Grade James T Kirk

[Darth Wong]

Yes they would, according to your logic. You seem to think that even the most idiotic, foolhardy decision must be smart if it works out, even if it only works out due to cliché. That's the crux of your moron argument.

No its not, the crux of my argument is what criteria constitutes successful. Your definition of successful seems entirely contingent on intelligent decisions, because despite the fact that my argument has revolved completely around success or failure defining functionality, you keep throwing in "Smart" and "Stupid" "Idiot" and "Genius"

This thread is about grading Captain Kirk, you evasive little twat. When you grade someone, the whole fucking point is to evaluate the quality of his decision-making, not his luck. By your logic, you should give a good grade to an accounting student who says that the best financial planning tool in the world is the lottery, as long as he's the one in a million person who actually wins. You don't get it; we don't give good grades for dumb luck. That's why a math professor asks you to show your work; to make sure you didn't just blindly stumble onto the correct answer.

Why do I even have to explain something so elementary? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

[Erik von Nein]

No, no, see, but it would be like a world where everyone who tries for the lottery (and, I guess, believes really hard that they'll succeed) will get lucky all the time and they'd be idiots not to do that!

Yeah, and I guess they'd also be able to reprogram ... um ... everything. Or something. I'm not even sure how that point relates to Kirk's actions during the whole KM scenario, anyway.

[Terralthra]

It doesn't even make sense to try and relate the KM as given in ST (09) to the one in TWOK. The one in TWOK was clearly being given to a lieutenant, as part of a command officer course, perhaps. Giving a "command a starship" no-win scenario test to every cadet, even ones who are just going to end up being doctors or science officers is just plain silly.

The whole thing would've made much more sense if it had fast-forwarded five or six years and had Kirk as a Lieutenant taking it as part of command school. That even removes some of the ham-handedness involved with making a Cadet into the XO, by at least making Kirk an space-experienced officer.

[Themightytom]

Yes they would, according to your logic. You seem to think that even the most idiotic, foolhardy decision must be smart if it works out, even if it only works out due to cliché. That's the crux of your moron argument.

No its not, the crux of my argument is what criteria constitutes successful. Your definition of successful seems entirely contingent on intelligent decisions, because despite the fact that my argument has revolved completely around success or failure defining functionality, you keep throwing in "Smart" and "Stupid" "Idiot" and "Genius"

This thread is about grading Captain Kirk, you evasive little twat. When you grade someone, the whole fucking point is to evaluate the quality of his decision-making, not his luck. By your logic, you should give a good grade to an accounting student who says that the best financial planning tool in the world is the lottery, as long as he's the one in a million person who actually wins. You don't get it; we don't give good grades for dumb luck. That's why a math professor asks you to show your work; to make sure you didn't just blindly stumble onto the correct answer.

Why do I even have to explain something so elementary? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Yes they would, according to your logic. You seem to think that even the most idiotic, foolhardy decision must be smart if it works out, even if it only works out due to cliché. That's the crux of your moron argument.

No its not, the crux of my argument is what criteria constitutes successful. Your definition of successful seems entirely contingent on intelligent decisions, because despite the fact that my argument has revolved completely around success or failure defining functionality, you keep throwing in "Smart" and "Stupid" "Idiot" and "Genius"

This thread is about grading Captain Kirk, you evasive little twat. When you grade someone, the whole fucking point is to evaluate the quality of his decision-making, not his luck. By your logic, you should give a good grade to an accounting student who says that the best financial planning tool in the world is the lottery, as long as he's the one in a million person who actually wins. You don't get it; we don't give good grades for dumb luck. That's why a math professor asks you to show your work; to make sure you didn't just blindly stumble onto the correct answer.

Why do I even have to explain something so elementary? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Well you could explain it out of common courtesy when you are going to put words in my mouth. My statement had nothing to do with YOUR interpretation of the Kobiyashia Maru test and its purpose, which you keep trying to shift the debate to. The thread is an opinion survey about what instructors should have given Captain Kirk, its not a "grade Captain Kirk's decision making" poll.

