Unrepresentative profile "logged dive" numbers?

[BDSC]

See, I knew you wouldn't believe me.

 

[boulderjohn]

A number of years ago, several ScubaBoard veterans and I had a private discussion about this after there were some posts attacking people with large dive counts, saying they were using their "meaningless" large dive counts to justify their claims in an argument. "I've got lots more dives than you, so my opinion has more value than yours." Some of those friends took their dive counts off so they would not be accused of that.

At about that time, I experienced a curious version of that. It had been years since I had updated my dive counts on ScubaBoard, and they were listed at the 500-999 range, even though I had more than a 1,000 at the time. In a discussion, someone ridiculed my position on a topic because I only had 500 dives. I therefore updated my total to the accurate 1,000-2,499 range. That person noticed that, and attacked me for adding 2,000 dives overnight--"you went from 500 to 2,500 dives!" he said, obviously implying that I was lying. Realizing that math was not his strong suit, I carefully explained that going from the 500-999 range to the 1,000-2,499 range only required 1 dive, not 2,000. I am not sure he ever understood.

So that got me thinking, and I realized that whether or not it is valid, when encountering someone they don't know, some people really do look to the dive count as a measure of experience in judging the validity of an argument. Maybe it's wrong, but it truly is human nature. So if my dive count does add some tiny measure of what was called ethos in Greek rhetoric, then I might as well go for it. Aristotle felt it was valid--who am I to argue with him?

BTW, my count is accurate, and I know how painfully long it takes to accumulate real dive totals. Whenever I encounter someone who does not log dives estimating his or her total, I silently deduct a large percentage. I sure seems to me that I have made a heck of a lot more dives than my records show, and I figure the same is likely to be true of others.

 

[MargaritaMike]

3 dives a day for 100 years is dedicated indeed.

Just to get 100,000 it would take 3 dives every day for only 91 years 4 months 6 days not 100 years. Give him a break! AND the award for the world's oldest diver!
Cheers - M²

 

[MaxBottomtime]

And since there were no certifying agencies 91 years ago he had to make many of those dives before modern scuba gear was invented. I'm guessing it is more likely nine dives every day for thirty years. If you include any days when conditions were bad or he was ill, it could be as much as many as twenty dives per day. That makes more sense.

 

[MargaritaMike]

And since there were no certifying agencies 91 years ago he had to make many of those dives before modern scuba gear was invented. I'm guessing it is more likely nine dives every day for thirty years. If you include any days when conditions were bad or he was ill, it could be as much as many as twenty dives per day. That makes more sense.

Of course! Silly me. There I go again removing doubt.
Cheers - M²

 

[scubadada]

3 dives a day for 100 years is dedicated indeed.

Don't exaggerate, it's only a little over 91 years, unless @BDSC took some days off

Of course, @MaxBottomtime is correct with regard to modern equipment. Say he got certified in 1954 by LA County, he would only have to do 4-5 dives/day for the 63 years, much more believeable

 

[northernone]

Just stopping in to share a story. I have a friend. She works at a resort as an instructor. Has for 11 years. She does between 5-6 groups of DSD divers daily and works 6 days per week. 10 month high season. That's a two dive experience DSD package. She had to keep track of the number of groups for stats. She's well past 30,000 dives...

I'd like to suggest the 'quality' of the dive is important as well as the number. But I don't quickly discount unusually high dive counts... Just shows me someone has done something very unusual... Either with their math, criteria or even perhaps their lifestyle.

Cameron

 

[MaxBottomtime]

Which is one reason I don't count class dives or pool sessions. I know it's my logbook and I can count whatever I want, but I've only counted dives I've made for my own enjoyment, not ones where I had to watch students.

 

[BDSC]

A number of years ago, several ScubaBoard veterans and I had a private discussion about this after there were some posts attacking people with large dive counts, saying they were using their "meaningless" large dive counts to justify their claims in an argument. "I've got lots more dives than you, so my opinion has more value than yours." Some of those friends took their dive counts off so they would not be accused of that.

That's why I changed from posting my dive count to "I don't log dives". I got caught up in something similar.

Not even sure why I posted my real dive count of 100,000 because all of you already know how smart I am!

 

[boulderjohn]

That's why I changed from posting my dive count to "I don't log dives". I got caught up in something similar.

But I do log dives, so writing that would be lying. If there is one thing I have learned in my 13 years on ScubaBoard, it is that when people lie, with even the silliest little thing, their ultimate credibility takes a hit when it is discovered. If I were to talk about my dive logging procedures, as I have done in a number of threads while my profile says that I don't log dives, someone would be sure to point that out. I absolutely do not lie about anything on ScubaBoard because my reputation means a lot. I do make mistakes, and when I do, I admit them.

As for "I'm a fish, I don't know what that means, and I think it implies more than is my case. There are people with thousands more dives than I have. I have also noted that in the case of many of the people who use that phrase, I get the feeling they don't even have a hundred.

So I am torn between leaving it blank (as I have nearly done many times) and putting in the actual number. I don't feel any sense of conviction for either course of action.