to changes in protocol assuming that you'd already tried it his way at least once. What Paker couldn't stand was the guys who would wander into his operation and tell him, "That's not the way we do it up in Jersey. Why when I was diving on the ...".

It sounded to me like you were saying Parker didn't want to hear any contradictory ideas, except on his own limited terms. My own comments were just to say if I am on a team, I expect to be a full member and have my thoughts and ideas respected, not sumarily dismissed because of some ego or prejudice. My talents and expertise were enough to get me invited, take advantage of them. If I am team leader, I expect everyone on the team to participate in planning, and I want to hear any and all thoughts, especially those counter to what I am thinking. If I do not respect you, you won't be there in the first place. Team leader has the final veto.

I just will not discuss it in the midst of an operation. Anyone who would, or would tolerate such a discussion at such a time is a fool. Everything has its time and place.

Ah, clarification. No, I would not offer up as a member nor entertain as a leader contrary ideas during a mission either, unless the turds were flying and the original plan was out the window and we were making things up as we go. No, you are correct, planning and debriefing are the time for ideas, missions are the time to implement what was approved.

 

[Gombessa]

It sounded to me like you were saying Parker didn't want to hear any contradictory ideas.

That's way too much of a blanket statement, and nobody suggested anything so broad. Let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples here:

My own comments were just to say if I am on a team, I expect to be a full member and have my thoughts and ideas respected, not sumarily dismissed because of some ego or prejudice.

These are not team members being summarily dismissed. These were guys more or less coming out of the blue claiming they had the chops to join in on the dives the WKPP was doing, when after hearing about their experience and skill level, (in Parker's opinion) they clearly were not prepared.

My talents and expertise were enough to get me invited, take advantage of them.

Again, not the same situation. If you were on a WKPP team, it stands to reason that you were there for a purpose, and your contributions were welcomed and appreciated. If you were not invited and not part of the team and just showed up expecting to be welcomed with open arms by virtue of being you, you were likely to be disappointed. If you don't agree with the last sentence (hey, what if a Diving God showed up at the door, right? You wouldn't want to dismiss a real-life Diving God, would you?), that's a valid opinion you're definitely entitled to hold and defend, but it's not the same thing as saying that members of the team were not allowed opinions or contributions.

If I am team leader, I expect everyone on the team to participate in planning, and I want to hear any and all thoughts, especially those counter to what I am thinking.

From what I've heard about how the WKPP planned dives, this is exactly what they would expect, too. If you were on the team, you contributed your knowledge and talents. If you didn't, there's no reason for you to be there.

In short, I don't see anything you posted above that is directly contradictory to how Parker or the WKPP ran things. Once you proved you had the ability, motivation and team ethic, once you were invited, and once you became a member of the team, your thoughts and experiences would be welcome, and your contributions commensurate with your experience would be part of the planning of the dive.

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

Have a protocol. That's great. Have a system that works. That's great too. Be conservative - change only when required. Even greater. But - again - addressing the perspective has described a few posts ago - being completely unwilling to discuss foreign ideas or the rationale behind one's own ideas is not a goal I should aspire to or a state of being that I have much respect for.

So who specifically is unwilling to discuss foreign ideas or a rationale behind their own ideas?

I'm sorry to single you out with my question, but I am reading an awful lot of what I would call "hearsay" in this thread. I wholeheartedly agree with you hypothetically. I would not dive with someone who was not interested in answering questions or explaining what was behind their protocol.

That being said, so far I have not had that experience with divers from any specific agency or sub-culture. Divers trained by TDI, IANTD, GUE, NAUI, and yes even PADI have been more than willing to explain why they do what they do and contrast it with other approaches.

Have you personally had a different experience?

 

[zen_man]

There is a time and place for individuality and for being a supportive member on a team or working as a unit. No one is trying to take your individuality away from you, as a diver or as a person.

Having said that, I think it is very important to look at the task at hand. 3,000 ft into a cave, or deep diving requiring decompression, is NOT the place to be making your own choices out of protocol that could drastically affect the team as a whole.

I think TSandM's post regarding OR protocol and procedures is a fantastic example. If I had to have an operation done, I would not want people suddenly deciding to give the doctor their opinions on changing a procedure or protocol while I'm laying on the slab. Again, protocols have been put in place for specific reasons, not just made up out of thin air. If they see a way that they think could make something more efficient, they should discuss it in a meeting amongst themselves at an appropriate time. But while I'm on the table, the DR with my life in their hands makes the decisions, period. THAT is not up for discussion to me and should not be with the DR either. This analogy really fits with diving as your life can be dependent on you buddy and the team doing what is expected of them given the task at hand.

Nobody wants to dive with a know-it-all, want-to-be cyber diver that won't listen to anyone but him or herself. I think everyone here agrees with that. However, it is important to listen and learn from others that truly have more knowledge and experience than oneself in a given subject. Give them the respect that you would like them to give you, and if they are that knowledgeable, they will explain the how and why at the appropriate time.

Buck :zen: