No, the question asked here is, "Will you destroy the Lamborghini, or the Ferrari?" (The question asked here isn't which of two races you'd rather belong to, but rather which you'd rather see go extinct.) To which I answer, "Neither. Instead, while you're waiting for me to answer, I'll disable the device you're using to destroy the one I don't choose, then I'll drive off in my Tesla Roadster. Where'd I get a Roadster? Same place you got your Lambo and Ferrari."
If you click on the link, you'll see the trope (at TVTropes.com) to which I refer. (Heck, there's even Trek listed, under both Live-Action Movies and Live-Action TV.)
As I pointed out above, and joran confirmed it doesn't matter what choice is being offered, or how it is being phrased or presented...
Let me break it down even more, to the most fundamental: One is being told to choose between Option A, or Option B. It doesn't matter which one chooses... One is not being tested by one's chosen option... One is being tested on ones ability to make an unpleasant decision... By refusing to choose A or B, one fails the test. It doesn't matter if choosing Option C is displaying compassion/humanity/morals/whatever (I agree, it does) because that is not the purpose of the test, or what the test is trying to ascertain...
Being able to think of a third alternative is not the point of the test... You still fail to understand that... :-\
As I said above, it is only Plot which allows Kirk to take that no-win option, and still succeed for doing so. It doesn't actually always work that way...
To get speculative, why do you think that Troi's bridge officer exam featured a holo-Geordi? I'd wager that it is to create a psychological and empathic tension within the test: That she had to be able to send someone she knew and loved as a friend, to their unquestionable death. Without the ability to make that decision, someone is not, for lack of a better word, 'ruthless' enough to be an effective commander. I would suspect that someone taking the test on a different ship, the program would create holo-versions of that crew instead...
This is not a Kobayashi Maru test, Marcus, or the Bridge Officer's exam. The choice in those situations is supposed to reflect a situation where it is impossible to save both subjects of the test. In Wesley's psychiatric evaluation, he had to confront a situation where he had to leave another person to die to save a different person. This scenario is fundamentally different because it has absolutely NO context. It's like saying 'would you rather drop a nuke on Suffolk or Norfolk?' Why do we have to make the choice? What is the situation?!
For instance, if Cardassia were planning to destroy Bajor, and I had to choose between destroying Cardassia Prime or allowing Cardassia to destroy Bajor, I would choose to destroy Cardassia Prime, because Cardassia were the aggressor. Likewise, if the roles were reversed, I would destroy Bajor to protect the Cardassians. Context MATTERS! Our decisions are based in the context in which they are made. If one makes a choice before the question is even asked, they can make up any question they like to justify that choice! The question comes before the answer, not the other way round. What the OP is asking isn't "if you were in 'n' scenario and had to choose between 'x' and 'y', which would you choose?", it's "would you rather see 'x' or 'y' wiped out?" At that point, it ceases to be about morals or being able to command, it's about preferences and arbitrary choices. The question is worded terribly. Simple as that.
No, the question asked here is, "Will you destroy the Lamborghini, or the Ferrari?" (The question asked here isn't which of two races you'd rather belong to, but rather which you'd rather see go extinct.) To which I answer, "Neither. Instead, while you're waiting for me to answer, I'll disable the device you're using to destroy the one I don't choose, then I'll drive off in my Tesla Roadster. Where'd I get a Roadster? Same place you got your Lambo and Ferrari."
If you click on the link, you'll see the trope (at TVTropes.com) to which I refer. (Heck, there's even Trek listed, under both Live-Action Movies and Live-Action TV.)
As I pointed out above, and joran confirmed it doesn't matter what choice is being offered, or how it is being phrased or presented...
Let me break it down even more, to the most fundamental: One is being told to choose between Option A, or Option B. It doesn't matter which one chooses... One is not being tested by one's chosen option... One is being tested on ones ability to make an unpleasant decision... By refusing to choose A or B, one fails the test. It doesn't matter if choosing Option C is displaying compassion/humanity/morals/whatever (I agree, it does) because that is not the purpose of the test, or what the test is trying to ascertain...
