DIR- GUE Why are non-GUE divers so interested in what GUE does?

[jlcnuke]

We dont live in a "theoretical world". But you are still "failing" people by telling them at the door to go home, and my "bell curve" still exists, its just that you fail them before they start, not at the end of class.

In essences, by keeping those you believe to be "failures" out, you would be manipulating the outcome to fit your preconceived bias.

And I admit I do not share you abilities and knowledge of education theory, but I have taken enough calculus and statistics classes to know that, at the end of the day, the math doesn't "lie" there will always be data points at either end of the curve. As you stated in your first sentence, "educational theory", not educational fact.....

The student that isn't admitted to Calc II because they haven't yet taken Calc I did not fail Calc II by not being admitted. That's just absurd thinking honestly. A properly designed training curriculum includes pre-requisites for a reason, and not meeting the pre-requisites for a course/class/etc. doesn't mean you've failed that class lol.

 

[Wibble]

Did you achieve a recreational pass?

No. Provisional, i.e. fail

 

[Wibble]

“I failed fundies and have come to the conclusion that DIR is nonsense”

Oh for goodness sake. Just how far off the mark are you?

How about with experience one realises there’s other ways to dive than DIR's approach. Like most other agencies do.

 

[ginti]

No. Provisional, i.e. fail

Provisional isn't fail. A fail means that you are unsafe to dive; a provisional means that you just need more time to reach a rec pass.

 

[jadairiii]

The student that isn't admitted to Calc II because they haven't yet taken Calc I did not fail Calc II by not being admitted. That's just absurd thinking honestly. A properly designed training curriculum includes pre-requisites for a reason, and not meeting the pre-requisites for a course/class/etc. doesn't mean you've failed that class lol.

I was responding to the comment about screening students to scuba classes that "dont have the ability to succeed" not pre-reqs.

Reading is fundamental.............

 

[Wibble]

Just by reading the way he formats his replies, I would say that he is not interested in being convinced/educated of anything as it pertains to DiR. He is here to argue that DiR is wrong.

Am absolutely not arguing that DIR is wrong. It is an approach to diving, one of many others.

Provisional isn't fail. A fail means that you are unsafe to dive; a provisional means that you just need more time to reach a rec pass.

Alas it took me more than the six months to improve. By that time I’d lost any interest in GUE's almost military approach, moving to TDI and choosing a well regarded instructor whom I respected and got on well with. Liked his teaching style as he clearly explained the topic and used reasoned discussion.

 

[Esprise Me]

Just by reading the way he formats his replies, I would say that he is not interested in being convinced/educated of anything as it pertains to DiR. He is here to argue that DiR is wrong.

You keep bringing this up, about non-DIR folks coming in to this forum to argue that DIR is wrong. And I'm not unsympathetic or disbelieving that this happens in general. But I don't understand your antipathy toward people who are answering a question in this thread that was asked about them.

Let's turn this around and imagine that someone started a thread elsewhere on SB, not in the DIR forum, asking why GUE does or forbids X, and GUE folks answered in that thread. Would you agree with criticisms that they should stay in their lane and stop telling the rest of us how to dive? Or would you think that GUE divers are the best people to answer the question that was asked, about why GUE divers do X? And if so, why isn't the reverse true--why aren't non-GUE divers the best people to answer a question about why non-GUE divers do Y? And when Y is some variation on "not doing GUE," well, yeah, the answer may involve some less-than-favorable assessments of GUE. Characterizing those good-faith attempts to answer the question as "being here to argue that DIR is wrong" tends to, at the very least, bolster the perception that GUE is not open to dissent.

 

[ginti]

Alas it took me more than the six months to improve. By that time I’d lost any interest in GUE's almost military approach, moving to TDI and choosing a well regarded instructor whom I respected and got on well with. Liked his teaching style as he clearly explained the topic and used reasoned discussion.

All of this is perfectly fine; you don't have to like the GUE approach, and you are free to prefer something else. I just mentioned that you did not fail; you needed more time to master the skills according to GUE standards.

 

[crofrog]

All of this is perfectly fine; you don't have to like the GUE approach, and you are free to prefer something else. I just mentioned that you did not fail; you needed more time to master the skills according to GUE standards.

At the same time arguing over the configuration of the rebreather with out having any certification from GUE seems a bit absurd. You are not qualified to have an opinion about how it works for GUE teams when you don’t understand the context and system they’re operating inside and by your own admission disagree with some of the primary principles of GUE.

For the record I have zero personal opinion on the rebreather configuration.

 

[PfcAJ]

At the same time arguing over the configuration of the rebreather with out having any certification from GUE seems a bit absurd. You are not qualified to have an opinion about how it works for GUE teams when you don’t understand the context and system they’re operating inside and by your own admission disagree with some of the primary principles of GUE.

For the record I have zero personal opinion on the rebreather configuration.

It’s not even just the absence of a GUE rebreather cert. it’s a fundamental non-understanding of the entire system.