Panic-psychology in cave diving

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-proves-deadly

is he saying that Sheck died because he panicked???? Certainly seems to imply it, the way I read it...
and I don't buy that one...

Is the writer a cave diver or even a scuba diver?

Interesting. I won't bother to pick out all the cracks in this article, just the most obvious: the use of the term "spelunker", the idea that Hole in the Wall is part of Jackson Blue, and the insinuation that panic was the cause of Sheck Exley's death without a mention that he was pushing the limits of deep diving down around 900 feet at the time.

About what I'd expect from Psychology Today, which is a mass market magazine with more in common with People magazine than with an actual peer-reviewed professional journal.

Which leads me to my next rant: the low standard of accuracy and lack of familiarity with the facts that characterizes most journalism. Whenever I read an article about a topic with which I'm familiar, it is almost always inaccurate. I can't help but believe that articles about the vast areas of knowledge of which I'm ignorant are similarly inaccurate; I just don't know enough about them to pick it up. I can only try to be amused rather than disgusted, and to cultivate a healthy skepticism rather than bitter cynicism.

You can see that I got up on the cranky side of the bed this morning - my only excuse is that I'm in the midst of trading pickup trucks - a process that always makes me grumpy!

Mike

How about, "...Jackson Blue Spring, a long, deep lake in the Florida panhandle..." ?

Well, it is a long lake in the panhandle, so 3 out of four facts in one sentence are correct. 75% accuracy is probably better than average!

Mike

What garbage... and obviously written by someone who NEVER dove in his life.

Scott

I can envision non-diving spouses waving this in the faces of cave divers: "I told you that cave diving was insane!"

Fortunately I have a cave diving wife, so either we are both crazy or neither of us is.

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MORGAN

Which leads me to my next rant: the low standard of accuracy and lack of familiarity with the facts that characterizes most journalism. Whenever I read an article about a topic with which I'm familiar, it is almost always inaccurate. I can't help but believe that articles about the vast areas of knowledge of which I'm ignorant are similarly inaccurate; I just don't know enough about them to pick it up. I can only try to be amused rather than disgusted, and to cultivate a healthy skepticism rather than bitter cynicism.
Mike

---

Why would you want to allow the facts to confuse the issues? You must be some sort of libertarian, or rastafarian, or something.

Let's not overlook the one fact in the article, if you panic, you probably will die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MORGAN

Whenever I read an article about a topic with which I'm familiar, it is almost always inaccurate. I can't help but believe that articles about the vast areas of knowledge of which I'm ignorant are similarly inaccurate; I just don't know enough about them to pick it up. I can only try to be amused rather than disgusted, and to cultivate a healthy skepticism rather than bitter cynicism.

---

Heartily agree. And if you ever worked in (any) scientific field and saw the push (financial, personal or institutional ambition or whatever you call it etc) to spew out "results", you will fairly soon realize that there is even more reason for skepticism and cynicism. There are different levels of People magazines and articles in scientific publications too, just harder to spot.