I think there must be regional differences in diving culture, because I see none of the negative behavior described so far around SE Asia. Sidemount has proven quite popular here, both for rec and tech, but there is little/no bickering about kit and configuration.
Come dive in Subic Bay and you'll see boats containing GUE divers, olde-school European tech types and sidemount divers all getting along in a happy, rust-covered, bliss.
I think in diving there are new approaches that come along and initially create an element of division in the community. This is all personality and ego based, on both sides.... and, I believe, it is more prevalent online than it ever is in real life. When the initial fuss dies down, the community moves forwards in status-quo until the 'next big thing' comes along.
If a diver has enough experience to have been through these divisions, once or more, they understand that process and tend not to involve themselves in it. The characters most heavily involved in 'fundamentalist' opinions, in either camp, are typically those for whom the new approach is the first shift in status-quo they've experienced.
The new approach generates 'neophytes' and 'zealots' who feel compelled to publicly champion the approach, its founders and/or see it as an evolution that consigns former approaches to the past. By merit of their involvement with the approach, there is an element of 'stolen glory' in some mindsets; where they view the approach as superior, thereby making them superior. Superiority by association. Some people do need to feel superior. What they are celebrating is actually themselves, not the actual approach they've associated with.
In contrast, the new approach also generates entrenched opposition. This is typical 'change management' stuff. There will be those who view the new approach as a threat and become entrenched philosophically in defense of the old status quo; that they know and understand. This can lead to public dismissal, fault-finding and, even, hostility to the new approach. Again, for some, there is an element of ego involved, where they previously associated superiority to the old approach and by, transference, superiority in themselves. The new approach threatens that situation and their position, as they see it, at the cutting-edge of diving.
Very typical
threat versus
opportunity from an ego perspective.
Those who don't care about 'superiority' merely engage in assessment of pros and cons, costs and benefits, risks versus rewards; or the practical issues for implementation. They are often a moderating influence between the two polarities described above. The peacemakers, the observers and fact-finders.
The polarized factions do the arguing, but the observers tend to be the ones who establish the eventual community consensus. Both have their roles in the evolution.
New approaches also go through internal schisms en-route to a stable status-quo. Even within one faction, there will be dissent and disagreement on sub-factors and minor issues.
These 'internal' schisms tend to be about forming a general consensus,as part of establishing status quo. They start only once the new approach has begun to justify itself externally.
The 'internal' schisms tend to start deep, but get shallower; as consensus is gradually formed. The issues contested get smaller and smaller, as broad-brush factors become agreed. However, these 'internal' schisms still attract zealots and neophytes, which slows the process of debate and agreement. However, the inertia of consensus that these more entrenched objectionists cause also has the positive effect of ensuring that every last, small aspect of an issue is scrutinized under a microscope.
Personally, I see this all as a normal process of evolution. The same happens outside of diving, in many facets of life. Change brings upheaval and polarizes people to vary degrees. Some people will always be more polarized than others.
However, the process of philosophical and/or practical evolution depends on these polarizing factors as a means to determine the relative merits of things old and new. Very few of us are truly unbiased. Polarization of opinion, both ways, runs along a scale from minor to extreme; and the consequent emotional investment and sense of identification that people demonstrate on a given issue are reflected in that scale of polarization and the level to which concepts are scrutinized.
Pick any facet of human life and we see the same patterns and behaviors. Religion, politics, science, nationalism, race, science fiction genres etc etc etc The same pattern of varied extremity of polarization occurs, the same nature of arguments, the same spectrum of emotions and objectives.
I think it's just part of being human. It's how we, as a species, attempt to reach a status quo and why we very rarely do. It's also why we don't still live in caves. If the process didn't occur then we'd undoubtedly all be a little happier; let's all "
agree to disagree" and "
each to their own", but the end result would be stagnation,not evolution.
To be honest, those who campaign for an "
each to their own" approach can be equally as polarized as the zealots and entrenched. They are, after all, merely presenting their own agenda and perspective somewhere along that scale of polarization. However, unlike the zealots or entrenched, they are often less self-aware that they are presenting a specific agenda and notion to the community. They can be as self-righteous and vociferous as anyone else.
Process by squabbling... oh, what alien observers must think of our species
Decide where on the scale you stand. Try to understand your motivations and reasons for that position. Understand that others sit differently on the scale. Try to understand their position also; and how it shapes their perspectives, motivations and behavior. Engage in the process as much, or as little, as you are motivated to do so. Observe or ignore instead, if that make you more comfortable.
It is what it is. Everyone has role to play and each role is important. The one constant is that nothing is going to change our human behaviors except a very long process of evolution:
