"Known Unknowns...Unknown Unknowns" - Are they covered enough in diving?
- Thread starter GLOC
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
BDSC
Contributor
Does this conversation really belong in "New divers and those considering diving"?
AdivingBel
Diver
I'm all for a discussion of helping new divers to understand and balance risks, but IMHO we should concentrate on the predominant risks and save the discussion of unlikely hypotheticals for a more advanced group that has the experience to keep them in perspective. This seems pretty convoluted for new divers.
Last edited:
OP
The error rates are based on the type of decision-making, made not where they sit in the graphic.
OP
More than happy to move it to wherever. I put it here because that is where the rest of the blog posts went (and were moved to).
BDSC
Contributor
Perhaps a Mod will come along and move it then.
I read this post a day ago and decided to let it sink in. You almost lost me with the Rumsfeld reference because at the time, if you recall, he was clearly using it to create confusion and argue an American foreign policy that involved engaging in wars of aggression (which the USA had never did before the Bush administration) because, "we aren't sure what's going on".... in other words, "shoot first and ask questions later".... just like the impulsive/intuitive post civil-war gunslingers who Americans still idolize to this day, references to which allowed Bush to get so many Americans to buy in to the idea. Rumsfeld's initial comments were to defend and misdirect why the Bush administration lied -- deliberately lied -- and fabricated information in order to mislead the UN.
Therefore the entire concept has become loaded and if you stay by Rumsfeld, unworthy of further thought.
Those were my initial thoughts along with the thought that you were a complete idiot to put so much effort into a post and cite Rumsfeld as an inspiration if you wanted people to take you seriously.
However, that was yesterday.
If I boil it down, however, then what I think you are saying falls out into two broad categories. First, the learning curve. We go through 4 broad phases of learning :
1) incompetent/unaware (unknown unknowns) -- this is what your post is about
2) incompetent/aware (epiphany)
3) competent/aware (learning)
4) competent/unaware (competence)
The other broad category is the ability for lateral thinking: the ability to create novel solutions to new situations based upon previously learned information.
The question you seem to be posing is what (if any) training will allow for (a) the student to reach the 3rd or 4th level of learning and (b) to allow for sufficient flexibility of thought that novel solutions can be *expected* as a matter of course.
First, the current state of affairs in diver instruction is that the *objective* of instruction is to take the student from stage (1) to stage (3) -- for that level of dive. Reaching stage (4) requires experience and experience is the ONE thing you do not get in diver instruction. Moreover, going from stage 1 to stage 3 is something that a typical student will only achieve with a decent instructor. In the big picture, I think MOST diving instruction involves taking students from stage 1 to stage 2.
Secondly, lateral thinking is ability that is not ONLY a function of previous experience and training but of intelligence, creativity, chance, personality and other factors that allow a new idea to emerge as a function of a whole human being in an entirely unexpected context. If we were to look for predictable and reliable "on the fly" solutions to novel problems then we are looking for a certain type of individual. One in a million; the one that we would send to the moon for the first time, not the one that we send off a dive boat with a guide to look at the pretty fishes.
As instructors we (at least speaking for myself) do emphasize creativity. For example, I teach the protocol for air-sharing that my agency wants them to master but I also tell them that many variations are possible. I discuss it with them and depending on the student I show them in the pool, but my objective for the course remains to take them from stage 1 to stage 3. At the end of the course I place a lot of value on them having mastered one protocol and it's a bonus if they understand that the real world with throw curve balls at them. If a particular student is in the position to apply a high degree of lateral thinking then I may push them harder but normally I would only do that after the beginner's level.
That said, if you think you have the beast by the tail and you can tell me how you think I should be training students differently to ensure that they master what they need to master AND get a bit more in the time we have, then I'm open to hearing it.
R..
Therefore the entire concept has become loaded and if you stay by Rumsfeld, unworthy of further thought.
Those were my initial thoughts along with the thought that you were a complete idiot to put so much effort into a post and cite Rumsfeld as an inspiration if you wanted people to take you seriously.
However, that was yesterday.
If I boil it down, however, then what I think you are saying falls out into two broad categories. First, the learning curve. We go through 4 broad phases of learning :
1) incompetent/unaware (unknown unknowns) -- this is what your post is about
2) incompetent/aware (epiphany)
3) competent/aware (learning)
4) competent/unaware (competence)
The other broad category is the ability for lateral thinking: the ability to create novel solutions to new situations based upon previously learned information.
The question you seem to be posing is what (if any) training will allow for (a) the student to reach the 3rd or 4th level of learning and (b) to allow for sufficient flexibility of thought that novel solutions can be *expected* as a matter of course.
First, the current state of affairs in diver instruction is that the *objective* of instruction is to take the student from stage (1) to stage (3) -- for that level of dive. Reaching stage (4) requires experience and experience is the ONE thing you do not get in diver instruction. Moreover, going from stage 1 to stage 3 is something that a typical student will only achieve with a decent instructor. In the big picture, I think MOST diving instruction involves taking students from stage 1 to stage 2.