Being able to think of a third alternative is not the point of the test... You still fail to understand that... :-\
As I said above, it is only Plot which allows Kirk to take that no-win option, and still succeed for doing so. It doesn't actually always work that way...
To get speculative, why do you think that Troi's bridge officer exam featured a holo-Geordi? I'd wager that it is to create a psychological and empathic tension within the test: That she had to be able to send someone she knew and loved as a friend, to their unquestionable death. Without the ability to make that decision, someone is not, for lack of a better word, 'ruthless' enough to be an effective commander. I would suspect that someone taking the test on a different ship, the program would create holo-versions of that crew instead...
This is not a Kobayashi Maru test, Marcus, or the Bridge Officer's exam. The choice in those situations is supposed to reflect a situation where it is impossible to save both subjects of the test. In Wesley's psychiatric evaluation, he had to confront a situation where he had to leave another person to die to save a different person. This scenario is fundamentally different because it has absolutely NO context. It's like saying 'would you rather drop a nuke on Suffolk or Norfolk?' Why do we have to make the choice? What is the situation?!
For instance, if Cardassia were planning to destroy Bajor, and I had to choose between destroying Cardassia Prime or allowing Cardassia to destroy Bajor, I would choose to destroy Cardassia Prime, because Cardassia were the aggressor. Likewise, if the roles were reversed, I would destroy Bajor to protect the Cardassians. Context MATTERS! Our decisions are based in the context in which they are made. If one makes a choice before the question is even asked, they can make up any question they like to justify that choice! The question comes before the answer, not the other way round. What the OP is asking isn't "if you were in 'n' scenario and had to choose between 'x' and 'y', which would you choose?", it's "would you rather see 'x' or 'y' wiped out?" At that point, it ceases to be about morals or being able to command, it's about preferences and arbitrary choices. The question is worded terribly. Simple as that.
I agree, it's not, but it is testing the same judgement capabilities. joran said that on page 4 in quoting one of my posts... There is absolutely nothing you can say, no example you can give, which is going to shake my knowledge that I understood the intent of joran's conundrum, and that everyone who has tried to 'pull a Kirk', has failed to determine that, and shown themself incapable of making the required decision (which isn't a bad thing, compassion is never a bad thing, but it does show 'not temperamentally suited for command')
No, the question asked here is, "Will you destroy the Lamborghini, or the Ferrari?" (The question asked here isn't which of two races you'd rather belong to, but rather which you'd rather see go extinct.) To which I answer, "Neither. Instead, while you're waiting for me to answer, I'll disable the device you're using to destroy the one I don't choose, then I'll drive off in my Tesla Roadster. Where'd I get a Roadster? Same place you got your Lambo and Ferrari."
If you click on the link, you'll see the trope (at TVTropes.com) to which I refer. (Heck, there's even Trek listed, under both Live-Action Movies and Live-Action TV.)
As I pointed out above, and joran confirmed it doesn't matter what choice is being offered, or how it is being phrased or presented...
Let me break it down even more, to the most fundamental: One is being told to choose between Option A, or Option B. It doesn't matter which one chooses... One is not being tested by one's chosen option... One is being tested on ones ability to make an unpleasant decision... By refusing to choose A or B, one fails the test. It doesn't matter if choosing Option C is displaying compassion/humanity/morals/whatever (I agree, it does) because that is not the purpose of the test, or what the test is trying to ascertain...
Being able to think of a third alternative is not the point of the test... You still fail to understand that... :-\
As I said above, it is only Plot which allows Kirk to take that no-win option, and still succeed for doing so. It doesn't actually always work that way...
To get speculative, why do you think that Troi's bridge officer exam featured a holo-Geordi? I'd wager that it is to create a psychological and empathic tension within the test: That she had to be able to send someone she knew and loved as a friend, to their unquestionable death. Without the ability to make that decision, someone is not, for lack of a better word, 'ruthless' enough to be an effective commander. I would suspect that someone taking the test on a different ship, the program would create holo-versions of that crew instead...
