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

[Adobo]

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.

It’s useful when you have the context of the sub-conversation:

Manatee said:
Wibble - You are arguing with someone that is at the Fundies level. I don't see what he is saying because he is on ignore for me, but he isn't going to be able to make a convincing case to you simply because he doesn't have the breadth of experience required to answer your questions.

To which I replied:
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.

 

[boulderjohn]

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.............

Yes it is. Prerequisite skills are what are needed to succeed in a class. If you don't have the prerequisite skills for a class, you do not have the ability to succeed. You seem to be finding a strange contrast between two phrases that are essentially the same. This is apparently a challenging concept that I should have explained more clearly. Throughout almost all forms of education, there is some sort of screening process to make sure students have the prerequisite skills to succeed at the higher level course. For example, in most cases, success in 4th grade allows you to move on to 5th.

Ironically, that was the origin of GUE Fundamentals. People were showing up for cave certification classes without the prerequisite skills, so a pre-cave class was created. So the question is this--is it wise for people on ScubaBoard to be telling everyone who says they did not feel they learned enough in their OW class to take fundamentals immediately rather than do some intermediate training that will prepare them for success?

 

[boulderjohn]

I wanted to make this point separately. In the instructional process, students progress by taking old learning and applying it to new situations. This is called transfer. Each new learning situation creates what is called a transfer load. If the transfer load is too small, the student gets bored. If the transfer load is too great, the student will not succeed. The skilled teacher steps in with the scaffolding that enables a struggling to succeed with that transfer.

Think of the normal OW scuba training sequence of 1) partial mask flood 2) full mask flood 3) mask removal and replacement 4) No mask swim and replacement. A student who shows mastery at each step will succeed. If the instructor simply tells a new student to do a no mask swim and then replace the mask, most students will fail.

A well-designed curriculum takes that and other concepts into account. You carefully plan the transfer loads to be sure students can succeed at the final level.

That may seem obvious, but for many people it is not. I once supervised a group of teachers planning a curriculum for middle school English. They looked at the content standards that had to be included and then determined a sequence of instruction. They decided that they wanted to have students do the required research paper immediately, "to get it out of the way." After that, they thought that they would scatter throughout the year the instruction in forming a hypothesis, using the library for research, taking notes, etc. That made sense to them. If that makes sense to you, then you don't understand anything I am talking about.

 

[Wibble]

Some things I’ve struggled to understand are why DIR desires its own closed sub forum — was mentioned earlier that an invitation only forum could be an option.

From my interactions in this and another thread, it’s clear to me at least that any questions are immediately taken by some as an attack on DIR / GUE. As if it is beyond reproach, almost like one would expect if questioning faith itself.

I said earlier that my dalliance with GUE was tainted by the general dogma of you don’t know as you’re not fully ensconced within the system therefore you cannot understand: simply to question is unwelcome. This is clearly a general issue as comments have been made against one of your own.

It’s diving for goodness sake. The principles are the same no matter what style you dive. All technical diving requires great skills through practice and development. DIR does not have a monopoly on this.

It is odd that no other style needs such diplomatic discourse (although there’s one or two DiveMasters that are ultra sensitive). You don’t get BSAC, TDI, IANTD, et al demanding such reverence. Why is that?

I thank you all for helping me understand why I didn’t continue with a GUE path. I’m not sure it’s changed much over the years.

Happy (team) diving to you all.

 

[ginti]

So the question is this--is it wise for people on ScubaBoard to be telling everyone who says they did not feel they learned enough in their OW class to take fundamentals immediately rather than do some intermediate training that will prepare them for success?

I agree with everything you said, and yet I arrive at the opposite conclusion for the following reasons:

(1) The main difficulty in GUE fundamentals is that often one has to forget bad habits before learning the new ones; therefore, the earlier you take the course, the better it is.
(2) Students essentially learn how to practice without an instructor during the course. Students literally have ALL the time they need after the class to master the skills. If they need more than six months, they need to pay again only a fee but don't have to redo the course. It is virtually impossible to fail the course, except if one is unsafe to dive. Isn't this the perfect application of the mastery approach?
More info: Frequently Asked Questions - Certifications
(3) Fundamentals can even be split into two pieces to give people more time to practice.

