If you have to ask, you're not ready to solo......?

[H2Andy]

Women are often better divers, of course some are dumb as rocks.

i would love to meet these women. hopefully they'll be filthy rich and without
access to competent legal counsel too.

 

[Cacia]

ugh.....

 

[Vayu]

This thread is about solo diving not about girls.

 

[Cacia]

Solo diving is something you should not attempt if you have even the slightest doubt in your abilities.

I doubt myself every time I solo. What do I doubt? I have doubts that I will remember every important thing while taking pictures. I have doubts about what I will do if an o-ring blows. I wonder if I will navigate correctly, and I wonder if my mind will race with bad thoughts on my stop when I am alone, waiting for time to pass. I have some doubts about if the boat will be where I want it to be when I surface.

Anybody who has surfaced to not see the boat will always have that little lingering doubt....it is so nice when you see it.

there...we are back on topic.

 

[grazie42]

Originally Posted by catherine96821:
that is what fascinates me about risk assessment, it changes how you dive.--that is the real entertaining part for many of us. Operating successfully in the "grey zone" is fun. You have to weigh out everything...there is no protocol.
I get a thrill if I go to the engine room, on air, and get some 'okay" shots, safely. I factor in not to try and shoot manual and do that though--I would be overloaded. That sort of thing...calculating what you are capable of.

I too am "grey". I reevaluate the choices I make after every dive. Sometimes I am too close to the "edge" and sometimes too far from it and I adjust accordingly. In some areas I am more conservative now than I was 100 dives ago, in some less. The way I evaluate the relative risk of something changes as I gather more "data points" and personal real-world experience. I wouldn´t dive any other way.

The only texts that I have read about riskassesment related to diving, have been techoriented, I think it´s a shame that the only advice in that area recdivers are given is "if it feels bad then don´t do it"...

 

[vkalia]

There is a critical difference in saying "often better" and "better".

If we want to start splittiing hairs, there are 2 parts to the statement.

One is a statement that there *is* a link between the two. This is equivalent to "saying Africans are good marathoners because of their lung capacity...."

The other is the prevalence (or strength, if you will), of this link - "all women", "all Africans", "90% women", "60% Peruvians" or whatever.

I will repeat myself - I am not discussing the prevalence of this link. Whether it is 100%, or 90% or XX% does NOT matter. What is being disputed is the very existence of that link. So the question of whether it is "often" or "all" is irrelevant.

Disputing the fact that there is no link between the two doesnt imply that the prevalence of the link is 100%. If we are going to split hairs, lets atleast do it right.

Bothered by specious logic,
Vandit

 

[Cacia]

by 'link" are you meaning a positive correlation?

 

[vkalia]

In your opinion, is there any casual or contributory link between being male and being a better diver?

Dunno about that, but in my opinion, there is *certainly* a contributory link between not reading the entire thread and asking silly questions that have already been explicitly answered

(I am writing this with a smile, so dont take offense, Thomas. I am just a very sarcastic ba$tard, what can I say? )

Vandit

 

[Cacia]

well, there is a correlation between sarcasm and bastar.dlyness though, right? I usually reserve "link" for genetics.

 

[vkalia]

by 'link" are you meaning a positive correlation?

Zigackly...

If one is going to make an assertion that women often are better divers, that implies a reasonably high coefficient of correlation. It doesnt have to be 1, but presumably it is more than 0.01 or something low like that.

I dont buy into the fact that this correlation exists to any significant degree. And disputing this correlation doesnt imply that Walter said the correlation was 1.

Anyway, my point was not to argue whether or not the correlation exists. I merely wanted to put out an alternative viewpoint that is based on a wee bit of diving experience. Bless you for putting this in mathematical terms, which makes it easy for me to clarify my point and move on.

Now, about my question on wideangles vs fisheyes on the photography forum

El math geek,
Vandit