Read JJ's book - What's all the fuss about?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

*Floater*:
However, after taking DIR-F I changed my mind mainly because most computers don't have the best, most cutting edge deco algorithms whereas one's brain may.

For example, some of them will punish you for reverse profiles, whereas I was taught in DIR-F to do the shallowest dive first and that after that it doesn't matter whether I dive reverse or forward profiles.
Internet DIR and real DIR aren't always the same. If we question "Internet DIR", is someone "anti-DIR"?

Is it anti-DIR to question Floater's assertion, posted 5 posts above, and not questioned by anyone else, that "I was taught in DIR-F to do the shallowest dive first and that after that is doesn't matter whether I dive reverse or forward profiles"?

Is it anti-DIR to question his statement in another thread, that surface intervals "are not required if you did a proper DIR ascent and are in good shape, etc. At least that's what I was taught in DIR-F. " ?
http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=129445

If questioning statements like this is anti-DIR, then I am.
 
Charlie99:
If questioning statements like this is anti-DIR, then I am.
Its not.
 
Charlie99:
Internet DIR and real DIR aren't always the same. If we question "Internet DIR", is someone "anti-DIR"?

Is it anti-DIR to question Floater's assertion, posted 5 posts above, and not questioned by anyone else, that "I was taught in DIR-F to do the shallowest dive first and that after that is doesn't matter whether I dive reverse or forward profiles"?

Is it anti-DIR to question his statement in another thread, that surface intervals "are not required if you did a proper DIR ascent and are in good shape, etc. At least that's what I was taught in DIR-F. " ?
http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=129445

If questioning statements like this is anti-DIR, then I am.

Initially I assumed all GUE trained divers were more or less on the same page about these things, but not anymore. That's why I was careful not to call it the GUE algorithm or the DIR algorithm, just what I was taught in DIR-F.

About the shallowest dive first, here's what George Irvine has to say for what it's worth: "Otherwise, repetitive diving is a good thing, and you should do your shallower dive first and then your deeper one. The stupidity taught in that regard is beyond the pale."

Now back the point of my original post: People who've read JJ's book may not be convinced to leave their computers into gauge mode because the book doesn't offer a good alternative imo and no one wants to go back to table diving the way we were taught in OW. However, once you take DIR-F you may (or may not) be taught some alternative method to following the computer, and you may end up preferring that method to the computer.
 
Meng_Tze:
I bet JJ and GI3 are laughing their heads off at these sort of things.

Something I realized after diving with JJ for a weekend, was that he has a great sense of humor.
 
xiSkiGuy:
I just finished reading Jarrod Jablonski's Doing It Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving. What is all the fuss about? If this is the basic textbook and blueprint to the DIR philosophy of diving, why are so many people upset with DIR?

I didn't come away from reading the book sensing any holier-than-thou attitude on the part of the author. Did I miss the chapter on str*kes? All I found was some well thought out reasoning for certain gear configurations and techniques. Hell, as I read it, JJ did even say computers were *that* bad, just that their introduction had prompted many people to stop teaching/questioning tables and deco theory. I took it that computers were more of a symptom of the "dumbing down" of scuba instruction in general than an evil unto themselves.

The discussion gear configuration wasn't even as "inflexible" is many had lead me to believe (although I didn't quite agree with the bondage wing" discussion).

I wish there had been a little more info about the team approach and DIR buddy system. I guess they have to leave some stuff for the class. Where is the closest place to NC to take a Fundies course?


Well....

Elitism and arrogance are as primary to human nature as greed and violence. Unfortunately for DIR, many of it's most fervent followers (and some of their leaders!) see (saw?) themselves as the inventors of diving as opposed to the obvious, which is that DIR was simply a long over-due summary of what we know works....

JJ (who I don't know personally other than a few exchanges on the internet) almost invariably comes across as a balanced reasonable person who respects others (that's not to say he's an angel, as we all know.......). But others were less gracious. Less socially adept, less accepting of dissension...... the backdrop of the discussion became overshadowed by the two grand masters of DIR....the Yin and Yang of diving world. The balanced and the unbalanced....

Unfortunately for all of us, what goes around comes around and elitism and arrogance is not limited to those who think of themselves as the torch bearers of diving wisdom, but is also the weakness of those who feel threatened, challenged and insulted by some of the changes suggested (mandated) by the DIR paradigm.

And so ensues the fight.....the war.....the pitting of change against resistance, paradigm against prejudice, principle against practice....