When I make a statement that Kirk does not have a criplling personality flaw, based on... his not being crippled, I didn't realize I was going to be flooded with hypothetical situations that never happen in the movie. When I tried to elaborate that Kirk's behavior was consistently successful, you immediately jumped in with "But the writing is BAD!!

I need a heads up that you are going to go on a debate rampage without reading the original post where I said

As seen in the movie, James T. Kirk did what no other cadet had done.
The question is what did he do? Did he cheat, did he win, did he miss the point of the test entirely?

Its a psychology test,

the problem is, who can guess what psychology of the 23rd century looks like?

It's been popping up in other threads so why not gather

opinion

data.

[Patrick Degan]

the problem is, who can guess what psychology of the 23rd century looks like?

You realise that's an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy, don't you?

[Themightytom]

the problem is, who can guess what psychology of the 23rd century looks like?

You realise that's an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy, don't you?

I wasn't debating anyone when I posted the original comment, but if the premise is flawed, its flawed. Appeal to ignorance isn't lsited with the other fallacies, can you give me details? I infer that it is similiar to "Appeal to Authority" in which case I disagree.
If I were making an Appeal to ignorance, i would reply to Mike along the lines of "We don't know how they grade in the 23rd century" or something along those lines which uses ignorance to invalidate his point.

[Patrick Degan]

the problem is, who can guess what psychology of the 23rd century looks like?

You realise that's an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy, don't you?

I wasn't debating anyone when I posted the original comment, but if the premise is flawed, its flawed. Appeal to ignorance isn't lsited with the other fallacies, can you give me details? I infer that it is similiar to "Appeal to Authority" in which case I disagree.
If I were making an Appeal to ignorance, i would reply to Mike along the lines of "We don't know how they grade in the 23rd century" or something along those lines which uses ignorance to invalidate his point.

The Appeal to Ignorance fallacy is constructed along the lines of: "we can't know what A might be, therefore we can't rebut A or argue about A". Saying we can't guess what 23rd century psychology might be like is an Appeal to Ignorance.

[Samuel]

Especially since Kirk is human, the Federation appears to reject genetic engineering and mind control techniques and he displays normal human behaviors that can be explained by current psychology.

[Darth Wong]

The idea that all arguments are somehow nullified because of mysterious "23re century psychology" is retarded. They still have logic in the 23rd century, don't they? People can still point out that Kirk's actions are rash and foolhardy, can't they?

What kind of idiocy is this, to pretend that rash and foolhardy actions may actually make sense according to a different "psychology"?

Well you could explain it out of common courtesy when you are going to put words in my mouth. My statement had nothing to do with YOUR interpretation of the Kobiyashia Maru test and its purpose, which you keep trying to shift the debate to. The thread is an opinion survey about what instructors should have given Captain Kirk, its not a "grade Captain Kirk's decision making" poll.

What's the difference between "what grade should the instructors have given Captain Kirk" and "grade Captain Kirk's decision making"? The whole point of any test is to evaluate a student's abilities and/or decision-making. Your whole argument seems to devolve to the idea that we can't make any statements about the test or its purpose or any grades that might be given in relation to it ... even though you started this thread to ask what we thought about all those things.

You just don't like the answers you're getting, so you whip out this "we can't know 23rd century psychology" bullshit. The things we're saying about Kirk's decision-making on the KM test dovetail nicely with his reckless and ill thought-out behaviour later in the film: something you seem loathe to recognize.

When I make a statement that Kirk does not have a criplling personality flaw, based on... his not being crippled, I didn't realize I was going to be flooded with hypothetical situations that never happen in the movie. When I tried to elaborate that Kirk's behavior was consistently successful, you immediately jumped in with "But the writing is BAD!!

What "hypothetical situations that never happen in the movie?" Are you reading the same thread we are? We've been talking about things he actually did do in the movie, and pointing out how lucky he is that they worked. Other characters even told him onscreen that the likelihood of things working out was tiny; he just got very, very lucky. Hell, if he hadn't been attacked by that monster on the ice planet, he would have made a beeline straight for the outpost, never met Spock in the cave, and then would have sat there twiddling his thumbs with Scotty and Igor.

