Grade James T Kirk

[Themightytom]

ThemightyTom:

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

Concede this debate, my good man.

Best,

-Sean

Thanks Sean I appreciate the respect, and the warning.

I'll concede Dagan's point since I did everything, including looking Kirk up in the DSM IV to demosntrae real world standards don't work on fictional characters. At this point I don't know what other evidence I could supply.
But if I haven't made my case I haven't made it,Dagan please consider this my formal concession I'm not going to waste another three pages with more debate.

Also I hope you weren't taking this personally, I figured it would be disrespectful to ignore your responses even if my responses led to more debate.

[CaptHawkeye]

I wouldn't grade anyone for performance on it, because *everybody* even the creator of the thing, seem to have the wierdest interpritations of how the Kobayashi Maru should work. Until the instructors know what the hell the scenario should mean, I consider it unfair to grade people based on a completely useless test that even the teachers fail to understand.

Everybody claims that the KM is a scenario to test a cadet's "fear" in a stressful situation. Their's just one fucking problem.

IT'S A SIMULATION. How can they be afraid of dying when their isn't going to be any death no matter how hard you fuck up? Hilariously Kirk even thought the scenario was a joke, his reprogramming of the sim to basically play out like a scripted mission in some FPS notwithstanding.

Rather, Mike brought up a way better analysis of the KM somewhere around here. He said that the KM was a test of the complexity of weighing strategic decisions. That sometimes personal pride and conventional rules have to be ignored for the greater benefit.

Starfleet Cadets are tought it's their job to provide rescue and humanitarian aid to those in trouble no matter what the circumstances. So now, we're going to put you in a situation where you have to question what we've taught you.

[Havok]

That would be great, but hasn't it been said that if you don't attempt the rescue, you automatically fail? That eliminates one of your strategic decisions right there, not to mention the most important one: Don't plunge the Federation into war over one ship.

[neoolong]

Doesn't that mean the Federation wants them to be cowboys instead of thinking through the implications of their command decisions?

This is the stupidest test I've ever seen.

[Uraniun235]

That would be great, but hasn't it been said that if you don't attempt the rescue, you automatically fail? That eliminates one of your strategic decisions right there, not to mention the most important one: Don't plunge the Federation into war over one ship.

It's not like violating the Neutral Zone has ever plunged the Federation into war. I mean, shit, Picard charged in at warp speed twice in one season over what basically amounted to rumors, and we never heard shit from the Romulans afterward. The Romulans came screaming across the border a couple of times and the Federation was apparently satisfied with Picard's stern words to "not do that shit again because seriously that is not cool".

Back in TOS, the Romulans came over and plowed a few outposts in Federation space, and lost the ship that did it, and that was that. After that, there was the time that a Commodore thought a shortcut across Romulan space was a great idea. Then later, Kirk fucking barrels into Romulan territory, transparently blames it on navigational error, steals their cloaking device and manages to run back to Federation space - if "violating the Neutral Zone" was the grave cassus belli that it's regarded as, there should have been a whole second war over that mission.


Granted, these actions all chronologically take place way later than Kirk's taking of the test, but in general it seems like compared to the other crazy shit that the Enterprise has gotten into with the Neutral Zone, hopping in to save a crippled ship is probably the least severe offense. Maybe the Klingons are bigger sticklers about that shit, but I don't know if we've ever seen anything to suggest as such.

[Havok]

Again, that's great, but if you don't even have the option of saying "sorry KM, but we can't cross into the NZ due to treaty stipulations", which is one possible recourse a Captain would have in the real world version of the scenario, then it isn't a test of any kind of relevance other than what some have pointed out as technical skill and strategic thinking against overwhelming odds, oh yeah, except you can't actually retreat.

And if Mr. The Good of the many outweigh the needs of the few, is overseeing the test, then it makes even less sense as he would want that option in there because logically, the lives of a few hundred do not compare to the lives of billions if the incident started a war.

[Uraniun235]

We don't actually know that refusing to go in fails the test though. That's just something that was invented by a novelist and a video game.

Though, if I were going to write it (being intended as a no-win scenario), I would write that the procedure (should the captain decide not to violate the zone) would be to immediately file a report with the nearest base - and that the base (being commanded by Commodore John Wayne or what have you) would immediately respond with "you are ordered to get your ass in that zone instanter and rescue those survivors while we try to work things out with the diplomats".