And the war was not pretty. There were no innocent victims; most of use chose a side, a loyalty.... and the throwing of the first stone began on many fronts.... brothers and sisters united in a unique and shared passion were divided by our standpoints. Discussions became heated, then overheated and melted down....Death threats were made, hatred was grown and aversion coddled until the camps stabilized and the enemy could be identified by the length of their hose, their choice of gear, and the colour of their mask skirt.... On two sides. Nobody innocent....nobody guilty....few willing to take responsibility.... and a precious few willing to make amends.... Some have never grown beyond this common shame.

10 years ago this was the state of the DIR discussion and that's the context in which a book that seems obvious when you read it today started to take shape. Things that seem like simple observations now would have been taken like hammer blows when Jablonski was putting his ideas to paper. A suggestion in 2006 would have been taken as proof of arrogance in 1996.

In 1996 a post like this would have gotten me lynched. Today it probably won't even be moderated.....

So that's your context.

R..
 
Charlie99:
Is it anti-DIR to question Floater's assertion, posted 5 posts above, and not questioned by anyone else, that "I was taught in DIR-F to do the shallowest dive first and that after that is doesn't matter whether I dive reverse or forward profiles"?
The latest diving research seems to indicate that reverse profiles are generally not a problem for recreational dives where the difference in depth is not more than 40 feet. This has been discussed extensively on SB the last couple of years - just do a search on "reverse profiles", and you will turn up over 100 threads, several of them current and active. Even DAN has endorsed these findings - in fact, they were one of the sponsors of the symposium where the research results were presented.

So it's not just "Floater's assertion", it's actually a lot of people's.

Floater:
Charlie99:
Is it anti-DIR to question his statement in another thread, that surface intervals "are not required if you did a proper DIR ascent and are in good shape, etc. At least that's what I was taught in DIR-F. "?
Initially I assumed all GUE trained divers were more or less on the same page about these things, but not anymore. That's why I was careful not to call it the GUE algorithm or the DIR algorithm, just what I was taught in DIR-F.
I think it depends on what course they took and when they were trained. The DIR-F course in particular has gone through extensive revision the last few years. A couple of our DIR-Atlanta guys took it in 2003, before it was a certification class, and neither one of them can recall being taught about surface intervals. They do remember a rather protracted discussion on "average depth", though (or was it "just contradiction"). :wink:

One of our guys knows the instructor who taught your course (Martin Lorenzo) by reputation, and seems to think that he is a pretty good instructor - very knowledgeable and dedicated. I am sure that he gave you the most accurate information that was available at the time you took your course. What you learned may not necessarily extend to other students in other courses, however. Curricula change, different instructors may emphasize different things, and then of course it's all filtered by the student (and their understanding of what they heard) before it's relayed to you. That's not necessarily a problem with GUE or any of its instructors - it's just the nature of the educational process.
 
DIR-Atlanta:
I'm curious - what's wrong with the GUE standard gases?
I think you might've misunderstood what Floater was getting at. I seriously doubt he has any problem with the standard gasses. :D IMO, he was just implying that not everyone interested in making the transition may be on board with standard gasses yet, and making some points based on that possibility.
 
Mo2vation:
I knew I was missing one.

Thanks for having my back... :10:


---
Ken

how does this look as a taxonomy of anti-DIR arguments:

1. the name issue
2. the gear issues
- "i love my jacket BC / console / computer / etc"
- "i can do backkicks in splitfins"
- "wrap a hose around your neck?"
- etc
3. the halcyon / DIR / JJ conspiracy theory issue
4. the "cave/tech gear forced on open water divers" issue
5. the jerk issues
- GI3
- the jerk DIR diver at a divesite myth
6. the "buddy dependent DIR diver" myth
7. people who dive differently who don't want to change (plus #1,#2,#5,etc)
- different gas management / rock bottom
- solo divers (usually with #6)
- CCR rebreather divers
- the 'friend of sheck' / 'diving since before you were born' crowd
8. the idiotic issues
- black gear
 
lamont:
how does this look as a taxonomy of anti-DIR arguments:

1. the name issue
2. the gear issues
- "i love my jacket BC / console / computer / etc"
- "i can do backkicks in splitfins"
- "wrap a hose around your neck?"
- etc
3. the halcyon / DIR / JJ conspiracy theory issue
4. the "cave/tech gear forced on open water divers" issue
5. the jerk issues
- GI3
- the jerk DIR diver at a divesite myth
6. the "buddy dependent DIR diver" myth
7. people who dive differently who don't want to change (plus #1,#2,#5,etc)
- different gas management / rock bottom
- solo divers (usually with #6)
- CCR rebreather divers
- the 'friend of sheck' / 'diving since before you were born' crowd
8. the idiotic issues
- black gear
One of those is a repeat/summary... I'll let you decide which. :wink:
 
http://cavediveflorida.com/Rum_House.htm

Back
Top Bottom