[Themightytom]

The Appeal to Ignorance fallacy is constructed along the lines of: "we can't know what A might be, therefore we can't rebut A or argue about A". Saying we can't guess what 23rd century psychology might be like is an Appeal to Ignorance.

Which I never did... in fact I have been applying 21st century principles of diagnosis to davocate that Kirk presents as a functional adult in his environment. unorthodox certainly, but not "Crippled"

Especially since Kirk is human, the Federation appears to reject genetic engineering and mind control techniques and he displays normal human behaviors that can be explained by current psychology.

Except they would have different standards for normative scales. While the human body can't be that different in terms of physiology, the culture is obviously different. Today's diagnostic principles "try" to take that into account, though widely used scales such as the DSM IV are biased towards white middle class Americans, its not like psychologists don't KNOW that and allow room for error.

The idea that all arguments are somehow nullified because of mysterious "23re century psychology" is retarded. They still have logic in the 23rd century, don't they? People can still point out that Kirk's actions are rash and foolhardy, can't they?

What kind of idiocy is this, to pretend that rash and foolhardy actions may actually make sense according to a different "psychology"?

Which Spock does regularly, and Kirk confidently maintains that irrational behavior has its place. he doesn't practice ONLY irrational behavior though, he doesn't run around in a bathrobe and try to lick people to determine whether they can be trusted. Rash and foolhardy actions can exist without being a pattern representative of a "crippling flaw.

I haven't said anything like "Psychology is different so we have no idea" in an actual debate, nor have I proposed that it would be completely unrecognizeable from todays, but there ARE identifiable shifts in perspective. Freudian psychology is significantly different from the work of BF Skinner and Carl Rogers. I'm starting to forget dialogue but Spock places an odd emphasis on the kobiyashi maru's purpose, he says its to deal with fear or death or something along those lines. Whatever it he said, I remember thinking ISN'T typical of modern psychology.

[Samuel]

Which I never did... in fact I have been applying 21st century principles of diagnosis to davocate that Kirk presents as a functional adult in his environment. unorthodox certainly, but not "Crippled"

Cheating is not an appropriate reaction, certainly NOT so blatantly.

Except they would have different standards for normative scales. While the human body can't be that different in terms of physiology, the culture is obviously different. Today's diagnostic principles "try" to take that into account, though widely used scales such as the DSM IV are biased towards white middle class Americans, its not like psychologists don't KNOW that and allow room for error.

So Kirk doesn't live in a society comparable to middle class America... despite the fact that it is shown consistently to be culturally similar to middle class America. Well, less specism, bigotry and poverty- more like an idealized version.

Freudian psychology is significantly different from the work of BF Skinner and Carl Rogers.

Freud with the first person in the field. He got alot of things wrong. That is why it is so different.

I'm starting to forget dialogue but Spock places an odd emphasis on the kobiyashi maru's purpose, he says its to deal with fear or death or something along those lines. Whatever it he said, I remember thinking ISN'T typical of modern psychology.

You do realize that whenever we have a religion thread someone mentions the reason it is so common is because of people's fear of death? Where do you think that observation came from if not psychology? Remember fight or flight? Psychology commonly deals with how people react to such things ESPECIALLY in the military!

[Themightytom]

Which I never did... in fact I have been applying 21st century principles of diagnosis to davocate that Kirk presents as a functional adult in his environment. unorthodox certainly, but not "Crippled"

Cheating is not an appropriate reaction, certainly NOT so blatantly.

Can you clarify your comment? Are you saying that the instance of blatantly cheating is an example of dysfunctional behavior? I agree, but I don't think it necessarily implies a pattern pointing to a crippling character flaw. Kirk actually framed the situation semi effectively by complaining that the entire situation was a cheat designed to make students fail.

