Why is this not the standard?

[Them]

No, if they understood, they might disagree, but there would be no tension.

Interesting take. My experience with humans consistently contradicts it though.

I have no idea how you get your translation out of that sentence. The sentence says that others see the insistence on uniformity as an indictment. The implication is that it is not an indictment, and that if they understood it, they would realize that. It does not in any way imply that someone who understood that it was not an indictment would then agree with it, or decide it's better. It just means they'd stop thinking that "Doing it Right" means everybody else is doing it WRONG. (And we have THAT discussion ad nauseum here.)

"Because DIR's insistence on standardization is frequently misunderstood"

Misundersood = lack of understanding (usually to the point of error). Who has a lack of understanding? Certainly not Jarrod or other true DIR practitioners. Frequently = many or most in this context. So: "Because most non-DIR people don't understand the DIR insistence on standardization... "

"...it sometimes becomes a source of tension among divers."

What divers? Do DIR teams start fighting each other? No. It's tension between DIR and non-DIR.

Because most non-DIR divers don't understand the DIR insistence on standardization, the DIR insistence on standardization becomes a source of tension with non-DIR divers.

"This is because some see the insistence on uniformity as an indictment of practices that do not abide by DIR principles."

Who would see that as an indictment? Not DIR divers, right? You have said that yourself. So it must be the non-DIR divers. The ones who don't understand.

Because most non-DIR divers don't understand the DIR insistence on standardization, the DIR insistence on standardization becomes a source of tension with non-DIR divers because some non-DIR divers see the DIR insistence on uniformity as an indictment of non-DIR diving.

In other words: those ignorant non-DIR divers get upset because they see the very existence of a well thought out diving system as a criticism of their sloppy ad-hoc methods.

In other other words: Doing it Right diving in front of non-Right divers is like parking your Mercedes next to the '88 Chrysler with the bondo smeared doors - it's bound to spark resentment because everyone wants to drive a Mercedes. It's their problem not yours.

Seems a straightforward reading to me.

And I have not resorted to ad hominem fallacies or straw men. I am simply trying to understand how you can derive the meaning you have found in what I see as some pretty simple sentences.

You haven't used any ad hominems. IMO "told what to do" was a straw man though. Jarrod's article which I'm quoting is full of implications of agendas, power plays, ignorance, and so on - IOW ad hominems aplenty.

DIR isn't for everybody, no matter how profoundly I might wish it It doesn't even work for all diving situations (sidemount cave). But it's a pretty darned good, widely applicable approach to diving, and I hate to see people discarding it or deriding it for the wrong reasons.

I'm doing neither. I simply pointed out that given what DIR spokespeople say it wasn't a huge surprise that people react to DIR in the way a poster reported.

I don't know if you have ever taken an "understanding personalities" type class based on Myers-Briggs profiling, but it appears that Jarrod is an ESTJ. That doesn't make his position right or wrong, and is neither bad or good, but a lot of people also consider that the a-hole archetype. Since the beginning of this tangent was how people in many stores expressed that sort of view I find this consistent if unimportant.

 

[spectrum]

The reason it is not standard (for instruction) is because ... it is not standard period. That configuration of buoyancy compensator has been gaining mainstream acceptance but it is far from what the body of shops, instructors and divers are using.

There's no need to drag DIR into the matter, the majority of users just decided they prefer the BC style.

At the end of the day it's just another BC that if fit right will work just fine. It's far from being the end all be all for all divers.

 

[jonnythan]

the majority of users just decided they prefer the BC style.

No.

The majority of divers have never been exposed to any other style.

 

[TSandM]

Because most non-DIR divers don't understand the DIR insistence on standardization, the DIR insistence on standardization becomes a source of tension with non-DIR divers because some non-DIR divers see the DIR insistence on uniformity as an indictment of non-DIR diving.

In other words: those ignorant non-DIR divers get upset because they see the very existence of a well thought out diving system as a criticism of their sloppy ad-hoc methods.

In other other words: Doing it Right diving in front of non-Right divers is like parking your Mercedes next to the '88 Chrysler with the bondo smeared doors - it's bound to spark resentment because everyone wants to drive a Mercedes. It's their problem not yours.

Okay. The logic of how you get from Jarrod's original statement to your last two paragraphs is beyond me, and I give up.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

You haven't used any ad hominems. IMO "told what to do" was a straw man though. Jarrod's article which I'm quoting is full of implications of agendas, power plays, ignorance, and so on - IOW ad hominems aplenty.

Actually, it doesn't. And you've just provided a very good example of what he's talking about when he says that DIR's insistence on standardization is frequently misunderstood. You seem to think it's about equipment. That's actually only a part of it ... and not even the most important part. And at no point is he talking about how you dive.

Having met Jarrod, I can assure you he doesn't really care how you dive ... unless it's your desire to dive with him, in which case he would be right to care.

The topic of this thread is BP/W ... which is just a piece of equipment that DIR, among others, finds useful. Many of us who use it are not DIR. Some of us have stuck our toe in the DIR pond and decided it wasn't the right place for us to be ... even though we've found much of use to be learned there. At no time did that decision leave me feeling judged as inferior by those whose opinion I felt mattered ... either within or without DIR.

