The Reduction Funnel and the Rule of Thirds

[sigxbill]

Great theory, and so true - I like the name too

 

[Daedalus]

Richard Feynman described it better when he called it Cargo Cult Science.

 

[Bob DBF]

Following and reducing standards has been the culture of padi ever since I started observing them.

And your reaction is evidence that you don't understand the point of his post. At no point are standards reduced by PADI, in fact they are increased by adding gas planning. The nature of instructors is to have their students pass, and by teaching to the test they narrow the instruction rather than expand it.

UDT may not have the problem now, however if the future has a massive increase of students, the same problem will have to be dealt with, that is if it is not happening already. Ridged rules are the clue.


Bob
------------------
who never thought he would defend @boulderjohn, or PADI.

 

[tursiops]

I find it interesting that John posted this. The first four paragraphs were interesting to me - because I have also thought this to be true in life - and especially in scuba. The perplexing part of this is that John doesn't see this in the macro sense when it comes to agencies.

Just like John noticed in life, and in his example of the school district, the same happens in scuba training. John calls it the "Reduction Funnel". I call it "Agency Culture."

Take any sport - especially ones that involve at least one piece of equipment - like motocross, golf, cycling, auto racing, etc. A small company - an innovator - what I call a 'leader', comes up with a integrated approach, add on product, or new process, and provides a competitive advantage - that eventually the big companies follow in a 'watered down' fashion - like John's school district did when they applied a 'leader organization's' complete "minimal, standardized, consistent, scalable and interchangeable approach" to writing and bastardized it into rigid school district (follower organization) policy (quote from UTD Ethos). Same thing happens in many industries, like when the 'leader organization's" (Pro Circuit Racing) idea gets adopted by big company like Honda, or when a likeness of the original product ends up in Walmart - but without the original functionality or ability to integrate into the original process.

In scuba training, some agencies are leaders, and others are followers. I recognize the language of "John's" (LOL) gas planning to be the Reduced Funnel version of the gas planning he learned in UTD - which in this case would be the 'leader organization'. I call John's gas planning analysis and submission a 'micro' point of view - since he only sees the "Reduction Funnel" from him down within padi. I see a broader 'macro' view - because I see where 'his' gas planning, buoyancy, etc., analyzation and resulting padi standards suggestions came from - I see an 'Agency Culture' point of view.

I find it interesting that John seems surprised that the 'follower' organization (padi), that he imagines he is someone special in, has applied the "Reduction Funnel" to 'his' (LOL) gas planning addition to their ow course! John should not be surprised by the padi reduction funnel. Padi is a large organization, and like many large organizations - they are followers, not leaders. Following and reducing standards has been the culture of padi ever since I started observing them.

John is obviously an excellent writer and critical thinker, so I enjoy reading his posts. Why John opts to be a part of a Reduction Funnel culture is beyond me. Maybe it makes him feel important when he influences a small change - like one question out of context on an ow test - but it must be frustrating at the same time.

I think it is a waste of John's talent that he doesn't align himself with a 'leader' organization. It is unfortunate his falling out with UTD. Since he can't see the integrated "minimal, standardized, consistent, scalable and interchangeable approach" of UTD, constructively I think his efforts would be best suited to influence maybe TDI (another 'leader' - but with a reduction funnel approach that I think is better suited to John), but not padi.

I have to assume this entire post is sarcasm, because otherwise it would be deleted in the Basic Scuba Discussions forum as inappropriate personal criticism.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I really don't consider this true shore diving (just me, I know). Shore diving to me is a dive that allows you to exit the water anywhere along the water/land interface - most (though not all) dives on Bonaire for example.

Almost all of Puget Sound diving is shore diving ... and almost all of Puget Sound shoreline is private property, so you can't exit the water anywhere (even if it's physically possible, which is often not the case). On many popular dive sites there is a small, well-defined area that is public access ... usually embedded between two residential properties with large "No Trespassing" signs posted near the water's edge.

Generally speaking, you exit where you entered ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I find it interesting that John posted this. The first four paragraphs were interesting to me - because I have also thought this to be true in life - and especially in scuba. The perplexing part of this is that John doesn't see this in the macro sense when it comes to agencies.

Just like John noticed in life, and in his example of the school district, the same happens in scuba training. John calls it the "Reduction Funnel". I call it "Agency Culture."

Take any sport - especially ones that involve at least one piece of equipment - like motocross, golf, cycling, auto racing, etc. A small company - an innovator - what I call a 'leader', comes up with a integrated approach, add on product, or new process, and provides a competitive advantage - that eventually the big companies follow in a 'watered down' fashion - like John's school district did when they applied a 'leader organization's' complete "minimal, standardized, consistent, scalable and interchangeable approach" to writing and bastardized it into rigid school district (follower organization) policy (quote from UTD Ethos). Same thing happens in many industries, like when the 'leader organization's" (Pro Circuit Racing) idea gets adopted by big company like Honda, or when a likeness of the original product ends up in Walmart - but without the original functionality or ability to integrate into the original process.

In scuba training, some agencies are leaders, and others are followers. I recognize the language of "John's" (LOL) gas planning to be the Reduced Funnel version of the gas planning he learned in UTD - which in this case would be the 'leader organization'. I call John's gas planning analysis and submission a 'micro' point of view - since he only sees the "Reduction Funnel" from him down within padi. I see a broader 'macro' view - because I see where 'his' gas planning, buoyancy, etc., analyzation and resulting padi standards suggestions came from - I see an 'Agency Culture' point of view.

I find it interesting that John seems surprised that the 'follower' organization (padi), that he imagines he is someone special in, has applied the "Reduction Funnel" to 'his' (LOL) gas planning addition to their ow course! John should not be surprised by the padi reduction funnel. Padi is a large organization, and like many large organizations - they are followers, not leaders. Following and reducing standards has been the culture of padi ever since I started observing them.