Lastly, let me highlight again that provisional is NOT a fail. Even the GUE website explains it; look at the last FAQ here: Frequently Asked Questions - Certifications

I tried to imagine an alternative to this curriculum, and I didn't manage to find anything else that would give students the right skills and time enough to practice. How would you design a curriculum with the same purposes of fundamentals?

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Ironically, that was the origin of GUE Fundamentals. People were showing up for cave certification classes without the prerequisite skills, so a pre-cave class was created.

While it is obvious that the repercussions of divers not having proper buoyancy control, finning techniques in a cave is far more serious than what a recreational open water diver faces, let us not forget that GUE fundies teaches. From GUE Fundamentals:
Course outcomes include, but are not limited to: GUE equipment configuration and use, trim and buoyancy, propulsion techniques including backwards kick, valve management (the course can be done using a single tank or with a double tank configuration), gas sharing, and SMB deployment.

This course will supplement training that divers may have already received and will give them more confidence in their basic skills even if they do not desire to go on for more advanced training. The course also includes the theory and use of nitrox.

​

So the question is this--is it wise for people on ScubaBoard to be telling everyone who says they did not feel they learned enough in their OW class to take fundamentals immediately rather than do some intermediate training that will prepare them for success?

YES! Because we all know that that is consistently taught. It isn't like WRSTC agencies (of which I'm a member of two) where the quality/depth varies so dramatically. We can recommend certain instructors, but can we say "just take any instructor for agency X that you get along with?" People parrot all the time with "it's the instructor, not the agency." Are there some GUE instructors who are better than others? Probably. I've only been trained by two, and they were both good and helped me work on different skill deficits.

So question for you John, what skills are being taught in GUE fundies that you don't feel is appropriate for the open water diver. I can't think of one.

And second question for you. Which WRSTC agency has a course that is consistently taught equally well? And what is that course?

 

[ginti]

From my interactions in this and another thread, it’s clear to me at least that any questions are immediately taken by some as an attack on DIR / GUE. As if it is beyond reproach, almost like one would expect if questioning faith itself.

Hi @Wibble , people don't feel attacked by you; at least that isn't the case for me. You see such reactions because GUE (and DIR) has a specific philosophy, and most people don't understand it. However, despite having a fundamental misunderstanding of this philosophy, some people speak loud and make judgements about it, spreading misinformation.

This misinformation is what bothers us (GUE divers) for three reasons:
(1) Divers who would like to take this path, may change their mind based on wrong information; and, as you know, we like team-diving and we don't want to lose potential teammates.
(2) Divers who started this way of diving only recently may learn the wrong things.
(3) Believe it or not, the world has a wrong perception of us. For instance, people are often surprised when they discover that I have a GUE card because I am too kind and open-minded to be a GUE/DIR diver (apparently, there is a belief that GUE divers can't be friendly people...!!).

Let me add just two things:
A - You aren't likely to see similar discussions about other agencies. The reason is that most agencies don't have standards as strongly defined as GUE, and don't have such a powerful philosophy behind theirs. Therefore, there aren't "right" or "wrong" answers to many questions with many agencies. On the contrary, there are "right" and "wrong" answers with GUE. I should only add that (1) the "right" answers always have an explanation (otherwise, they would be dogma - and, trust me, they aren't), and (2) most answers from non-GUE divers are usually "wrong"
B - a more humble approach from people who don't have deep experience with this philosophy would be to ask instead than judge

I said earlier that my dalliance with GUE was tainted by the general dogma of you don’t know as you’re not fully ensconced within the system therefore you cannot understand: simply to question is unwelcome.

I am sorry for your experience, and I agree it shouldn't be like that. Again, I would report that instructor.

It’s diving for goodness sake. The principles are the same no matter what style you dive.

No, that isn't true In most agencies, team diving and standardisation are not as important as for GUE.

All technical diving requires great skills through practice and development. DIR does not have a monopoly on this.

That is true. Indeed, there are many other agencies and all of them produce great divers, despite being less consistent than GUE.

It is odd that no other style needs such diplomatic discourse (although there’s one or two DiveMasters that are ultra sensitive). You don’t get BSAC, TDI, IANTD, et al demanding such reverence. Why is that?