Except they would have different standards for normative scales. While the human body can't be that different in terms of physiology, the culture is obviously different. Today's diagnostic principles "try" to take that into account, though widely used scales such as the DSM IV are biased towards white middle class Americans, its not like psychologists don't KNOW that and allow room for error.

The point was that psychology tries to account for cultural bias in applying scales of normative behavior. i wasn't saying DSM IV wouldn't apply to him, I was saying as a diagnostic manual it has inherent flaws which are ameliorated somewhat by our awareness of them.

Freud with the first person in the field. He got alot of things wrong. That is why it is so different.

Not even "Wrong", some of the conclusions he reached were rational based on the evidence he had. My point is that there would be a continuom of understanding in psycholigy as it develops. With hard sciences they can start at a baseline of observation and build on a solid foundation, with soft sciences its not so easy because the observer can contaminate the observation, there are unseen factors at work etc. I'm sure Psychology will mature into a hard science someday but at the moment it changes regularly.

I was actually watching TOS "Dagger of the mind" where a female psychologist stated "Memory alteration is the basis of modern psychology" and I almost spilled my beer. I am NOT suggesting that is the direction that 23rd Century psychology would take, but it DOES suggest that that was a predictable direction for psychology back in the 70's. Now we call that brainwashing....

You do realize that whenever we have a religion thread someone mentions the reason it is so common is because of people's fear of death? Where do you think that observation came from if not psychology? Remember fight or flight? Psychology commonly deals with how people react to such things ESPECIALLY in the military

I will rewatch the movie before I try to comment on that because I don't remember the comment well enough

[Patrick Degan]

The Appeal to Ignorance fallacy is constructed along the lines of: "we can't know what A might be, therefore we can't rebut A or argue about A". Saying we can't guess what 23rd century psychology might be like is an Appeal to Ignorance.

Which I never did... in fact I have been applying 21st century principles of diagnosis to davocate that Kirk presents as a functional adult in his environment. unorthodox certainly, but not "Crippled"

And then crawfished by saying "we can't know what 23rd century psychology is like" to try to have your cake and eat it too. You're doing it now, trying to maintain the position that nKirk is "a functional adult" despite the fact that we see him constantly in trouble ("the smartest repeat offender in Iowa") and making a public joke of a primary Starfleet training test heedless of consequences. That is not a functional adult but a damaged one.

[Themightytom]

And then crawfished by saying "we can't know what 23rd century psychology is like" to try to have your cake and eat it too. You're doing it now, trying to maintain the position that nKirk is "a functional adult" despite the fact that we see him constantly in trouble ("the smartest repeat offender in Iowa") and making a public joke of a primary Starfleet training test heedless of consequences. That is not a functional adult but a damaged one.

...because you say so? Show me a five axis evaluation demonstrating even by MODERN standards that he has a mental illness. it has been pointed out that he appears to be compatible with the DSM IV, so prove to me that he is dysfunctional.

You won't be able to, because Starfleet rewards rediculous behavior. They could have given Kirk a medal for saving the planet, they did that AND MADE HIM CAPTAIN?? That is acknowledging that they wish the manner in which he did things to continue. He's in an irrational world, you can't expect him to behave rationally.

Geez the first time we get a character from Star Trek who isn't a complete Mary Sue, everyone starts calling him emotionally crippled...

[Patrick Degan]

And then crawfished by saying "we can't know what 23rd century psychology is like" to try to have your cake and eat it too. You're doing it now, trying to maintain the position that nKirk is "a functional adult" despite the fact that we see him constantly in trouble ("the smartest repeat offender in Iowa") and making a public joke of a primary Starfleet training test heedless of consequences. That is not a functional adult but a damaged one.

...because you say so? Show me a five axis evaluation demonstrating even by MODERN standards that he has a mental illness. it has been pointed out that he appears to be compatible with the DSM IV, so prove to me that he is dysfunctional.

You won't be able to, because Starfleet rewards rediculous behavior. They could have given Kirk a medal for saving the planet, they did that AND MADE HIM CAPTAIN?? That is acknowledging that they wish the manner in which he did things to continue. He's in an irrational world, you can't expect him to behave rationally.