[Ryushikaze]

here's a thought; what if the sim failed literally because kirk just refused to do anything, this locking the AI up, being programmed in such a way that it expected a reaction to it's initial volley, and when nothing happened, it just timed out. Essentially Kirk's trick would be to catch the sim as it shuts down, but before it shuts completely off.

Not that he should be graded either way, but it does fit with the other depiction, where his audacious attitude won him the sim.

Now, I know I've no proof for that, but that was the idea I had while watching the film.

[Patrick Degan]

here's a thought; what if the sim failed literally because kirk just refused to do anything, this locking the AI up, being programmed in such a way that it expected a reaction to it's initial volley, and when nothing happened, it just timed out. Essentially Kirk's trick would be to catch the sim as it shuts down, but before it shuts completely off.

Not that he should be graded either way, but it does fit with the other depiction, where his audacious attitude won him the sim.

Now, I know I've no proof for that, but that was the idea I had while watching the film.

That would actually have been a clever twist —Kirk beats the sim by studying the programme itself rather than the set conditions of the test; figuring out where it would glitch and how to exploit it. At the hearing, he could have used that to further outline how the test itself is wholly unrealistic (as well as clear himself of the charge of cheating).

It would have been more interesting overall if Kirk had beaten Spock with logic rather than cheating and emotional provocation. Spock might not have liked being outwitted, but then he would have had reason to respect James Kirk early on, even if grudgingly, and thus a more solid basis for their friendship would be established. There could even have been a postscript scene in which the two sit down for their first game of chess —fade to the exterior of the ship as we hear Leonard Nimoy's recital of the opening monologue just before the Enterprise goes to warp and off to the unknown.

Of course, that works only if the writers choose not to make James T. Kirk an asshole punk for half the movie.

[FOG3]

Responding directly to OP:

If I were to execute the Kobayashi Maru test what I'd be looking for is the same thing the shooting gallery test in Men in Black was about. Can you spot when things are off, and handle a situation appropriately which in this case is a, blatant enough, trap. Those who failed to ask questions like: How does a ship that has "lost power" send 2-way superlight communication, How time critical are these casualties, and otherwise and rush in ala Saavik would at the very least be utterly chewed out.

If the clip I've seen on youtube is any indicator in the new movie Kirk practically just sits there, and the entire thing automatically plays out with them firing on him, etc. without him really doing anything until he should have been dead. Including a command from Star Fleet Command to act openning the scenario. That differs from the TWOK depiction I'm familiar with significantly.

In that case the test strikes me as bordline worthless as they're forced into a confrontation, and it's a sim.

As for Kirk if this is the result of blatant hack the only reason his butt wouldn't be gone is if he was too well connected with the corrupt in power. If the cheating element was removed, and this was TWOK style, somebody with such heavy duty target fixation and linear thinking would not be someone I would rate highly on performance evals. Hacking it furthermore is something so obvious it's a internet cliche for those who can't otherwise win things like debates.

If that determination could be channeled to fixing his flaws he might become a worthwhile commander, but otherwise from a purely objective cut & dry perspective I wouldn't put him in charge of much more then a mop & bucket. Hardware is expensive, valuable, and not easily replaced.

On the other hand how many Star Fleet commanders would you put in charge of much more then a mop & bucket in the real world, where writers are not warping reality for them?

[Questor]

It would have been more interesting overall if Kirk had beaten Spock with logic rather than cheating and emotional provocation. Spock might not have liked being outwitted, but then he would have had reason to respect James Kirk early on, even if grudgingly, and thus a more solid basis for their friendship would be established. There could even have been a postscript scene in which the two sit down for their first game of chess —fade to the exterior of the ship as we hear Leonard Nimoy's recital of the opening monologue just before the Enterprise goes to warp and off to the unknown.

This would have been great! It would also have fit, being a way he could cheat and satisfy the setup for TWoK, but still be something unique, and get him a commendation. Cheating on a test is not "original thinking."

On the other hand, noticing that the test has certain characteristics and exploiting them could certainly be argued either way. If he was sufficiently eloquent, and avoided certain cliches, you could fulfill all the requirements.

This also doesn't require the punk kid to be able to hack into what should be a very secure computer system.

[FOG3]

A thought about how to legitly beat the Koyabashi Maru if it's dumbed down to little more then a glorified fighter combat sim mission.