I answered before that it's because some things contrast the basic philosophy and the standards of GUE/DIR. You have this issue with other agencies, but in a (way) smaller dimension.

EDIT: Sorry for the poor English, I am writing quickly from my phone... I polished it a bit, and now it should be clearer

 

[beester]

People are always intrested in niche religous sects... they probably think it's kinky and wonder what's going on behind those closed walls.

It's all very sexual, involves a lot of beers, some metal music and strange handshakes and dances. A bit like the Amish (we wear the same black attire that's one) xxx

 

[Wibble]

Hi @Wibble , people don't feel attacked by you; at least that isn't the case for me. You see such reactions because GUE (and DIR) has a specific philosophy, and most people don't understand it. However, despite having a fundamental misunderstanding of this philosophy, some people speak loud and make judgements about it, spreading misinformation.

This misinformation is what bothers us (GUE divers) for three reasons:
(1) Divers who would like to take this path, may change their mind based on wrong information; and, as you know, we like team-diving and we don't want to lose potential teammates.
(2) Divers who started this way of diving only recently may learn the wrong things.
(3) Believe it or not, the world has a wrong perception of us. For instance, people are often surprised when they discover that I have a GUE card because I am too kind and open-minded to be a GUE/DIR diver (apparently, there is a belief that GUE divers can't be friendly people...!!).

Let me add just two things:
A - You aren't likely to see similar discussions about other agencies. The reason is that most agencies don't have standards as strongly defined as GUE, and don't have such a powerful philosophy behind theirs. Therefore, there aren't "right" or "wrong" answers to many questions with many agencies. On the contrary, there are "right" and "wrong" answers with GUE. I should only add that (1) the "right" answers always have an explanation (otherwise, they would be dogma - and, trust me, they aren't), and (2) most answers from non-GUE divers are usually "wrong"
B - a more humble approach from people who don't have deep experience with this philosophy would be to ask instead than judge


I am sorry for your experience, and I agree it shouldn't be like that. Again, I would report that instructor.


No, that isn't true In most agencies, team diving and standardisation are not as important as for GUE.


That is true. Indeed, there are many other agencies and all of them produce great divers, despite being less consistent than GUE.


I answered before that it's because some things contrast the basic philosophy and the standards of GUE/DIR. You have this issue with other agencies, but in a (way) smaller dimension.

EDIT: Sorry for the poor English, I am writing quickly from my phone... I polished it a bit, and now it should be clearer

Thank you for taking time to explain that. Clearly very different focus on the team element.

 

[Blackcrusader]

Wow. I have read this tread with interest. As you know I want to do the TDI ANDP course later this year. My instructor who I have known since 2014 have done a lot of dives together. I redid ( yes redid a course I had done 25 years before ) my rescue course with him. He has taken the GUE course and said he benefitted from that. As he is an active instructor he wanted to learn from the GUE course and apply that to his teaching.

I asked him if I should do the GUE course and he replied for me not necessary. At this point of my life I go diving on vacations.

Sometimes I plan vacations with some dive buddies I met over the years. Some of them are also instructors. If I plan a vacation and have no dive buddy then I get assigned to people by the dive center. On a lot of dives I am assigned to dive with experienced divers ( Many are instructors who do not want to dive with the plebs ) On other dives I am happy to tag along with OW and AOW certified divers.

So I will not be doing cave dives or CCR or wreck penetration unless it's a swim through. For me diving is like therapy. I get away from my business, my wife ( lol I love my wife dearly but she refuses to dive ) I like to do around 4 - 5 hours diving a day on vacation.
I find being in the water relaxes my brain and my body.

Is GUE for me? Not really? I am interested in the way they prepare divers, yes. Would I benefit I would say yes. I can do the backwards kick and helicopter turns. Those were taught in my BSAC classes. TDI ANDP is probably the last course I will take. I have no plans to do the extended or Helitroc course.

( I am interested in doing a solo course but not because I want to do solo diving so I may do that. )

Would me doing the GUE benefit my dive buddies / instabuddies?

Would I recommend others to look at the GUE and see if they may want to do their courses, sure.

PS Even after I have done the TDI ANDP course I am not going to be running around calling myself a technical diver to other recreational vacation divers. I've seen some people do that.