Geez the first time we get a character from Star Trek who isn't a complete Mary Sue, everyone starts calling him emotionally crippled...

Who do you think you're fooling, you dishonest little bullshitter? You are most definitely trying to have this both ways: saying that he's dysfunctional by objective standards but because the movie world is constructed stupidly, it works and he's a functioning adult.

You are NOT getting away with that one. Everybody in the movie world may be stupid, but THAT DOES NOT OBLIGATE US TO BE EQUALLY STUPID EVALUATING THE ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOURS WE SEE.

As for this little gem of yours:

He's in an irrational world, you can't expect him to behave rationally.

That's akin to saying we can't judge the insane to be insane because they're living in their own little insane world inside their heads.

[Morilore]

Geez the first time we get a character from Star Trek who isn't a complete Mary Sue, everyone starts calling him emotionally crippled...

Wait wait wait, how the fuck is AbramsKirk not a Mary Sue (well, OK, by definition he's not, but I know the altered sense you're using)? He's a delinquent with childhood issues which never ever cause him actual problems, he has the informed attribute of being unreasonably competent and a high scorer on "aptitude tests" or whatever, he solves problems with violence, he shows square Spock how to be cool, the narrative never makes him wrong, everyone loves him at the end of the movie - he's a total stand-in for the moron frat-boy jock-nerds in the audience.

[Themightytom]

Who do you think you're fooling, you dishonest little bullshitter? You are most definitely trying to have this both ways: saying that he's dysfunctional by objective standards but because the movie world is constructed stupidly, it works and he's a functioning adult.

You are NOT getting away with that one. Everybody in the movie world may be stupid, but THAT DOES NOT OBLIGATE US TO BE EQUALLY STUPID EVALUATING THE ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOURS WE SEE.

As for this little gem of yours:

I'm not saying he is dysfunctional by objective standars I have been saying he is NOT dysfunctional because in applying real world Psychology to him CORRECTLY, ie: taking into account the context of his actions and environment, he is not dysfunctional.

You don't have to be stupid in evaluating them, you have to acknowledge that behavior in the movies is portrayed innacurately, and rewarded disproporationately which suggests an irrational context in which irrational behavior is not dysfunctional.

That's akin to saying we can't judge the insane to be insane because they're living in their own little insane world inside their heads.

No its not, because thier "own little insane world inside their heads" is an irrational conception of this one in which they are dysfunctional. You shouldn't judge them according to your own particular whims and beliefs, you should use as neutral a scale as possible, and even then you allow for innaccuracy. Do you actually HAVE any experience with the mentally ill? The only reason I ask is beccause your example refers to people with are deranged, ie: people with delusions, hallucinations etc. and there is more evidence that if Kirk HAD a disorder it would be a personality disorder. This is not a "Cripplling character flaw" by any means but its the closest thing to it suggested in the movie.

[Themightytom]

Geez the first time we get a character from Star Trek who isn't a complete Mary Sue, everyone starts calling him emotionally crippled...

Wait wait wait, how the fuck is AbramsKirk not a Mary Sue (well, OK, by definition he's not, but I know the altered sense you're using)? He's a delinquent with childhood issues which never ever cause him actual problems, he has the informed attribute of being unreasonably competent and a high scorer on "aptitude tests" or whatever, he solves problems with violence, he shows square Spock how to be cool, the narrative never makes him wrong, everyone loves him at the end of the movie - he's a total stand-in for the moron frat-boy jock-nerds in the audience.

...
I almost replied "He has Mary Sue like tendencies" but the last time i amde a statement in taht manner i got jumped on for being pedantic. I DO submit however that he can't be a mary Sue, if he has a "crippling character flaw" so it is either one or the other, because we don't permit varying degrees aroundd here.

[Erik von Nein]

Oh, god, stop talking, please!

