Instruction discussion split from 2021-01-08 Incident

[gowlerk 2,190]

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Being informed of them and understanding & accepting them are two different things.

I completely agree. But all a person can do is inform. It is up to the user to process the information. We have all hammered it home over and over to at least one person who just did not seem to get it until they were hurt.

[nwt 131]

7 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

it seems like it would be a good idea if you could show people what happens when you do certain things

This is exactly what the education phd's say not to do. They say we should demonstrate and visualize correct actions only.

[dudeman17 339]

2 hours ago, nwt said:

This is exactly what the education phd's say not to do. They say we should demonstrate and visualize correct actions only.

"...educated sufficiently so as to reason incorrectly..."

[sfzombie13 324]

6 hours ago, nwt said:

This is exactly what the education phd's say not to do. They say we should demonstrate and visualize correct actions only.

so?  again, you missed the point, this time only most of it.  it isn't just for showing bad things, it is for using a normal canopy and learning how to do things from the ground, seeing them and what they are supposed to look like and not look like.  say the guy (or girl, or whatever) is learning to swoop, and asks, "what if i hang on my fronts in a 270 from x altitude, then stab it out" or something to that effect.  rather than wonder, they can actually do it, with no danger to themselves, and learn why they do or do not want that action to happen.  this is more of a simulator, as my idea evolved while i was expressing it, and simulators work well in other things.  and it could be a bad idea, i don't really care as most of my ideas are bad, or at least they don't pan out.  and it would still be fun to attempt.

[nwt 131]

9 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

"...educated sufficiently so as to reason incorrectly..."

I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

5 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

"what if i hang on my fronts in a 270 from x altitude, then stab it out"

Sure, this could be a fun project, but I think you'd have to be very careful. When someone tries something in the sim and it works, logically this may push them to try it for real. The sim better not be wrong.

As for why should we listen to experts? I guess I'm not really prepared to defend that right now, but it saddens me that this is a question. I think rejection of expertise is one of the biggest problems we face today.

[sfzombie13 324]

34 minutes ago, nwt said:

 

Sure, this could be a fun project, but I think you'd have to be very careful. When someone tries something in the sim and it works, logically this may push them to try it for real. The sim better not be wrong.

As for why should we listen to experts? I guess I'm not really prepared to defend that right now, but it saddens me that this is a question. I think rejection of expertise is one of the biggest problems we face today.

because it wouldn't really be a sim, it would be a vr guiding of a real dummy on a real canopy, and if it works, a way to get your wing loading and your canopy on it.  sort of test fly your gear before doing it.  and of course, you would have to be careful, but that would get you closer to actually doing it than talking about it. 

i don't say not to listen to experts, just not to blindly listen to anyone and accept it because "i'm an expert" or "it's always been that way".  when you start getting stuck in either of those mindsets, innovation ceases.  if there are truly different learning methods, something i also disagree with based on years of helping folks learn, then watching bad results has to work on some simply due to the math.  and starting with an idea, like the one that contradicted the experts, got me all the way to a "try your setup out in real life using vr" before doing something dangerous.  that would never have happened had i said, "you're right, we should listen to them".  now, if you come back and say that you've tried it, and this is what happened, then we can still work on things, maybe, and if not, discard them.  but we tried.

Edited February 16, 2021 by sfzombie13

[nwt 131]

14 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

because it wouldn't really be a sim, it would be a vr guiding of a real dummy on a real canopy, and if it works, a way to get your wing loading and your canopy on it. 

Okay I didn't understand this before and I think it's very interesting!

 

14 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

i don't say not to listen to experts, just not to blindly listen to anyone and accept it because "i'm an expert" or "it's always been that way".  when you start getting stuck in either of those mindsets, innovation ceases. 

I agree, you shouldn't blindly listen to anyone, and those are poor reasons to do anything. But, I think expert opinion shouldn't be easily discarded, either--I think some level of due diligence is required.

21 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

if there are truly different learning methods, something i also disagree with based on years of helping folks learn

I think the experts agree with you on this today. (I'm not one, I've only slightly dabbled in education research)

25 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

then watching bad results has to work on some simply due to the math.

I don't follow your reasoning here

25 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

got me all the way to a "try your setup out in real life using vr" before doing something dangerous.  that would never have happened had i said, "you're right, we should listen to them".