I've read your arguments at least a hundred times over the past decade or so on this board ... back when I first joined this board I made pretty much the same arguments. Today if I look back on those old posts I find myself, palm in face, thinking I can't believe I actually said that. It's an attempt to apply logic to a topic I knew ... and you know ... next to nothing about. And nuance doesn't work well with the uninformed ... or misinformed.

Do a little more research and you'll find that Jarrod is not the ESTJ personality type ... that would be his former dive buddy George. JJ is actually a pretty low-key fellow who saw a need, analyzed some behavioral patterns, developed a system around those patterns to fill the need, and chose an unfortunate marketing slogan to turn it into a business. I found him to be, for the most part, a pretty interesting fellow ... and not the least bit judgmental of someone like me who chooses to do things a bit differently than he does ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Them]

Actually, it doesn't. And you've just provided a very good example of what he's talking about when he says that DIR's insistence on standardization is frequently misunderstood. You seem to think it's about equipment. That's actually only a part of it ... and not even the most important part. And at no point is he talking about how you dive.

Um what? I don't think I even mentioned equipment did I? I was talking about what he wrote, and the impression it gave.

Oh, I did mention computers. Sorry, yeah, I disagree with him. I doubt he cares about my opinion though.

I've read your arguments at least a hundred times over the past decade or so on this board ... back when I first joined this board I made pretty much the same arguments.

I don't know about that, literally. I certainly don't want to rehash old arguments. Any tips on finding this?

I suspect that maybe you are lumping my statements (which are not negative to DIR) with those of others because you are accustomed to being attacked, but I don't know enough about the history to really defend myself.

Do a little more research and you'll find that Jarrod is not the ESTJ personality type ... that would be his former dive buddy George. JJ is actually a pretty low-key fellow who saw a need, analyzed some behavioral patterns, developed a system around those patterns to fill the need, and chose an unfortunate marketing slogan to turn it into a business. I found him to be, for the most part, a pretty interesting fellow ... and not the least bit judgmental of someone like me who chooses to do things a bit differently than he does ...

I almost regret saying that, but to be clear it isn't bad or intended that way. I have a friend, and several coworkers, I suspect of being ESTJ types and they are all good people. The real test is the desire for a system and uniformity, and especially the ability to say, "this is right", vs for example an ENTP who would say, "this gives us capabilities." Or so my required Corporate America training explained.

 

[gypsyjim]

In other words: those ignorant non-DIR divers get upset because they see the very existence of a well thought out diving system as a criticism of their sloppy ad-hoc methods.

Was the highlighted word you used Jarrod's, or your own interpretation of what you think he meant?

Unlike Bob I have never met Jarrod, but I got a different impression of his intent, from the words of his that I have read. Well thought out, and logical discussions of gear and attitude they seemed to me, but terribly judgmental of all other divers, they did not seem. At least to me.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I suspect that maybe you are lumping my statements (which are not negative to DIR) with those of others because you are accustomed to being attacked, but I don't know enough about the history to really defend myself.

I don't feel the least bit attacked. Why would I? I'm not DIR ... I have no real investment in how they do things other than the fact that I've adopted some ideas and techniques I found useful. But I can say that about any number of approaches to diving.

I am, however, curious why you've attempted to turn a thread in the Hogarthian forum about BP/W into a conversation about DIR.

I almost regret saying that, but to be clear it isn't bad or intended that way.

... so your reference to the "a-hole archetype" wasn't meant in a bad way ???



... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Them]

Okay. The logic of how you get from Jarrod's original statement to your last two paragraphs is beyond me, and I give up.

That's the magic of language...of art in general...in a nutshell.

A lot of our interpretation comes from sources outside the text. You are very familiar with DIR so you have a whole set of sources that predispose you to a particular interpretation. I have basically zero knowledge of DIR (first learned the acronym less than a month ago and haven't paid it much attention apart from reading a few articles) and only a tiny amount of diving knowledge.

You can run into the same problem interpreting religious and even technical texts. Everyone writing, proofreading, and normally reading the text shares a common background and understands it one way. Someone else comes along without all that knowledge and interprets is a whole different way.

That's why writing is hard.

 

[Them]

I don't feel the least bit attacked. Why would I? I'm not DIR ... I have no real investment in how they do things other than the fact that I've adopted some ideas and techniques I found useful. But I can say that about any number of approaches to diving.

Cool, that is what I hope to do - learn from every branch I can. Personally I would love to take a GUE fundamentals course, though I need a bit more experience first I think. And I apologize for the incorrect "you".

I am, however, curious why you've attempted to turn a thread in the Hogarthian forum about BP/W into a conversation about DIR.

LOL, believe me I've attempted not to. Someone posted about people in stores consistently saying DIR a-holes. I pointed out that a person reading what Jarrod wrote could easily form that impression - not that it's right mind you. Ever since I've been trying to correct assumptions about what I said and make my point clearer.

... so your reference to the "a-hole archetype" wasn't meant in a bad way ???

No, it wasn't / isn't. Think about interpersonal interaction and the impression certain behaviors give (intended or not).

Was the highlighted word you used Jarrod's, or your own interpretation of what you think he meant?

His word was misunderstand (or related - it's quoted a few times in this thread).