This is not a Kobayashi Maru test, Marcus, or the Bridge Officer's exam. The choice in those situations is supposed to reflect a situation where it is impossible to save both subjects of the test. In Wesley's psychiatric evaluation, he had to confront a situation where he had to leave another person to die to save a different person. This scenario is fundamentally different because it has absolutely NO context. It's like saying 'would you rather drop a nuke on Suffolk or Norfolk?' Why do we have to make the choice? What is the situation?!
For instance, if Cardassia were planning to destroy Bajor, and I had to choose between destroying Cardassia Prime or allowing Cardassia to destroy Bajor, I would choose to destroy Cardassia Prime, because Cardassia were the aggressor. Likewise, if the roles were reversed, I would destroy Bajor to protect the Cardassians. Context MATTERS! Our decisions are based in the context in which they are made. If one makes a choice before the question is even asked, they can make up any question they like to justify that choice! The question comes before the answer, not the other way round. What the OP is asking isn't "if you were in 'n' scenario and had to choose between 'x' and 'y', which would you choose?", it's "would you rather see 'x' or 'y' wiped out?" At that point, it ceases to be about morals or being able to command, it's about preferences and arbitrary choices. The question is worded terribly. Simple as that.
I agree, it's not, but it is testing the same judgement capabilities. joran said that on page 4 in quoting one of my posts... There is absolutely nothing you can say, no example you can give, which is going to shake my knowledge that I understood the intent of joran's conundrum, and that everyone who has tried to 'pull a Kirk', has failed to determine that, and shown themself incapable of making the required decision (which isn't a bad thing, compassion is never a bad thing, but it does show 'not temperamentally suited for command')
Did you even read the rest of my post? I literally explain in detail exactly why this poll is simply unsuited to testing that ability.
Except there is no test. Merely an arbitrary choice followed by a justification made up after the choice was already made. Therefore there is no moral component to test. Unless you mean testing the person's ability to make up a scenario that matches whatever choice they made. But then you decided you didn't like the scenario Jon made up.
Actually, I rather liked his idea of being able to just drive away in his own car, but again, it's not the point. Being able to 'outsmart' someone/something is not only not the point, but shows just how clearly he misses (and continues to miss) the point, and seems to think that providing a third alternative, that he is somehow circumventing the test. It is not.
It's like saying, you're placed in front of two unarmed people, given a gun, and told to shoot them. But the guy who gave you the gun is holding a gun to your head. Literally pressing into the back of your skull so hard it hurts. If you don't shoot one of them, he will shoot you. Saying "I'd turn round and shoot him!" haha, very clever to think of that! You've been shot in the head the instant you begin to turn... See where Taking Option Three got you? Your brains over the people you were told to choose between...
And that, is the kind of consequences (albeit to a career) that the tests have.
So someone fails the Kobyashi Maru... Big whoop, that's the point of the test...
So someone fails the bridge officer's exam... Big whoop, they're not getting kicked out of Starfleet, they're just not going to be allowed to be in a situation which would put them in being in charge of a ship...
There is a test, you guys just can't stand the idea that you failed it and aren't cut of the right mustard to command a Starship (arguably, neither am I... I'd let my dog pi55 on someone's Sacred Tree during a First Contact scenario, then go General Order 24 on their backwater planet, and wind up in Garth's old cell, while a sexy Vulcan asks me what I see when I look at ink blots, and asks me to tell her the good things about my mother... )
And THAT is where you fail as a judge of character. And also why no one plays along with your "test". It's NOT a test at all, just random violence. You gun example.... no one with any character would choose A or B. So the fact that you think it's a valid choice says more about your incompetence as a Starfleet officer than the test itself ever could. See, in real life, no situation where someone tries to force you to make a "hard" choice is a situation where either of the choices is valid. It's part of why the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy exists. It's also why people who take hostages often get shot by police snipers.
Thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who is competent to fly a starship.