There are no rules in brainstorming. I wasn't expecting you to just shut down in response to my comment, I was just hoping for a little more than "so?", which I think we have now, as I've realized I've completely misunderstood your idea.

[dudeman17 339]

17 hours ago, nwt said:

This is exactly what the education phd's say not to do. They say we should demonstrate and visualize correct actions only.

 

14 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

"...educated sufficiently so as to reason incorrectly..."

 

4 hours ago, nwt said:

I don't understand what you mean by this.

What I mean is that 'academic phd' types are often real-world stupid. Like some time ago I remember hearing about some academic study of dogs that took however long and however much money, and they came to the conclusion that 'dogs have emotions'. I thought, 'Have you ever had a dog? Of course they do!'

So 'study correct actions only'? I say balderdash. Studying all actions, correct and incorrect, and their results gives a better understanding of the total environment. And I think that's important (and honest) when dealing with skydiving students.

[nwt 131]

1 minute ago, dudeman17 said:

What I mean is that 'academic phd' types are often real-world stupid. Like some time ago I remember hearing about some academic study of dogs that took however long and however much money, and they came to the conclusion that 'dogs have emotions'. I thought, 'Have you ever had a dog? Of course they do!'

So 'study correct actions only'? I say balderdash. Studying all actions, correct and incorrect, and their results gives a better understanding of the total environment. And I think that's important (and honest) when dealing with skydiving students.

You don't even care to know why the expert says what he says, you just dismiss it out of hand for no reason other than it sounds like "balderdash" to you? You refuse to even consider that through years of focused study that they might know something you don't? This attitude is exactly why people refuse vaccines.

[dudeman17 339]

4 minutes ago, nwt said:

You don't even care to know why the expert says what he says, you just dismiss it out of hand for no reason other than it sounds like "balderdash" to you? You refuse to even consider that through years of focused study that they might know something you don't?

Sure, I'd hear them out. But I can say at the outset that I disagree with their conclusion. And I base that on over fifty years of actually teaching people how to do things like skydive, base jump, ski, body surf...

[CrzIvan 21]

On 2/16/2021 at 6:53 AM, nwt said:

This is exactly what the education phd's say not to do. They say we should demonstrate and visualize correct actions only.

I grew up among Ph.D.'s including those in psychology, don't ask me about my own degrees, and I "do care about what experts say" and "do know what they say" as you suggested in another post of yours. And I say: "educational experts" nor no "behavioral psychologists" letting along assorted "coaches", especially those [epithets deleted] ones in the U.S., have no claim whatsoever on the matters discussed. Their most hyped book these days, by an outstandingly expensive and self-promoting "expert", starts with an anecdote of a firefighter parachutist who survived the blaze "because he was open-minded" and his teammates didn't because they were not ... on the pop level, your first expert here is the world renowned behavioral psychology authority Michael Gerard Tyson with his "Everyone has a plan until he's punched in the mouth". More seriously, if you want to learn what brings results in circumstances like these, you might want to talk to active combat duty Marines sergeant majors or the likes. Trying to go "education", "experts", "stay positive" - in full earnest, oh my Lord - on life and death matters is so infantile and clueless it leaves me (not alone) speechless. Certain types never really "learn" until they get what was coming, or at best see it full up close. And then they go straight to hysterics, typically, or "penitence", and never can resist "telling the world what they experienced" at considerable length. Some still keep going their ways after that, too.

I say, show them all in full. It would be less necessary if they only killed themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

[CrzIvan 21]

On 2/16/2021 at 6:53 AM, nwt said:

This is exactly what the education phd's say not to do. They say we should demonstrate and visualize correct actions only.

And to put it in a simpler, practical way: on safety and other days, do you (hopefully) do equipment malfunctions drills? Do your check your equipment on the ride to the altitude and visualize / drill cutaways? Do you consciously keep your hands away from your and other jumpers' handles?
Or do you only "visualize correct actions" all around?
Hopefully we will not hear of Ph.D.'s having said anything about these things at least.