The Romulan Birds of Prey if Memory Alpha is legitimate would use this exact tactic of luring and swarming. Thankfully both the old Romulan Birds of Prey and the D7 have fatal flaws in their design respective to the Constitution class. TWOK style the setup is 3 lined up abreast, Abrams style it seems to be a circling with 2 starting out line in front and 3 behind.

As long as these limitations apply one could arguably do a funky kind of rolling scissors where the initial move is to warp past, and preferably over them, before firing and keep maneuvering to prevent a lock while pounding away at them with torpedoes and phasers. This would qualify as original thinking as recognition of maneuver does not seem common in Star Fleet, and the test was designed without people recognizing that in mind. It would also explain confidence during TOS when faced with numerous D7s, and the design changes of the later K't'inga-class.

This solution could be handled quite well, I believe. Especially if the normal response of handling the ship with all the grace of a beached whale was coached in terms of Rommel's notation of the fact most people will hesitate when confronted with the enemy. Not that Kirk should be the only one Ace Starfleet ever pulled from the rank of cadets.

[Darth Wong]

Themightytom wrote:

I'll concede Dagan's point since I did everything, including looking Kirk up in the DSM IV to demosntrae real world standards don't work on fictional characters. At this point I don't know what other evidence I could supply.

That's not a concession. That's a declaration of "I'm right, you're wrong, but I'm going to graciously pretend to concede anyway". According to your bumblefuck logic, we can't even say that a fictional wife-beater is an abusive personality, because it's fiction and we can't apply real-life psychology to fictional characters.

[Themightytom]

Themightytom wrote:

I'll concede Dagan's point since I did everything, including looking Kirk up in the DSM IV to demosntrae real world standards don't work on fictional characters. At this point I don't know what other evidence I could supply.

That's not a concession. That's a declaration of "I'm right, you're wrong, but I'm going to graciously pretend to concede anyway". According to your bumblefuck logic, we can't even say that a fictional wife-beater is an abusive personality, because it's fiction and we can't apply real-life psychology to fictional characters.

I conceded as an acknowledgement that the people in the forum found Dagan's argument more persuasive and that my evidence was not sufficient to support my case. I don't think ANYONE is looking at the DSM material I posted, and Dagan's counter examples were from the movie, I wasn't going to attempt to challenge it without a copy of the movie and accurate evidence. Although I will review the youtube video thoroughly after I am out of work if you want me to resurrect the argument.

Your latest example is circular, a person depicted in a fictional universe as being a wife beater meets the criteria in the context of their environment because they are depicted as a wife beater. You object to my logic because you assume a black or white scenario, considering a fictional character's environment doesn't automatically disqualify that character from a diagnosis, Rambo for example has obvious impairment and fits criteria for PTSD, Darth Vader a previous example when we were talking about character flaws, has anxiety symptoms. Harry Goldfarb appears to have a substance abuse issue.

On the other hand applying inappropriate measures to a situation that is often inherently biased as the product of an irrational mind results in peculiar fucntional asessments. Is Superman delusional because he thinks he can fly, when we know this not to be possible in real life? maybe frodo is delusional because he thinks he's invisible. Doc Brown thinks he can go back in time, Spock exhibits a complete disaffect. the degree to which personality traits and belief structures enable an individual to function successfully in their environment is a core factor in determining "Functional" vs "Crippled", accurately defining that environment is nothing more than calibrating an objective scale.

[Patrick Degan]

On the other hand applying inappropriate measures to a situation that is often inherently biased as the product of an irrational mind results in peculiar fucntional asessments. Is Superman delusional because he thinks he can fly, when we know this not to be possible in real life? maybe frodo is delusional because he thinks he's invisible. Doc Brown thinks he can go back in time, Spock exhibits a complete disaffect. the degree to which personality traits and belief structures enable an individual to function successfully in their environment is a core factor in determining "Functional" vs "Crippled", accurately defining that environment is nothing more than calibrating an objective scale.

Nice little Red Herrings about Superman and Doc Brown. No, they are not delusional for thinking they can do what we actually see them do. They are not dysfunctional or immature. If, on the other hand, Superman acts like a complete asshole and juggles buildings just because he can, then that's clearly the workings of a dysfunctional personality no matter what the fictional universe has him capable of doing.