Secondly, lateral thinking is ability that is not ONLY a function of previous experience and training but of intelligence, creativity, chance, personality and other factors that allow a new idea to emerge as a function of a whole human being in an entirely unexpected context. If we were to look for predictable and reliable "on the fly" solutions to novel problems then we are looking for a certain type of individual. One in a million; the one that we would send to the moon for the first time, not the one that we send off a dive boat with a guide to look at the pretty fishes.
As instructors we (at least speaking for myself) do emphasize creativity. For example, I teach the protocol for air-sharing that my agency wants them to master but I also tell them that many variations are possible. I discuss it with them and depending on the student I show them in the pool, but my objective for the course remains to take them from stage 1 to stage 3. At the end of the course I place a lot of value on them having mastered one protocol and it's a bonus if they understand that the real world with throw curve balls at them. If a particular student is in the position to apply a high degree of lateral thinking then I may push them harder but normally I would only do that after the beginner's level.
That said, if you think you have the beast by the tail and you can tell me how you think I should be training students differently to ensure that they master what they need to master AND get a bit more in the time we have, then I'm open to hearing it.
R..
Kharon
Contributor
Way back when I was taking a grad level Software Engineering course, the point was made that, in any non-trivial software system, there will always be a residual of 3% bugs that cannot be identified. Moreover, it is simply nor worth the colossal effort of trying to find them on the miniscule chance that they will occur. The only way to deal with them is to have a deep understanding of the system and the skill set to allow you to quickly and effectively react to solve the problem if/when it occurs. Same in any field - same in scuba.
And, quite honestly, judging from what I have seen when I've done boat dives, way too many certified divers don't have even the basics of buoyancy down. Teaching them the esoteric unlikely posibilities would only complicate a course of study that is already insufficient. It's not long enough, it's not hard enough, it's not disciplined enough, and far too many get a card that shouldn't.
I was one - I no longer am. I worked hard and practiced hard to perfect skills that should have been drummed in during my course. I'm not convinced that the greater proportion of certified divers do that. To be clear SB members are NOT a typical sub-set from the set of all certified divers.
And, quite honestly, judging from what I have seen when I've done boat dives, way too many certified divers don't have even the basics of buoyancy down. Teaching them the esoteric unlikely posibilities would only complicate a course of study that is already insufficient. It's not long enough, it's not hard enough, it's not disciplined enough, and far too many get a card that shouldn't.
I was one - I no longer am. I worked hard and practiced hard to perfect skills that should have been drummed in during my course. I'm not convinced that the greater proportion of certified divers do that. To be clear SB members are NOT a typical sub-set from the set of all certified divers.
Last edited:
2airishuman
Contributor
I've read a lot of statistics and anecdotal reports (DAN, BSAC, etc).
I don't think that "unknown unknowns" account for a sufficient share of accidents to warrant much attention.
The chain of failures that led to any particular accident is hard to know for certain. Due to weaknesses and biases in the data, and differences in interpretation where multiple contributing factors are present, there may be disagreement as to the ranking of the top few causes of accidents. But I don't think there's much dispute that the vast majority can be attributed to a handful of causes. Broaden the list of causes to include the rarely fatal, but well-understood, risks (trauma due to contact with boat propeller, lost at sea after safely reaching the surface, mislabeled cylinders), and you cover almost everything.
The two examples you cite are not "unknown unknowns." Entrapment due to collapse is a risk that is understood and discussed in wreck diving, and I would imagine in cave diving as well. Monitoring a CCR against unexpected shutdown or failure is a procedure undertaken to mitigate a known risk. The novel mechanism of action that led to the shutdown doesn't change the fact that it's an event that is trained for.
I don't think that "unknown unknowns" account for a sufficient share of accidents to warrant much attention.
The chain of failures that led to any particular accident is hard to know for certain. Due to weaknesses and biases in the data, and differences in interpretation where multiple contributing factors are present, there may be disagreement as to the ranking of the top few causes of accidents. But I don't think there's much dispute that the vast majority can be attributed to a handful of causes. Broaden the list of causes to include the rarely fatal, but well-understood, risks (trauma due to contact with boat propeller, lost at sea after safely reaching the surface, mislabeled cylinders), and you cover almost everything.
The two examples you cite are not "unknown unknowns." Entrapment due to collapse is a risk that is understood and discussed in wreck diving, and I would imagine in cave diving as well. Monitoring a CCR against unexpected shutdown or failure is a procedure undertaken to mitigate a known risk. The novel mechanism of action that led to the shutdown doesn't change the fact that it's an event that is trained for.
Last edited:
Is the U/K where most bad stuff actually happens? I.e. two divers ender a cave, untrained, they don't know the dangers. They kick up silt, get lost, die. Other people know to avoid kicking up silt and to use lines that they can follow out by feel, but the divers that died didn't know that.
If something is truly U/U, how can you even train for it? How do you train for what you don't know and nobody else knows either?
Similar threads