John is obviously an excellent writer and critical thinker, so I enjoy reading his posts. Why John opts to be a part of a Reduction Funnel culture is beyond me. Maybe it makes him feel important when he influences a small change - like one question out of context on an ow test - but it must be frustrating at the same time.

I think it is a waste of John's talent that he doesn't align himself with a 'leader' organization. It is unfortunate his falling out with UTD. Since he can't see the integrated "minimal, standardized, consistent, scalable and interchangeable approach" of UTD, constructively I think his efforts would be best suited to influence maybe TDI (another 'leader' - but with a reduction funnel approach that I think is better suited to John), but not padi.

Surely you don't believe that UTD invented its gas management strategy. I was teaching much of it in my NAUI AOW class before UTD ever existed ... back when AG was still Course Director for GUE. And I surely didn't invent any of it ... I picked up bits and pieces out of various classes I took from other agencies, including GUE, TDI, IANTD, and NAUI, and synthesized it down to what was a practical approach for local diving conditions. UTD, like GUE, took what was "common knowledge" at a certain level and standardized it into an approach that they could market. None of it was new ideas ... what made it valuable was how it fit with their overall diving approach.

There are no "follower" agencies ... each exists because it offers something different in terms of content or approach to what other agencies have to offer. But by your definition, UTD would also be a "follower" to GUE, since Andrew took most of his ideas from his experiences with that organization.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[bmorescuba]

The likelihood of the reduction funnel phenomenon ameliorating in diving is pretty low. With condensed OW courses, more online content, and less instructor face-to-face time, it will probably only become more pronounced. Given that, I think it's important to consider how much harm will be done by your particular instance, or by any instance. In your first example, there is potential for harm: since teachers were artificially constrained to teaching one style of writing, the students missed out. In the case of the rule of thirds, it is a more conservative approach than typical OW gas management strategies, so it's probably not going to do much harm. And let's say a student at the narrow end of the funnel learns - you must always use the rule of thirds - there's nothing preventing that student from investigating and reading on their own to expand their knowledge. That's one thing I love about scuba and one reason I don't get all the PADI bashing. Many people will only do a few dives ever or a few dives every couple years. They don't care about the theory. If instructors follow standards, these people should be able to dive relatively safely. For those who are more passionate, nothing about the system prevents you from learning more on your own. I was taught you had to have a snorkel, no MOF, deepest dive first, etc. That didn't prevent me from questioning these assumptions and researching them myself. Take another example - I've heard dive professionals tell people that nitrox will improve their bottom time, and the students assume it will help their gas consumption. This narrow-end-of-the-funnel statement really can be harmful. It's important not to conflate increased time at a depth with reduced consumption and not to sell nitrox as a magic gas - it can really confuse some people. So, maybe your observation about the reduction funnel could become part of the curricular design. You assume that the ideas will be simplified beforehand and you design the curriculum so that when it does become simplified, the simple ideas at least do no harm. The very first scuba class I took in the 80s had so much more theory and so many more practical exercises. I don't remember all of it, but I never forgot "Don't hold your breath".

 

[sigxbill]

Surely you don't believe that UTD invented its gas management strategy. I was teaching much of it in my NAUI AOW class before UTD ever existed ... back when AG was still Course Director for GUE. And I surely didn't invent any of it ... I picked up bits and pieces out of various classes I took from other agencies, including GUE, TDI, IANTD, and NAUI, and synthesized it down to what was a practical approach for local diving conditions. UTD, like GUE, took what was "common knowledge" at a certain level and standardized it into an approach that they could market. None of it was new ideas ... what made it valuable was how it fit with their overall diving approach.

There are no "follower" agencies ... each exists because it offers something different in terms of content or approach to what other agencies have to offer. But by your definition, UTD would also be a "follower" to GUE, since Andrew took most of his ideas from his experiences with that organization.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Bob

I enjoy your posts too - they are thoughtful and challenging. I also like "Grateful Diver" - as I think gratefulness is a valuable virtue that is not expressed enough in this world. I am grateful for your posts - LOL

-cheers

 

[huwporter]

Years ago, while I was teaching educational processes, I came up with a concept I called the Reduction Funnel, which I believe works in almost all avenues of life.

Wow - This is one of those things I've long been kinda half conscious of, but putting a name on it opens my eyes to how much this happens all around us, all the time. I've certainly experienced it myself, trying to communicate complex analysis to a business audience only to see my work rapidly reduced to one, maybe two, catchphrases with all nuance stripped away, applied or attacked wildly out of context.

Another example from diving for you - reverse profiles. Starts out simply as a suggestion for maximising bottom time for military divers, and ends up multiple generations later as a recreational dive rule so sacrosanct that dive boats will refuse to allow their customers to get back in the water after the slightest reverse profile violation.

When I was a new diver, backpacking around the world, I got in to a blistering argument with a young PADI instructor about reverse profiles where she absolutely could not get away from the idea that reverse profiles were utterly dangerous in all cases and with no exceptions, but could only justify it by saying that she was an instructor and I was only a lowly AOW so she was obviously right.

So yes, I can very easily see the rule of thirds becoming the same kind of thing a few generations down the line.

 

[boulderjohn]

Another example from diving for you - reverse profiles. Starts out simply as a suggestion for maximising bottom time for military divers, and ends up multiple generations later as a recreational dive rule so sacrosanct that dive boats will refuse to allow their customers to get back in the water after the slightest reverse profile violation.

I almost included that example. It is perfect.

Actually, a workshop studying that rule determined that the very first instance of it was a suggestion in the 1972 PADI manual. No one at PADI knew who put it there or why. It was almost certainly for the reason you cited--maximizing bottom time while minimizing surface intervals.