By your "logic" we cannot judge Yahweh because the environment of the Bible stories is fixed to where Yahweh is always right, even if he takes it upon himself to wipe out whole cities, slaughter the first born after making pharoah a hard-headed prick multiple times, or directing his chosen people to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing. He's right because he's Yahweh the True God and the Bible environment makes him right. That's a Special Pleading Fallacy right there —declaring Yahweh exempt from judgement for his actions because his circumstances are different than our own. Well, it doesn't work to clear Yahweh of being a genocidal lunatic and it also doesn't clear nu-Kirk of being a dysfunctional little asshole at Starfleet Academy.

[Darth Wong]

Themightytom wrote:

I'll concede Dagan's point since I did everything, including looking Kirk up in the DSM IV to demosntrae real world standards don't work on fictional characters. At this point I don't know what other evidence I could supply.

That's not a concession. That's a declaration of "I'm right, you're wrong, but I'm going to graciously pretend to concede anyway". According to your bumblefuck logic, we can't even say that a fictional wife-beater is an abusive personality, because it's fiction and we can't apply real-life psychology to fictional characters.

I conceded as an acknowledgement that the people in the forum found Dagan's argument more persuasive and that my evidence was not sufficient to support my case. I don't think ANYONE is looking at the DSM material I posted, and Dagan's counter examples were from the movie, I wasn't going to attempt to challenge it without a copy of the movie and accurate evidence. Although I will review the youtube video thoroughly after I am out of work if you want me to resurrect the argument.

Your latest example is circular, a person depicted in a fictional universe as being a wife beater meets the criteria in the context of their environment because they are depicted as a wife beater.

No, your response is circular because that is NOT what I said, asshole. This kind of careful dishonest response characterizes your entire behaviour in this thread, and I am seriously tiring of it.

You object to my logic because you assume a black or white scenario, considering a fictional character's environment doesn't automatically disqualify that character from a diagnosis, Rambo for example has obvious impairment and fits criteria for PTSD, Darth Vader a previous example when we were talking about character flaws, has anxiety symptoms. Harry Goldfarb appears to have a substance abuse issue.

So what the fuck is your problem with declaring Captain Kirk to be reckless and impulsive because he rushes into dangerous situations with no plan?

On the other hand applying inappropriate measures to a situation that is often inherently biased as the product of an irrational mind results in peculiar fucntional asessments. Is Superman delusional because he thinks he can fly, when we know this not to be possible in real life?

In real-life, if someone demonstrated the ability to fly, he would not be delusional in saying that he could fly. This does not support your idiotic assertion that we can't apply real-life psychology to fictional characters.

maybe frodo is delusional because he thinks he's invisible. Doc Brown thinks he can go back in time, Spock exhibits a complete disaffect. the degree to which personality traits and belief structures enable an individual to function successfully in their environment is a core factor in determining "Functional" vs "Crippled", accurately defining that environment is nothing more than calibrating an objective scale.

See above, you misdirecting twat.

[Stark]

He's totally missed the point. Would Frodo be delusional if he said 'fuck you guys' and just tried to walk to Mordor alone? What if by some freakish miracle one in a trillion alternate Frodos made it? Would that make Frodo a tactical genius? Is his plan stupid?

[Themightytom]

No, your response is circular because that is NOT what I said, asshole. This kind of careful dishonest response characterizes your entire behaviour in this thread, and I am seriously tiring of it.

What the hell??
you said

we can't even say that a fictional wife-beater is an abusive personality, because it's fiction and we can't apply real-life psychology to fictional characters.

How is that not circular? Are there other reasons to beat a wife? I willa dmit I made some assumptions, if one of them is wrong, than I apologize, but could you point them out isntead of just telling me I'm dishonest and not elaborating?

I assumed that you were implying that a fictional person was beating their wife because of an abusive personality and claiming my logic wouldn't permit that asessment.

I assumed you were excluding a person who beat their wife for cultural reasons from the example, as introducing a fictional culture as a rationale for beating a wife seemed unlikely given your distaste for acknowledging a unique fictional unvierse in the first place.

Given the above assumption, you describe a character who is depicted as having an abusive personality, and I submit that that characterization, is in the context of the fictional setting dysfunctional by innate nature.

Previously I argued that if a person is depicted as successful in their environment, than they don't have a crippling character flaw. Dagan and I were arguing over whether an objective measure coule be used to determine functionality. I pointed out that "objective" measures include a subjective aspect to account for context.

