DiverBuoy:
I really don't know you, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume for now that we can still be the best of friends. So brushing over any apparent personal attacks I'll focus on your rebuttal.
Personal attacks? Nah, there were no personal attacks intended whatsoever (I used up all my aggression on rec.scuba when I was in my 20s
). Sorry if it came across that way - I tend to have a somewhat cynical/sarcastic natural writing style, no offense intended. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt
All I stated in my point was negative reinforcement doesn't go half as far as positive reinforcement.
And my point is that IMO, you cannot make blanket assertions like that. Mostly, positive reinforcement does make it more enjoyable to learn, but in some instances, not conveying what happens if they *dont* follow the rules is more powerful (and important for the diver to know).
Hypothetically, let's say if you perform behavior A, you get a benefit of 5/100. On the other hand, if you dont perform behavior A, you get a negative benefit (or damage) of -70/100. If you stress *only* the positive reinforcement, you dont convey the entire picture. Maybe someone feels he will get a benefit of 20/100 by not doing behavior A ... what then? Unless he knows about the negative aspect, there is nothing preventing him from doing so.
Sometimes, the biggest reason "WHY" is "it prevents you from significantly increasing your chances of getting hurt". This tends to glossed over significantly with modern-day training. This leads to divers who are not fully aware of the risks of not following the proper procedures - and lets face it: there are *lots* of people who, given a chance, dive without properly checking to see if their buddy is nearby, who dont always pay attention to briefings, who go off on their own, etc.
Take diving with a buddy. Yes, you can stress that it makes diving safer, more fun and more enjoyable (that's answer D on the exams, innit?). That's nice - until some guy thinks "I'll have more fun by myself." I did that - went off solo on my 8th dive overall (I was a classic example of someone who *needed* to be reined in). OTOH, tell the same guy all the above, and add the fact that virtually every serious diver incident has involved buddy separation somewhere in the whole thing, and all they have to do to prevent that is stay with a buddy -- *now* we are getting somewhere. Now the diver knows why and why not, as well. That's an *informed* diver. I like informed divers.
As trainers, it is our responsibility to give student divers a *balanced picture* - and that includes talking about the risks, what can increase the chances of bad things happening and how to prevent them.
Lastly, what is effective for one person may not be effective for another. I dare say we get a very different profile of diver than you - and that may also affect our opinions.
I had to laugh a bit when I read your comments about speaking with soft tone and a smile. The first image that came to my mind was a pet owner saying in a soft sweet voice to their puppy "you stupid woopid mutty wutty, you are smelly welly and you make me want to pukey wookie, yes you do, yes you do, wes oo doo, wittle puppy wuppy." Works for dogs not people.
Ummm... ok. And it is with a smile, not soft tone. I dont think I do soft tones...
In conclusion I'd like to place things into perspective ... you expressed a view, I expressed a dissenting view, there was nothing more to it. I guess we can agree to disagree on a few things.
Well, we can indeed agree to disagree. I know where you are coming from, and for the most part, I agree with it. I just think there are a few instances where you need to stress what happens if you dont as well as what happens if you do.
And if I am ever in your neck of the woods, I'll pick up the tab for a beer or three, even.
Happy diving,
Vandit
PS: I suggest if we want to continue this discussion, we start a new thread in the I2I forum, rather than hijacking this post further.
