From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru (was Re: Locarno = Kirk)
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:03:51 GMT

Followups set to r.a.s.misc.

Kyle, could you do me a favor?  Could you possibly keep the attributions
intact?  I can piece together who said what, but best to keep it easy for
those just tuning in, yes?

Thanks.

kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
[then me, then Kyle, etc.]

>>>>> The Kobyashi Maru wasn't an exam.  It was a psychological
>>>>> test.
>>>>
>>>> IN PART. It was not an exam per se, but it was designed, IMHO, to drive 
>>>> home the very really lesson that *there are times you can't win*.  Kirk 
>>>> COULD NOT accept that, and it's a sign of gross immaturity. It served him 
>>>> well in some ways; he might never have survived the encounter with the 
>>>> First Federation without it, to be sure.  But it is a deep, deep 
>>>> character flaw, and one that was exploited magnificently well in ST2.
>>>
>>> I disagree.  
>>
>> You think ST2 wasn't done well?

>I think ST2 was done quite well.  It's still my favorite Trek
>movie.  I think they missed on the significance of Kobiyashi
>Maru, though.

Why?  You don't believe facing death or a no-win scenario is an important
lesson to be learnt?

>> You think Kirk doesn't have this flaw?

>I don't think he has it to the extent that you think he has it.

Fine.

>> You think refusing to accept defeat *ever* is somehow noble
>> and sensible?

>I think I'm having problems understanding what important lesson
>you think Kirk didn't learn until the end of ST2.

Let me try to clarify.

I see Kirk's reaction to the Kobayashi Maru test as being the very essence of
the adolescent "I can do anything and never suffer consequences, because I'm
young, me, and thus immortal" attitude that you will find in the majority of
teenagers nearly anywhere you go.  I submit that he never broke out of that
adolescent-immortal attitude until he had its broken pieces tossed in his face
at the end of ST2.  You and others have brought up things from TOS which
might possibly have done so, but TOS's general disdain of having characters
change from episode to episode makes it impossible to tell, for we can't see
how it affects him beyond the ten minutes after it happens.  (One of the 
reasons I distinctly prefer TNG is that TNG at least attempts to keep these
things in mind, although they by no means are perfect at it.)

Does that help?

> > Yes, Kirk's had bad situations before, but never to the scale he had with
> > Spock's death.  And you fail to recognize the basic fact:
> > 
> > The no-win scenario, in reality, EXISTS.  You can't cheat it in reality.
> > Refusing to admit there's a place for defeat in your mindset is living in a
> > dream world--and Kirk paid a hefty rent there at times.

>But I gave examples where Kirk had to admit that a situation or
>problems had him licked.  He faced them when they came, and then
>he moved on.  

And on and on and on.  And the next time, *still* went on with the "it can't
happen to ME" attitude.  That kind of thing leads to very grave consequences in
the real world.

>Kirk succeeded a lot precisely because he wouldn't give up.  

Agreed, but so what?  You seem to be mixing "acknowledge the possibility of
defeat" with "lay down and die".  People who lay down and die all the time
will lack courage, but people who never acknowledge the possibility of defeat
are the very essence of recklessness and a lack of wisdom.  Kirk is *very*
good at being reckless, but that doesn't somehow make recklessness something
to strive for.

>Preparing yourself for an eventual failure may
>be cushion the fall, but it also makes you unconsciously hold
>back and not give it everything you've got.  

Not always, and not for everyone.  I think you're overgeneralizing (of
course, I probably am too).

>Sometimes it takes
>everything you've got in order to succeed.  

I agree; that's generally called "psyching yourself up" for something that's
going to be really really difficult.  But there's a difference between 
psyching yourself up for _individual challenges_, and eternally being cocky
enough to think you can never lose.  Kirk is the latter, IMO.

>Now if you're trying to say that taking the unaltered Kobiyashi
>Maru would have helped Kirk face the loss of Spock I think you're
>out of your mind.  

I think it would have helped somewhat.  The shock would have been the same,
at least initially, but can you really see Kirk *that* dead-to-the-world
and "it's all just words" to David if he'd finally admitted *beforehand*
that the good guys don't always win?  

It wouldn't have let him slough it off, no.  But I don't *want* him to 
slough it, or anything else, off.  I want him to start looking at the 
consequences of his actions, and he does so pret-ty damn rarely.

>What good does admitting defeat do, other than make psychologist
>nod their heads sagely and declare you mentally healthy?

The idea of learning from mistakes and of accepting blame where due is appa-
rently foreign to you.  If you never admit defeat, you never have an impetus
to change yourself.  Maybe you think Kirk was perfect and should have been
unchanging; I sure as hell don't.

>>I'm not claiming he, or anyone, should meekly lay down and die.  I'm claiming
>>that anyone who goes in with the conscious *and unconscious* attitude of
>>"I cannot possibly fail, ever" is someone who deserves what he or she gets.
>>It reflects arrogance, and a major dose of hubris.

>I still don't see where you would get this idea about Kirk's
>psyche.  His original five year mission was not a string of
>spectacular successes.  A lot of people died.  Kirk had to face
>realities about hismself and his own abilities often.

Really?  I saw a few events which might have forced most people to do so,
sure.  I also saw Kirk laugh them off by the end of nearly every episode, and
be not one iota different the next time around.  That's not facing reality;
that's acting like a cardboard cutout.

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Science is the only self-correcting human institution, but it also is a 
process that progresses only by showing itself to be wrong."
			--Allan Sandage
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current