A wife beater would not be depicted as successful, they are dysfunctional as evidence by their... wife beating (inability to manage social connctions, abusive behavior towards other, http://psyweb.com/Mdisord/DSM_IV/jsp/Axis_V.jsp on the GAF that is below a 20...) which would lend credibility to an asessment of an abusive personality.

My understanding is that wife- beating IS evidence of an abusive personality, whereas in the example of Kirk, he is high nough functioning that there is no true impairment. Again, my evidence is the GAF is someone would bother to look at/address it, or even use some other objective scale, awesome, as it is all I get are analogies, which are not factual evidence, or references to the movie, which I can't really speak to.

So what the fuck is your problem with declaring Captain Kirk to be reckless and impulsive because he rushes into dangerous situations with no plan?

My problem isn't acknowledging those tendencies, its in claiming they are a crippling character flaw. They work fine for him and they don't cause him any distress and he's even in a field where getting people killed following his plans isn't even a bad thing. His universe is irrational, taking that irrationality into account when assessing him is the only way to be accurate.

In real-life, if someone demonstrated the ability to fly, he would not be delusional in saying that he could fly. This does not support your idiotic assertion that we can't apply real-life psychology to fictional characters.

What? Yes it does, Superman can't fly in the real world, you can't carry one characteristic and not the rest.

Kirk demonstrates the ability to successfully resolve a situation by acting reckless and impulsive. He is not delusional in saying (Thinking) he can. He and superman should not be possible, but if you carry over their characteristics, suddenly their beliefs fall into reasonable context.

See above, you misdirecting twat.

Its the same thing, Flight, time travel, magic, NOT possible as far as we know any of those examples is justified in beliving in a phenomena they have observed and experienced. Most of them have GAFs LOWER than Kirk's (Well Superman and Doc brown anyway) I'm not misdirecting anything, How is treating fictional elements as such misdirecting?

[Stark]

Oh man Tom is gonna get banned...

[Themightytom]

He's totally missed the point. Would Frodo be delusional if he said 'fuck you guys' and just tried to walk to Mordor alone? What if by some freakish miracle one in a trillion alternate Frodos made it? Would that make Frodo a tactical genius? Is his plan stupid?

Oh yeah lets completely redefine the situation, into a rediculous one devoid of my original point, replace a repated pattern of success with one hypothetical instance and ignore the fact that Frodo had more "rational" alternatives available to him. Your right Stark how did I not see that. Frodo WOULD have been crazy to discard eight body guards and guides to try to undertake an arduous journey with no established history of anything of the kind. I can see how those are almost the same and not a straw man.

...and way to regress to the argument that success =genius.

[Themightytom]

Oh man Tom is gonna get banned...

Thanks Stark, thats helpful/

[Themightytom]

Nice little Red Herrings about Superman and Doc Brown. No, they are not delusional for thinking they can do what we actually see them do. They are not dysfunctional or immature. If, on the other hand, Superman acts like a complete asshole and juggles buildings just because he can, then that's clearly the workings of a dysfunctional personality no matter what the fictional universe has him capable of doing.

They are not Red Herrings, the are environmental anomalies of equal relevance. Time travel, and unaided flight are irrational beliefs in the context of real life. Your example takes place in a universe where a man can actually JUGGLE a building and is nonsensical, but yes, he WOULD be dysfucntionla. On the GAF he would be endangering others recklessly, automatically dropping him loooooooow on functionality.

By your "logic" we cannot judge Yahweh because the environment of the Bible stories is fixed to where Yahweh is always right, even if he takes it upon himself to wipe out whole cities, slaughter the first born after making pharoah a hard-headed prick multiple times, or directing his chosen people to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing. He's right because he's Yahweh the True God and the Bible environment makes him right. That's a Special Pleading Fallacy right there —declaring Yahweh exempt from judgement for his actions because his circumstances are different than our own. Well, it doesn't work to clear Yahweh of being a genocidal lunatic and it also doesn't clear nu-Kirk of being a dysfunctional little asshole at Starfleet Academy.

I like how you used that objective measure you were talking about earlier and didn't use one subjective thing in the whole analysis.

[Patrick Degan]

I see Tommy's Wall of Ignorance construction project is again underway. So far in this thread, he's applied Circular Reasoning, Special Pleading, Appeal to Ignorance, and simple handwaving to try to rescue a fundamentally broken argument.

