From: dow@e10.UUCP (P. Allan Dow)
Newsgroups: alt.psychology.personality,rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Another fun REPOST: Star Trek Characters Personality Analysis
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:54:27 GMT
Followup-To: dow@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: na
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale



fritz@fc.sde.hp.com (Gary Fritz) writes:
GF>As I perceive them, Kirk is a brash, egotistical, hot-headed, supremely
GF>self-confident, impulsive person.  Picard, in contrast, is non-impulsive,
GF>more contemplative and philosophical, much more likely to solicit (AND 
GF>accept) opinions from others, shares the workload and the glory, etc.

One of the longest running themes in ST, one most dear to Roddenberry et al,
is that humans belong in space, that their capabilities go beyond mere 
computers, that there is a place for intuition and other human traits.
There was "The Ultimate Computer".  There was the implication that Kirk 
routinely beat Spock in chess, without logical explanation as to how he
managed that.  There were no doubt other recurring events supporting this 
theme.  Kirk is the embodiment of this philosophy.  From the earliest 
episodes we are fed situations in which Kirk wins though a computer would 
lose.  ("The Corbomite Maneuver")  Kirk definitely uses his intuition.
There is no reason to infer from this that he is a "loose cannon", or a 
gambler, or irrational, or immature.



GF>Can you see Picard as a womanizing, swashbuckling, loose cannon?

rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) replies:
MR>In his younger days (c.f., "Samaritan Snare"), yes, I can.  He's clearly
MR>womanized a little and buckled a swash or two.

Picard even lost his heart, though not to a woman.  :-)



GF>How can these utterly dissimilar people be the same type?
GF>Assuming they are, how is one supposed to make use of a person's type info
GF>to make informed decisions about how best to interact with them?

MR>I do agree that I'd interact with them differently, though.

Me too. ...  I don't think the MBTI was offered as a way to pigeonhole 
all humans into a handful of types.  Astrology already does that.  :-)
Perhaps Jon Noring can explain what use we might find in the MBTI.  Jon?




YANJUNA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Junsok Yang) writes:
JY>As for the literary interest, from my memory, the TOS Kirk didn't have
JY>that much of outside interests other than boozing, fighting and sex.

He seemed to enjoy falling off a cliff :-) ... but that's not TOS.

boozing?  no more than anyone else on shore leave on Argilius.  
No fair bringing up the split personality episode.

fighting?  Yes, I'll agree, but he probably is no worse than any other 
male hero of a 1960's TV series.  Remember, Kirk talked his way out of a
lot of jams.

sex?  In the overwhelming number of cases, Kirk used his putative sex appeal
to achieve a Starfleet goal, not to satisfy his own lust.  Prime examples: 
"Gamesters of Triskelion", "Catspaw".  Only once do I remember Kirk putting 
his own desires before the needs of the Enterprise and Starfleet -- the 
episode where James Daly played a 600-year old human with an android "ward"
(sex toy).  In less clear-cut cases, I defend Kirk.  "Elaan of Troyius":
Kirk's love for the Enterprise miraculously overwhelms biochemical shackle.
(etc.)



JY>(I may be wrong, but the only literary quote I remember Kirk making was
JY>in Space Seed "rather rule in Hell" line.)

He quoted Shakespeare, "a rose by any other name ..." in the episode of the
same title.  Also "all I ask is a tall ship / And a star to steer her by"
is another famous literary quote, which I have probably botched here.  Did
he quote it in "Balance of Terror"?  What was this poem's name and author?



JY>"May the winds be at our backs...."

I think it's modified from an old Irish toast [ s/your back/our backs/ ]
Newsgroups: alt.psychology.personality