[sfzombie13 324]

17 hours ago, nwt said:

I don't follow your reasoning here

There are no rules in brainstorming. I wasn't expecting you to just shut down in response to my comment, I was just hoping for a little more than "so?", which I think we have now, as I've realized I've completely misunderstood your idea.

if there are different types of learners, then there has to be some who can learn by having bad results shown to them.  it also makes perfect sense anecdotally as in "learning from others' mistakes", which is hard to do but pretty common. 

it wasn't a brainstorm at first, it was just one idea that kinda morphed into something else as i was writing about it and thinking.  you had it at first, then it changed and you kept up except for the one part i explained further.  sometimes i think in the wrong order and grammar, it comes from the way i learned german.  i'm also a hacker by nature, so whenever i see anything or hear an idea the first thing i am always doing is looking for an improvement, after understanding it.  sometimes the best way to understand how something works is take it apart.  sometimes it's youtube, as that gets expensive.

[nwt 131]

14 hours ago, CrzIvan said:

And to put it in a simpler, practical way: on safety and other days, do you (hopefully) do equipment malfunctions drills? Do your check your equipment on the ride to the altitude and visualize / drill cutaways? Do you consciously keep your hands away from your and other jumpers' handles?
Or do you only "visualize correct actions" all around?
Hopefully we will not hear of Ph.D.'s having said anything about these things at least.

I visualize and practice correct actions in my emergency procedures and I've never heard anyone suggest we should practice incorrect EPs. I'm mindful of handles because obviously I want to avoid an emergency. I visualize emergencies and my own correct responses to them, but I don't visualize myself performing an incorrect action that causes the emergency. Logically, I can see how visualizing or practicing something that is incorrect could be detrimental--can't you? You are so quick to dismiss that you don't take the time to understand what you are dismissing.

[wmw999 2,444]

I think there are some cross-purposes here.

You only want to demonstrate and visualize good behavior, however, what we need is to get some of the jumpers to maybe narrow their definition of what good behavior is. Because "badass swoop" is rewarded sooner than "safe swoop."

No one ever asks the person who's never injured how they managed it; instead folks brag about the broken bone club etc.

So Ivan, the visualization of correct action starts at lots of points in a possibly bad day -- with the keeping track of handles; the pull, the with checking the canopy, then the cutaway if needed, etc. Accepting that bad things might need to be dealt with, and that they might even be our fault, isn't visualizing bad behavior.

But others -- there are people who really don't care about anything but the immediate reward of the "wow, badass!" at the end of a swoop, or "man that's a small canopy" when they don their rig. Those are the people my tagline is directed at.

Wendy P.

[BMAC615 209]

Anecdotally, watching several friends die from low turns made me re-evaluate my own choices when it comes to high performance landings. I’m in agreement that showing proper technique > showing what not to do.

However, witnessing the mistakes of someone else is very useful. That’s the beauty of human forethought. If I see someone touch a hot stove, I don’t need to experience it for myself to know I don’t want that to happen to me. So, I learned what not to do by witnessing someone else doing something that I shouldn’t.

Skydivers often become complacent and/or push the boundaries until they find them. Sometimes this results in a slight biff all the way to something more tragic, like broken bones - or worse. Watching other people take a slight biff might not make someone reset their own actions, but, every time someone has bounced, there’s a period when everyone who witnessed it goes back to being cautious.

Sometimes this period is an hour or day or two, or, for some, years, but, they almost always go back to pushing the boundaries.

But, back to @nwt’s assertion that watching videos of what not to do is counterproductive training: Do you believe watching Friday Freakout videos and reading the debrief is educational and useful? Do you think analyzing what went wrong on a BASE jump that led to someone’s death is not useful? Do you think reading incident reports is counterproductive? Do you think we should ignore incident and death reports and focus on what we should be doing and ignore where others did something wrong?

Edited February 17, 2021 by BMAC615

[dudeman17 339]

1 hour ago, nwt said:

You are so quick to dismiss that you don't take the time to understand what you are dismissing.

Actually, I think that's the problem that you're having.

1 hour ago, nwt said:

I visualize and practice correct actions in my emergency procedures and I've never heard anyone suggest we should practice incorrect EPs. I visualize emergencies and my own correct responses to them, but I don't visualize myself performing an incorrect action that causes the emergency. Logically, I can see how visualizing or practicing something that is incorrect could be detrimental--can't you?

It's not that incorrect procedures should be practiced. But understanding what the possible incorrect actions might be, and the results thereof, helps to gain an understanding of WHY the correct actions ARE the correct actions.