Little Tommy keeps pinning his defence upon the "behaving irrationally in an irrational world is rational" argument. Well, let's compare another situation which seemed to fulfill this criteria but really doesn't, and that's the TOS episode "A Piece Of The Action". On Sigma Iota II, Capt. Kirk and company find themselves in a culture which has patterend itself after 1920s Chicago gangland. Spock finds that the usual rules which he's used to don't work ("logic doesn't seem to apply here") so Capt. Kirk plays a hunch, apes the gangland behaviour of Bela Oxymyx and Jojo Krako, and proceeds to kidnap all the capos to a forced meeting to forge a new syndicate to unify the planetary government.

Now, is this an irrational world in which behaving irrationally is logical? No. Because the Iotian culture still had a perceivable logic and rules and Capt. Kirk simply adapted himself to that situation to achieve his ends. That is actually applied logic serving to solve a unique but not intractable problem.

Now, the movie's world is not an "irrational world", it is simply a stupidly written one and nu-Kirk succeeds only by the sort of pure contrivance you can expect from hack writers who didn't think things through at the keyboard. However, even in that context, let's examine nu-Kirk actions: he makes a joke of Starfleet's KM test, heedless of consequences for drawing an academic charge of cheating upon himself and thereby endangering his entire future career, which shows him to be as immature as the brat who drove his stepfather's Corvette into the mining pit and later the stupid punk who started a barroom brawl with four Starfleet cadets just to wave his dick at them. When he objects to AcnCapt. Spock's intention to follow Capt. Pike's last order to rendezvous with the fleet in the Laurentian system, Kirk attacks his guards on the bridge, making himself a mutineer. Again, not the actions of a mature, stable personality but a dysfunctional little twit with self-control problems. That he succeeds in grabbing command of the Enterprise through plot-contrivance does not help his case any, as he again resorts to the same sort of dick-waving behaviour which had constantly gotten him in trouble in the earlier portions of the movie.

The upshot is that, even in the wholly artificial and contrived world of this movie, nu-Kirk is essentially an asshole punk who does not think through his actions nor considers consequence. He succeeds purely through writers' fiat but his actions are still those of an immature brat instead of a rationally functioning adult.

I await now Little Tommy's further repetitious handwaving which is his idea of a rebuttal to anything.

[Darth Wong]

What the hell??
you said

we can't even say that a fictional wife-beater is an abusive personality, because it's fiction and we can't apply real-life psychology to fictional characters.

How is that not circular?

It's not circular because "abusive personality" only equals "wife beater" if you make certain assumptions about psychology, you stupid twat. You "accidentally" rewrote that in your reply to say "if he's a wife beater, then he's a wife beater", which is obviously circular. But the original statement was that a wife beater could be assumed to have an abusive personality, which is not circular.

Are there other reasons to beat a wife? I willa dmit I made some assumptions, if one of them is wrong, than I apologize, but could you point them out isntead of just telling me I'm dishonest and not elaborating?

You tell me if there are other reasons to beat a wife; you're the one saying that anything is possible in a fictional universe and we can't apply real-life psychology to it.

I assumed that you were implying that a fictional person was beating their wife because of an abusive personality and claiming my logic wouldn't permit that asessment.

I assumed you were excluding a person who beat their wife for cultural reasons from the example, as introducing a fictional culture as a rationale for beating a wife seemed unlikely given your distaste for acknowledging a unique fictional unvierse in the first place.

Given the above assumption, you describe a character who is depicted as having an abusive personality, and I submit that that characterization, is in the context of the fictional setting dysfunctional by innate nature.

So you made assumptions based on ... real-life. But you keep claiming that you cannot use real-life as a basis for deciding anything about fictional worlds, remember?

Previously I argued that if a person is depicted as successful in their environment, than they don't have a crippling character flaw.

And that idea was demolished with the lottery example.

So what the fuck is your problem with declaring Captain Kirk to be reckless and impulsive because he rushes into dangerous situations with no plan?

My problem isn't acknowledging those tendencies, its in claiming they are a crippling character flaw. They work fine for him and they don't cause him any distress and he's even in a field where getting people killed following his plans isn't even a bad thing. His universe is irrational, taking that irrationality into account when assessing him is the only way to be accurate.

See the lottery example again, fuckwad. According to your logic, a compulsive gambling personality is not a crippling character flaw as long as the person actually wins the lottery in the end, even if it's just luck.