He's not dysfunctional because, via writer's fiat, he doesn't get his ass killed and he's not a Mary Sue because he's dysfunctional. What? Seriously.

[Patrick Degan]

Who do you think you're fooling, you dishonest little bullshitter? You are most definitely trying to have this both ways: saying that he's dysfunctional by objective standards but because the movie world is constructed stupidly, it works and he's a functioning adult.

You are NOT getting away with that one. Everybody in the movie world may be stupid, but THAT DOES NOT OBLIGATE US TO BE EQUALLY STUPID EVALUATING THE ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOURS WE SEE.

As for this little gem of yours:

I'm not saying he is dysfunctional by objective standars I have been saying he is NOT dysfunctional because in applying real world Psychology to him CORRECTLY, ie: taking into account the context of his actions and environment, he is not dysfunctional.

You don't have to be stupid in evaluating them, you have to acknowledge that behavior in the movies is portrayed innacurately, and rewarded disproporationately which suggests an irrational context in which irrational behavior is not dysfunctional.

You really cannot be this dense, can you? You are actually insisting upon a wholly subjective standard by which to exempt this film from judgement for it's own bullshit?! Are you fucking serious?!?!

That's akin to saying we can't judge the insane to be insane because they're living in their own little insane world inside their heads.

No its not, because thier "own little insane world inside their heads" is an irrational conception of this one in which they are dysfunctional. You shouldn't judge them according to your own particular whims and beliefs, you should use as neutral a scale as possible, and even then you allow for innaccuracy. Do you actually HAVE any experience with the mentally ill? The only reason I ask is beccause your example refers to people with are deranged, ie: people with delusions, hallucinations etc. and there is more evidence that if Kirk HAD a disorder it would be a personality disorder. This is not a "Cripplling character flaw" by any means but its the closest thing to it suggested in the movie.

I see the entire concept of an analogy just sails right on past that pointy head of yours.

And as for having experience with the mentally ill, it seems I'm having one right now.

[Themightytom]

You really cannot be this dense, can you? You are actually insisting upon a wholly subjective standard by which to exempt this film from judgement for it's own bullshit?! Are you fucking serious?!?!

No I am insisting on a subjective standpoint when "evaluating" the mental health of a character. If the film WASN'T full of crap Kirk would either NOT be irrationalo in the context of the audience's experience (Yours) or he would be presented as dysfunctional within his setting.

I see the entire concept of an analogy just sails right on past that pointy head of yours.

And as for having experience with the mentally ill, it seems I'm having one right now.

Your analogy was innacurate because you have a narrow view of mental illness. You equate it with only one of many forms., which unfortunately is the kind Kirk presents no evidence of.

[Patrick Degan]

You really cannot be this dense, can you? You are actually insisting upon a wholly subjective standard by which to exempt this film from judgement for it's own bullshit?! Are you fucking serious?!?!

No I am insisting on a subjective standpoint when "evaluating" the mental health of a character. If the film WASN'T full of crap Kirk would either NOT be irrationalo in the context of the audience's experience (Yours) or he would be presented as dysfunctional within his setting.

A subjective standard means absolutely dick when it comes to actually evaluating anything, you stupid fuck. Does this really have to be spelled out to you in simple words?

I see the entire concept of an analogy just sails right on past that pointy head of yours.

And as for having experience with the mentally ill, it seems I'm having one right now.

Your analogy was innacurate because you have a narrow view of mental illness. You equate it with only one of many forms., which unfortunately is the kind Kirk presents no evidence of.

That's right, bullshitter. Just keep tapdancing in the minefield for as long as you think you can get away with it.

[Themightytom]

A subjective standard means absolutely dick when it comes to actually evaluating anything, you stupid fuck. Does this really have to be spelled out to you in simple words?

Actually I will concede that statement to you. In trying to turn your phrase I substituted the word "Subjective" for "contextual". My apologies. Not that subjective standards aren't used in Psychology mind you, but that is because a truly objective standard hasn't been developed.

And as for having experience with the mentally ill, it seems I'm having one right now.