No, the question asked here is, "Will you destroy the Lamborghini, or the Ferrari?" (The question asked here isn't which of two races you'd rather belong to, but rather which you'd rather see go extinct.) To which I answer, "Neither. Instead, while you're waiting for me to answer, I'll disable the device you're using to destroy the one I don't choose, then I'll drive off in my Tesla Roadster. Where'd I get a Roadster? Same place you got your Lambo and Ferrari."
If you click on the link, you'll see the trope (at TVTropes.com) to which I refer. (Heck, there's even Trek listed, under both Live-Action Movies and Live-Action TV.)
As I pointed out above, and joran confirmed it doesn't matter what choice is being offered, or how it is being phrased or presented...
Let me break it down even more, to the most fundamental: One is being told to choose between Option A, or Option B. It doesn't matter which one chooses... One is not being tested by one's chosen option... One is being tested on ones ability to make an unpleasant decision... By refusing to choose A or B, one fails the test. It doesn't matter if choosing Option C is displaying compassion/humanity/morals/whatever (I agree, it does) because that is not the purpose of the test, or what the test is trying to ascertain...
Being able to think of a third alternative is not the point of the test... You still fail to understand that... :-\
As I said above, it is only Plot which allows Kirk to take that no-win option, and still succeed for doing so. It doesn't actually always work that way...
To get speculative, why do you think that Troi's bridge officer exam featured a holo-Geordi? I'd wager that it is to create a psychological and empathic tension within the test: That she had to be able to send someone she knew and loved as a friend, to their unquestionable death. Without the ability to make that decision, someone is not, for lack of a better word, 'ruthless' enough to be an effective commander. I would suspect that someone taking the test on a different ship, the program would create holo-versions of that crew instead...
This is not a Kobayashi Maru test, Marcus, or the Bridge Officer's exam. The choice in those situations is supposed to reflect a situation where it is impossible to save both subjects of the test. In Wesley's psychiatric evaluation, he had to confront a situation where he had to leave another person to die to save a different person. This scenario is fundamentally different because it has absolutely NO context. It's like saying 'would you rather drop a nuke on Suffolk or Norfolk?' Why do we have to make the choice? What is the situation?!
For instance, if Cardassia were planning to destroy Bajor, and I had to choose between destroying Cardassia Prime or allowing Cardassia to destroy Bajor, I would choose to destroy Cardassia Prime, because Cardassia were the aggressor. Likewise, if the roles were reversed, I would destroy Bajor to protect the Cardassians. Context MATTERS! Our decisions are based in the context in which they are made. If one makes a choice before the question is even asked, they can make up any question they like to justify that choice! The question comes before the answer, not the other way round. What the OP is asking isn't "if you were in 'n' scenario and had to choose between 'x' and 'y', which would you choose?", it's "would you rather see 'x' or 'y' wiped out?" At that point, it ceases to be about morals or being able to command, it's about preferences and arbitrary choices. The question is worded terribly. Simple as that.
I agree, it's not, but it is testing the same judgement capabilities. joran said that on page 4 in quoting one of my posts... There is absolutely nothing you can say, no example you can give, which is going to shake my knowledge that I understood the intent of joran's conundrum, and that everyone who has tried to 'pull a Kirk', has failed to determine that, and shown themself incapable of making the required decision (which isn't a bad thing, compassion is never a bad thing, but it does show 'not temperamentally suited for command')
Did you even read the rest of my post? I literally explain in detail exactly why this poll is simply unsuited to testing that ability.
Yes. And no, you explained why you think it's unsuitable to testing that ability... That more information on each choice wasn't provided, or that you didn't realize that you were being tested, is irrelevant. joran said over the page that I had summed up his motives and goal with the poll, so there really isn't any question in what he was looking to see from the responses or how it was presented. As above, you guys just can't stand the idea that 'taking a moral stand', wasn't actually the right answer, and that it would mean 'no big chair'...
As above, you guys just can't stand the idea that 'taking a moral stand', wasn't actually the right answer, and that it would mean 'no big chair'...