You have never successfully answered this example, you lying fuck. You just ignore it, evade it, pretend it's somehow completely different, etc. I am getting really sick and tired of going around in circles with you on this. Either explain why good luck validates bad decision-making or concede that it doesn't. And don't pull this endless shell game of moving back and forth between fiction and real-life and pretending that arguments which apply to one don't apply to the other; if your logic is sound, then the real-life lottery example is just as good as the lucky fictional character example.

[Themightytom]

It's not circular because "abusive personality" only equals "wife beater" if you make certain assumptions about psychology, you stupid twat. You "accidentally" rewrote that in your reply to say "if he's a wife beater, then he's a wife beater", which is obviously circular. But the original statement was that a wife beater could be assumed to have an abusive personality, which is not circular.

Than no, a wife beater should not be assumed to have an abusive personality.Other wise brad Pitt would be innacurately asessed in Mr. and Mrs. Smith because he physically assaults her. Batman has an abusive personality because he appears to beat up Catwoman? This is a giant red herring, I can't really even mention the practices of other cultures without seeming to validate the practice of wife beating or to discriminate against cultures so I will stick to the fictional example of Worf and Jadzia. There ARE real world cultures which support wife beating but luckily globalization is taking hold and these cultures when viewed in the context of a larger culture are censured in a variety of ways and alter their practices to the exent that their norms are influenced.

So you made assumptions based on ... real-life. But you keep claiming that you cannot use real-life as a basis for deciding anything about fictional worlds, remember?

I was WRONG wasn't I? I misunderstood your intentions and inaccurately asessed the situation.

And that idea was demolished with the lottery example.

No it wasn't! Your original example included an isntance of consistent failure, supporting the systematic, rather than the incidental model. One Kobiyashia Maru cheat does not equal a "crippling character flaw" Regular failure and the refusal to learn from it, does. That consistent failure would as a consequence affect factors measured by the GAF. kirk wasn't failing every time he did something reckless he was succeeding! based on his pattern of success his method was validated.

I concede that the original example, a man who invests $50 a week for decades and wins at the end is NOT validated, but that is because the result is not consistently replciated, the procedure is. Your original example was more about the lucidity of an investment planner ADVISING that man to invest $50 a week, I concede that is not rational advice, however successful it is, because it takes failure as a given and gambles on success. it also doesn't mean that investor is automatically an idiot, it just means he gave bad advice.

See the lottery example again, fuckwad. According to your logic, a compulsive gambling personality is not a crippling character flaw as long as the person actually wins the lottery in the end, even if it's just luck.

...what am I supposed to do here Mike, seriously. Compulsive gambling is recognized as indicative of a mental illness. you aren't a compulsive gambler until you establish an irrational pattern of behavior. Gambling is also a vice. Describing a compulsive gambler is pre-defining a character to be both dysfunctional and "flawed" I can't even assume their is a cultural purpose for gambling because you sued the word compulsive. The pattern of behavior is not validated by the win, if he loses more than he wins.

You have never successfully answered this example, you lying fuck. You just ignore it, evade it, pretend it's somehow completely different, etc. I am getting really sick and tired of going around in circles with you on this. Either explain why good luck validates bad decision-making or concede that it doesn't. And don't pull this endless shell game of moving back and forth between fiction and real-life and pretending that arguments which apply to one don't apply to the other; if your logic is sound, then the real-life lottery example is just as good as the lucky fictional character example.

I'm not ignoring your warnings Mike, I am trying to ignore who is issuing them so that it does not affect the presentation of my argument.

I concede that good luck does not validate bad decision making. My understanding of that statement to avoid any confusion, is that you are saying a pattern of good luck does not validate a pattern of bad decisions.

I would like to simplify the statement to its elemental form removing inherent value jugements to an objective form and reframe my argument in a logical format. The meataphors being tossed about are KILLING me because there are too many inherent variables.
If I am missing something rediculous it should be clearly evident.:

Argument 1
Luck does not qualify decisions.
Therefore luck should not be the measure by which we evaluate decisions.

Argument 2
Knowledge is not complete
In the absence of complete knowledge, Judgement is neccesary.
The application of judgement is a choice.
A choice causes an outcome

Argument 3

A choice functions according to judgement.
If choice functions, judgement functions.
Judgement can be asessed through function

Consistent function of outcome reflects consistent quality of choice.