I've been following this thread on and off. Kamikaze Sith seems to be attempting to defend the ridiculous Starfleet self-actualisation system to qualify someone to head a bridge watch and be in a position where that person may have to assume command of the ship.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:oberon wrote:It's only important if you're as sociopathic as Starfleet. To test cold-bloodedness is, well, cold-blooded. These are supposed to be humans on Earth in the future. They are simply an expeditionary force, and real expeditionary forces try--and succeed at--teaching leadership, good judgment, and how to win at as little cost as possible. The day Matthew McConaughy has to send Trigger into the flooding bilges to save the u-boat comes on that day, and no sooner. Command training will either prepare you for that, or it won't, but being able to kill your friends is not a requirement for command. The resemblances between Starfleet, and its humans, to a real organization of humans out to do a job, are superficial. This silly little "command test" is merely indicative of the level of brainwashing and hive-think that Star Trek society has. Parse every little word and think about it. A simulation to test your ability to send your best man, or your closest friend, to certain death, is just sick. It would be better if they taught their commanders to not rely on the shields in order to delay shooting back every time an unkown entity fires at them. Command is a forge, and you can't test out of a forge. "Fighting the ship" is using the ship's resources and manpower to come out on top in combat, but since we have Troi, a counselor, testing for the top spot in the chain of command, this psychosis makes sense for SF.
I'm sorry but how were they testing to see if the person is cold-blooded? Starfleet tests are also built around the mental state of the person. Let me ask you this, would you want a person who values life above all others in a command position if they may not be able to do what is necessary? Troi's test was probably particular to her, knowing what kind of person she is and the fact that she wanted to pass the command test they had to make sure she was ready for ALL aspects of command including being able to recognize when you may have to send someone who are you are close to into a very dangerous situation.....maybe even fatal for the sake of the rest of your crew and ship.
I'm sorry but this is a difference which makes no difference. Whether you have to send in your best friend to die or Ensign Annonymous is immaterial to any situation in which you have to make the decision to sacrifice one man to save 1000. If the purpose of the psych test was to determine whether a candidate for command rank is able to order somebody to his death, then any figure will do. It isn't necessary to configure a person-specific test to determine the psychological makeup of a potential command officer. It has been pointed out that in a military unit it is almost unavoidable that one or more persons in that unit will become friends of the officer and that it may be necessary to send a friend in to die. A person who holds all life as sacred won't even be able to sacrifice Ensign Annonymous, nevermind your best friend. The only factor which has to be determined is if the candidate in question is able to make the decision necessary to save 1000 lives. And Deanna flunked that test three times before finally "getting it right" in the simulation. Even if we choose not to judge this whole situation by how command qualification is determined in a real-world military organisation, the fact that Deanna Troi flunked the test three times in a row should have been enough to disqualify her from any command slot. Once should have been enough.
And you say she was taking a test to be at the top of the list? How do you figure? It's not like she was trying out for Captain.
That's even more nonsensical a rationale. Any person who attempts to qualify as a line officer is doing so under the understanding that he or she may very well be called upon to assume command of the unit. This is the whole reason for having a relatively large number of command and line officers in the first place: to have a mechanism in the eventuality of the loss of one or more command officers due to being placed incommunicado, captured, lost in action, incapacitated, or killed.
Take the situation in "Disaster" for example and lets assume that the accident which befell the
Enterprise had, in one stroke, killed Picard, Riker, LaForge, Crusher, and Data. This would have left Deanna Troi as the only surviving senior officer on board. By definition, she would have become the new captain of the
Enterprise on the spot and on her shoulders would have fallen the responsibility for the survival of the remaining crew. There is no question of "trying out" for the "job" of captain —any line officer may be called upon to take over at any moment.
In the
Horatio Hornblower novels (one of the primary sources for TOS, according to G.R.), young Mr. Midshipman Hornblower goes through training both in books and hands-on seamanship. But his first command test was when Capt. Pelliew put him in charge of a prize crew of no-ranks to take a captured rice schooner to the nearest English port. Either he handles the job, or ship and crew never make it back alive. In the story, the schooner sank from having taken a hit below the waterline and the English and French crews had to abandon ship. The French officer managed to temporarily get the upper hand on Hornblower and made him and his crew prisoners, but Hornblower was able to turn the tables back in his favour and deliver the French as prisoners upon making it back to
HMS Indefatigable. Acting-Lt. Hornblower passed his first command test on the open sea. And that's how it works in the real world. Either you're up for the challenge or your no damn good.
In actual naval history, during the Battle of Midway, when the bombs fell on the deck of the Japanese aircraft carrier
Kaga, the explosions and fires completely incinerated the bridge, killing the captain and nearly all the ship's senior officers right then and there. The sole surviving line officer at that moment became the only one left to organise the evacuation of the crew. Effectively, he became the new captain of what admittedly was a wrecked ship, but he was the only one available thanks to the immediate deaths of the senior command officers.
There is no "trying out" for the "job" of captain as opposed to "trying out" for lesser command ranks or positions. In a disaster, you may end up having command dumped into your lap whether you want it or not.
Your still not seeing the purpose of the test. It was teaching them that command includes the possibility of having to send someone to die.
That's what command training both in the academy and in the field is for. Any test that you would have to determine psychological makeup would be part of that training, not some random aptitude test an officer could sign up for as part of an effort to broaden career options.
That's why some people just can't be officers in the military because they lack the ability to make those tough decision......that is what they were testing.
The entire premise of a random psychological test to determine this capacity is laughable on its face. TNG seems to liken the organisation of a military service to that of a corporation, where you rise up the ladder of promotion by boning up on certain jobs and qualifying on tests you can take any time. The writers have zero idea of the requirements of a military career, particularly in command. They have no idea that any decision a commander makes can have terminal consequences.
Put it this way: there may not be time for a bridge officer manning the watch to be able to call for Big Chief to take charge when the shit hits the fan, and then just wait around until Big Chief arrives to take charge. Big Chief might already be dead. Military command and promotion does not work on the corporate model or by the Peter Principle; it is the most ruthless merit-promotion system in existence, because very often, those who rise to the command ranks are the ones who survived through enough battles to actually make it to promotion instead of being sewn up into a matress cover and shipped home for burial.
This is why Starfleet's self-actualisation tests are bullshit.
There is nothing wrong with that, what would have been wrong is to give Troi a passing score if she can't make those kinds of decision.....that test was to see if she could.
And she flunked the damn test three times before making the "right" choice. In the real world, the "failing score" would have meant the destruction of the
Enterprise and her entire crew. In the real world, you don't get a second chance.
