groupthink

[drrich2]

Mark:

I referred to it as an art because sometimes expressing oneself effectively and with vigor without offending requires some thought and intuitive understanding. I've seen posts on this forum (and elsewhere) where people express themselves in such a way as to sabotage their own persuasiveness and antagonize others, presumably without trying to (not trolling).

On the other hand, there are people so thin-skinned that they seem to need unseemly levels of reassurance and gentleness if confronted or corrected.

Walking the more effective path between extremes, and not letting other peoples' antagonism trigger you to react and inflame the situation, can be difficult at times. I like TS&M's posts as an example. We have some other posters who are more willing to confront and argue, but do so civilly without going overboard and maintain respectability and effectiveness.

Of course people can ask for clarifications. Sometimes a person's reasoning is as important as their position, especially when the other person may have somewhat different needs and preferences. If me & one of the tec. divers argue over the desirability of AI in a dive computer, and a newbie might like to know that I like having my start & end pressures and SAC automatically logged for download to my computer, but the tec. diver plans his dives so well, and has such a grasp on his consumption, that he knows his SAC, knows what his pressures will run (roughly) at varied points in the dive, and trusts an SPG more than a wireless transmitter for a wrist unit. Then the newbie can decide for himself whether AI is something he wants to pay for and use.

Richard.

P.S.: It's worth noting that on some topics, like the adequacy of basic OW training as widely practiced under the mainstream agencies, some on the forum believe the standards and actual practice are overly lax and pose a hazard to incoming divers. Some are legitimately worried by what, to them, seems dangerous combined with undue complacency. I can understand when some of these folks get 'testy,' even when I disagree with them on some points.

 

[markmud]

Mark:

I referred to it as an art because sometimes expressing oneself effectively and with vigor without offending requires some thought and intuitive understanding. I've seen posts on this forum (and elsewhere) where people express themselves in such a way as to sabotage their own persuasiveness and antagonize others, presumably without trying to (not trolling).

On the other hand, there are people so thin-skinned that they seem to need unseemly levels of reassurance and gentleness if confronted or corrected.

Walking the more effective path between extremes, and not letting other peoples' antagonism trigger you to react and inflame the situation, can be difficult at times. I like TS&M's posts as an example. We have some other posters who are more willing to confront and argue, but do so civilly without going overboard and maintain respectability and effectiveness.

Of course people can ask for clarifications. Sometimes a person's reasoning is as important as their position, especially when the other person may have somewhat different needs and preferences. If me & one of the tec. divers argue over the desirability of AI in a dive computer, and a newbie might like to know that I like having my start & end pressures and SAC automatically logged for download to my computer, but the tec. diver plans his dives so well, and has such a grasp on his consumption, that he knows his SAC, knows what his pressures will run (roughly) at varied points in the dive, and trusts an SPG more than a wireless transmitter for a wrist unit. Then the newbie can decide for himself whether AI is something he wants to pay for and use.

Richard.

P.S.: It's worth noting that on some topics, like the adequacy of basic OW training as widely practiced under the mainstream agencies, some on the forum believe the standards and actual practice are overly lax and pose a hazard to incoming divers. Some are legitimately worried by what, to them, seems dangerous combined with undue complacency. I can understand when some of these folks get 'testy,' even when I disagree with them on some points.

Hey Richard,

I am glad I asked for clarification (in a round-a-bout way). Thanks for your response and I agree!

Your last para is a good point. I believe that at least one training agency does "thread the needle between marketing and safety." A friend and my wife (my wife is a PADI Master Scuba Diver) both did not know what staged decompression was after our friend's dive computer started alarming us to her going into staged decompression.

They both asked me on the surface "what the hell is wrong with my/her computer?" I had to get tables and a TDI manual out to explain it. Deplorable!