1 hour ago, BMAC615 said:

 If I see someone touch a hot stove, I don’t need to experience it for myself to know I don’t want that to happen to me. So, I learned what not to do by witnessing someone else doing something that I shouldn’t.

(I'm not arguing against you, BMAC, but using your comment to try to help nwt understand.)

But if you haven't actually witnessed someone touching a hot stove, it might help if someone who has tells you about it.

[CrzIvan 21]

5 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

Actually, I think that's the problem that you're having.

Thanks dudeman17. I agree with all your subsequent arguments too. If the guy "took time to understand what he's dismissing", he'd realize that his "visualizing correct actions" begins with visualization of a problem, which is "an incorrect event", be it caused by external circumstances or by himself. Therefore he "practices incorrect actions/ situations" anyway, by design.
He also ignores that those "correct actions" are the answers to deadly problems; therefore, if someone does not practice the "problems and answers", he/ she is doomed and dead when such a problem occurs - a fine outcome of "positive thinking" and "not visualizing incorrect actions".

To you nwt, thanks for telling me what I'm thinking/ understanding / dismissing, however I'm sure I'm aware of it, thanks again. I kinda hinted to you earlier about my degrees etc., to reveal a bit more - there are fundamental math (which is built on logic) and epistemology among them, if it tells you anything. As a brother in sport, I can sincerely offer you to look into Dr.'s Dunning and Kruger works, preferably in the original not the popular version. It's good you knew those letters "Ph.D", now next step is to try and bring them up where they belong and in a way they make sense. No "education" works under extreme circumstances, only the reptile brain, hormones, and muscle memory - is it really so difficult to understand? I think it's studied in high school biology, isn't it?

Also, I kinda held it back but you're pushing my hand: if you're so firm on positive practices only, what are you doing here on the Incident forum, at all? I second all BMAC615's questions, too.

I might sound a bit sharp but I'm anything but sorry about it: way to much grief and sorrow comes from seeing people go down because of "advice" they get from assorted "advisers" at DZ's.  

[nwt 131]

Look, I'm not an education expert and I'm not here to defend them. I just thought people would care what they say about it.

[nwt 131]

2 hours ago, CrzIvan said:

Therefore he "practices incorrect actions/ situations" anyway, by design.

 

2 hours ago, CrzIvan said:

if you're so firm on positive practices only,

"visualizing or demonstrating incorrect actions" is what I said, in the context of an instructional environment. I said nothing of any of the other things you are ranting about, and I have no idea how you've attributed any of that to me.

[dudeman17 339]

27 minutes ago, nwt said:

Visualizing... incorrect actions... in the context of an instructional environment...

...is essential. Understanding the common or possible errors, and what they might lead to, bolsters your understanding of why the correct actions are.

nwt, I hate to say it, but if you're so prone to knee jerk panic reaction, if you're so much more dependent on 'academic expertise' than logic, reason, and real-world experience, perhaps you should reconsider your involvement in activities such as sport parachuting.

I can 'visualize' Ivan pissing in your crater.

The Reaper don't suffer oppositional disorder.

[nwt 131]

2 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

...is essential. Understanding the common or possible errors, and what they might lead to, bolsters your understanding of why the correct actions are.

You can understand something without visualizing or demonstrating it.

3 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

if you're so prone to knee jerk panic reaction,

Yeah okay.

[dudeman17 339]

For the record...   I tried.

[riggerrob 643]

Dear sfzombie 13,

I resemble that remark!

Hah!

Hah!

I am the "@#$%^&*! who started this whole wing-loading foolishness back in 1983 or 1984. Back then I was just trying to reduce matching canopy size to jumper size. It took me a few years to realize that every canopy manufacturer used a different measuring method. That was also back when you could chose between buying a canopy made of F-111 or F-111. Then you could decide between traditional 5 cells or 7 cells or the hot new 9 cells that were just coming out.

The skydiving world has changed radically since then, so much of my original advice is obsolete.

I agree with what you said about down-sizing not being as simple as matching a number or three. Jumpers should only progress to a smaller canopy AFTER they have demonstrated "the following list of skills" (see Bill von's posts) on their current canopy.

[BMAC615 209]

21 hours ago, CrzIvan said:

I can sincerely offer you to look into Dr.'s Dunning and Kruger works,

LOL - this is funny on multiple levels.

Edited February 19, 2021 by BMAC615