Speaking of subjective standards, thanks for your opinion :-p

That's right, bullshitter. Just keep tapdancing in the minefield for as long as you think you can get away with it.

Riiight its bullshit to point out that you seem to atribute delusional tendencies to all mental illnesses. Kirk might, in both the context of his universe, AND if he were a character in our own might have symptoms of a border line personality disorder.

He does not present evidence of a low GAF, he's an 81 or up.
http://psyweb.com/Mdisord/DSM_IV/jsp/Axis_V.jsp

Code: Select all

Diagnostic Criteria ( DSM-IV™ ) made easy. 

1.  Rapid changes in mood, intense unstable interpersonal relationships,  marked impulsively, instability in affect, and instability in self image.

As indicated by at least five of the following: 

Going to about any lengths to avoid real or imagined abandonment. 
[b]Intense unstable interpersonal relationships characterized by changing  between idealization and devaluation the relationship. [/b]- Well this one applies more to the original Kirk than to the new one, but who knows, this one may have a babe off the week as well.
Lack of ones own identity. A Marked instability of self image or the sense of self. 
[b]Impulsively in two or more areas that are self damaging. These may included abuse, sex, spending, eating, driving reckless, or etc. [/b]
[b]Recurrent gestures, self mutilation, suicidal behavior, or threats. [/b] Maybe suicidal behavior
[b]Instability in affect. [/b] maybe to a small degree.
Marked feelings of emptiness. 
[b]Frequent displays of anger due to a difficulty in control. [/b] Definitely that one.
Dissociative or paranoid. 

http://psyweb.com/Mdisord/jsp/bopd.jsp

I am suspicious of any site that represents the "DSM made easy" but I can always check it agains tthe real thing tonight when I go home.

Note: You obviously don't use this with the tiny bit of information we get from watching a two hour movie, as you said Dagan, subejctive standards don't mean dick. The DSM is a subjective scale. The GAF is a VERY subjective part of a subjective scale. An actual intake and asessment includes many many diagnostic scales to support inclusion of the more subjective aspects of the DSM IV and it typically involves consultation from multiple disciplines. That degree of information is NEVER available in a fictional work. The best you could do is measure gross functionality against other examples within the fictional work.

This is why I am arguing that fictional characters should not be evaluated by real world standards, but rather taken as depicted within their fiction, unless part of their characterization is that they are unstable (obviously).

[Patrick Degan]

You obviously don't use this with the tiny bit of information we get from watching a two hour movie, as you said Dagan, subejctive standards don't mean dick. The DSM is a subjective scale. The GAF is a VERY subjective part of a subjective scale. An actual intake and asessment includes many many diagnostic scales to support inclusion of the more subjective aspects of the DSM IV and it typically involves consultation from multiple disciplines. That degree of information is NEVER available in a fictional work. The best you could do is measure gross functionality against other examples within the fictional work.

Which we do have as a basis for comparison, actually. We can also judge by what we know as standards for functional and dysfunctional (not delusional, which I never said) behaviour. But you still try to put up the dodge "it's a fictional universe with it's own rules, therefore Kirk's actions work".

This is why I am arguing that fictional characters should not be evaluated by real world standards, but rather taken as depicted within their fiction, unless part of their characterization is that they are unstable (obviously).

And again, this still adds up to the same bullshit dodge: "it's a fictional universe with it's own rules, therefore Kirk's actions work". Doesn't work that way, Skippy, no matter how much you dearly wish it did. You do not offer any sound reason why we cannot judge Kirk's heedless wish to just rush after Nero with no plan as reckless, nor offer any sound reason why we can't judge Kirk turning the KM test into a joke simply to make it a laugh and failing to adequately defend his decisionmaking on any logical basis as reckless other than "it's a fictional universe with it's own rules, therefore Kirk's actions work".

You do know what the phrase "Wall of Ignorance" means around here, I trust.

[seanrobertson]

ThemightyTom:

With all the respect I can accord, please, heed my advice:

Concede this debate, my good man.

Best,

-Sean