Thankfully, I was there for our friend; we followed the deco regimen dictated by her computer and she did not get bent. Otherwise she would have gone to 15 for a safety stop and then climbed the ladder into the boat. We had plenty of reserve gas.

markm

 

[DogDiver]

Just an FYI. You were in decompression mode on your computer. There is a difference in deco, staged deco and mixed gas staged deco. Most recreational divers and instructors are not schooled in the tech aspects of various types of decompression models. So it's not really his fault for not understanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stoo]

I was diving a couple of weeks ago with a number of relatively new divers (200-300 dives) most of whom had trained through the same shop. The owner/Instructor is very capable and has done some big dives. He teaches what I would call a "modified DIR" programme (which I appreciate is an oxymoron.)

At any rate, a couple of these guys were suiting up near me and noticed that I clipped my SPG on a left-shoulder D-ring, rather than on my left hip. I always have a large camera system with me, and by clipping it there, I can glance down at it without ever moving a hand. I guess I figure that BMW puts the fuel gauge in front of me, not down beside the seat-tilting lever for a reason...

When I'm carry a stage, the other SPG sits beside it (although it's a different colour) so I can see all my gas in one glance.

These guys were mightily impressed by my modification... As hard to believe as that might be. Apparently thay had trouble understanding why someone would put such an important instrument out of place...

Original thinking... Nuttin' like it

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

I often wonder why somebody (agency standard) hasn't made placing the SPG in a viewable position like you mention as standard. Makes perfect sense to me.
Just like placing back mounted doubles upside down, why not?
A friend of mine (Akimbo) has fabricated a damage guard over the valves and set up a twin set just that way.
It's much easier to manage the valves that way.
So now instead side mount becomes popular, which for me and the the environment I dive in doesn't seem optimal.
I don't get it.

 

[doctormike]

Sort of related but from another point of view. I see a fair number of medical questions that get posted. I don't understand the rationale. A non-medically trained person posts a medical question looking for medical advice but from a population of people who don't have medical training. It is literally the blind leading the blind. You shouldn't be posting medical questions at all or at least in the medical forum where you have at least some doctors or medical personnel to answer the questions. Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread, that was just my rant.

I agree they people without training should be careful about being too definitive in their answers, but that doesn't mean that non-medically trained divers don't have anything to add to the conversation in terms of personal experience, etc...

Also, as a medical moderator, I often answer questions in the non-medical forums when they come up and are in my field of expertise (ENT).

As with the rest of the internet, it can be hard to separate good and bad information...!

 

[Akimbo]

…"a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group,…

Cohesive in-group? Well, that pretty well disqualifies us.

 

[Diver0001]

< rambling rant over > < unless I missed a sacred cow >

To me, group think biases fall into two broad categories.

One is that through trial and error and finding out what works and what doesn't, people tend to settle on certain best practices. The DIR way of diving, for example seems to encapsulate a number of best practices and tries to form them into a holistic system (whether or not it succeeds is not the topic of this post). The "buddy system", use of an octopus, structured gear checks before a dive and many planning elements like rule-of-thirds are other examples of this. IN fact, a large element of the introductory diving course we all took involves transference of best practices.

What happens with this class of thinking is that best practices tend to get lifted to the state of being a "commandment" and it creates the down side that the "system" can start to look like a goal unto itself and people can start to view the way things are done as some kind of immutable truth. When the system becomes the goal (thou shalt follow the rules) and stops being an expression of the goal, (thou shalt manage risk by integrating best practices) then you have group think. Another word for this that more people probably know is "paradigm forming". It doesn't only happen in diving but it's probably the biggest hurdle to innovation in every human endeavour. Ironically, the best practices that get set in stone in any paradigm are usually the legacy of thinkers who *didn't* follow the rules.... their thinking was "out of the box".



The other category of group thinkers are "the believers"

I'm sure diving isn't any different than any other sport, or any other human activity, for that matter. If you say something often enough, then it must be true. Politicians used this tactic all the time ... and so do some people on internet forums. When someone believes a discussion must be "won" then the exchange of ideas stops and he (or she) who is most convincing wins.

The problem, of course, is that being the most convincing does not mean you're right. And just like in politics, a convincing speaker (or writer) can gain a following.

To pick an example, the discussion about split fins is such a topic. There are one or two ... let's call them "foaming at the mouth haters" of split fins on the board. One of them in particular is also a talented writer and has managed to convince a large number of people that split fins are inferior.

.... and the "believers" go out in the world and "spread the word".

But I guarantee you that not a single one of the believers has ever owned or used a pair of split fins. They're hating them because their local hero hates them and for no other reason.

The problem would remain isolated were it not for the fact that it can reach a "critical mass" where so many people are saying the same thing that nearly everyone starts to think that they must be right..... "a critical mass". Politicians love "critical mass" because it means they don't need to argue their case anymore, just repeat the propaganda. And it works the same way on internet forums. Once an idea (like "split fins suck") has reached "critical mass" people, even people who have never seen a split fin, will start to parrot that thought.

The reason it's important to know which KIND of group thinker you're debating with is this: The first group can be persuaded by logic. The second cannot. I didn't call the second group "believers" for nothing. Just like in various religions and sects, believers believe because they believe. Logic has nothing to do with it.

So if you're reading a thread and you think you're talking to a "paradigm thinker" then debate with them. If what you're reading makes you think you're dealing with a believer, then you are better off ignoring them unless you have a way to know who their "prophet" is and you are in a position to discredit their prophet. That's the only way to reach a believer.

R..

 

[DivemasterDennis]

Some Baptists think only Baptists go to heaven. The Catholic church thinks only they will be there, and Moslems of course know that not only are only they going to heaven, but that everyone else is sub-human. All are wrong. There are also divers who believe their view of "the best" equipment to use is right and merits no further discussion. The same is true with many diver's perceptions of training agencies, or even instructors (as in I alone know how to teach scuba to new divers). They too are wrong, and I think that is knotical's point, with which I agree. I am a recreational diver and dive master. My wife and I can gear up, do a thorough buddy check, review the dive plan, and get in the water within 15 minutes of pulling in to the location for our recreational dive. We are familiar with our equipment ( BCD's, traditional alternate air sources, and SPLIT FINS, computers, etc.) We have observed occasions when we arrive at a sight about the same time as other divers, we gear up, do the dive, return 45 minutes or morelater, and they are still getting ready for their dive on the same site. That's just fine, because that is their routine. It would drive us nuts, so we usually only dive with each other, from boat or shore. Thanks knotical. I second your comments. And in this part of the world, and the parts where I dive regularly ( Mexico, Hawaii, other Caribbean sites, bpw is scarcer than hen's teeth. But it certainly has its place elsewhere.
DivemasterDennis

 

[doctormike]

To me, group think biases fall into two broad categories.

I agree with your thoughtful analysis, but think that the problem that I have with the original rant is that it's sort of a straw man argument. It's easy to roll your eyes at those posters who just parrot something without making a logical case for their opinions, but I think that most people at least try to explain their reasoning. It's rare to find someone who just says "X is good (or bad)" and leaves it at that.

"groupthink" is a pejorative term. It implies an error arising from the substitution of consensus for evidence based decision making. Now a consensus can be right or wrong, but if you adhere to a consensus, you should at least be able to say why.


When certain divers model their gear or procedures along the lines of the GUE or TDI or whatever, it doesn't mean that they are just appealing to authority. I like the BP/W not because DIR divers use them, or because my instructor dives one, but because I have thought about what I want in a BC and I think that it's the best choice for pretty much all of the diving that I do. Sure, those things might influence me, just like any other information or experience might.

But just because I agree with a group doesn't mean that I'm succumbing to groupthink.

And finally, scubaborad is an online forum, which means that people post questions or statements and other people respond to them. Dismissing those responses and saying just dive however you like sort of misses the point of the whole thing...