And you are incapable of comprehending that, in real life, hard choices are never set in stone. I don't think you are able to create a scenario where I would actually have to choose between the eradication of Klingons or Humans. Why? because as Jon and Ryan said, there's always an option C, usually an entire alphabet or two actually. The INABILITY to see beyond the two choice initially presented is a flaw in your ability to make decisions as a leader far more worthy of making you unfit to be a captain than a refusal to "play along with the scenario".
No, the question asked here is, "Will you destroy the Lamborghini, or the Ferrari?" (The question asked here isn't which of two races you'd rather belong to, but rather which you'd rather see go extinct.) To which I answer, "Neither. Instead, while you're waiting for me to answer, I'll disable the device you're using to destroy the one I don't choose, then I'll drive off in my Tesla Roadster. Where'd I get a Roadster? Same place you got your Lambo and Ferrari."
If you click on the link, you'll see the trope (at TVTropes.com) to which I refer. (Heck, there's even Trek listed, under both Live-Action Movies and Live-Action TV.)
As I pointed out above, and joran confirmed it doesn't matter what choice is being offered, or how it is being phrased or presented...
Let me break it down even more, to the most fundamental: One is being told to choose between Option A, or Option B. It doesn't matter which one chooses... One is not being tested by one's chosen option... One is being tested on ones ability to make an unpleasant decision... By refusing to choose A or B, one fails the test. It doesn't matter if choosing Option C is displaying compassion/humanity/morals/whatever (I agree, it does) because that is not the purpose of the test, or what the test is trying to ascertain...
Being able to think of a third alternative is not the point of the test... You still fail to understand that... :-\
As I said above, it is only Plot which allows Kirk to take that no-win option, and still succeed for doing so. It doesn't actually always work that way...
To get speculative, why do you think that Troi's bridge officer exam featured a holo-Geordi? I'd wager that it is to create a psychological and empathic tension within the test: That she had to be able to send someone she knew and loved as a friend, to their unquestionable death. Without the ability to make that decision, someone is not, for lack of a better word, 'ruthless' enough to be an effective commander. I would suspect that someone taking the test on a different ship, the program would create holo-versions of that crew instead...
This is not a Kobayashi Maru test, Marcus, or the Bridge Officer's exam. The choice in those situations is supposed to reflect a situation where it is impossible to save both subjects of the test. In Wesley's psychiatric evaluation, he had to confront a situation where he had to leave another person to die to save a different person. This scenario is fundamentally different because it has absolutely NO context. It's like saying 'would you rather drop a nuke on Suffolk or Norfolk?' Why do we have to make the choice? What is the situation?!
For instance, if Cardassia were planning to destroy Bajor, and I had to choose between destroying Cardassia Prime or allowing Cardassia to destroy Bajor, I would choose to destroy Cardassia Prime, because Cardassia were the aggressor. Likewise, if the roles were reversed, I would destroy Bajor to protect the Cardassians. Context MATTERS! Our decisions are based in the context in which they are made. If one makes a choice before the question is even asked, they can make up any question they like to justify that choice! The question comes before the answer, not the other way round. What the OP is asking isn't "if you were in 'n' scenario and had to choose between 'x' and 'y', which would you choose?", it's "would you rather see 'x' or 'y' wiped out?" At that point, it ceases to be about morals or being able to command, it's about preferences and arbitrary choices. The question is worded terribly. Simple as that.
I agree, it's not, but it is testing the same judgement capabilities. joran said that on page 4 in quoting one of my posts... There is absolutely nothing you can say, no example you can give, which is going to shake my knowledge that I understood the intent of joran's conundrum, and that everyone who has tried to 'pull a Kirk', has failed to determine that, and shown themself incapable of making the required decision (which isn't a bad thing, compassion is never a bad thing, but it does show 'not temperamentally suited for command')
Did you even read the rest of my post? I literally explain in detail exactly why this poll is simply unsuited to testing that ability.
Yes. And no, you explained why you think it's unsuitable to testing that ability... That more information on each choice wasn't provided, or that you didn't realize that you were being tested, is irrelevant. joran said over the page that I had summed up his motives and goal with the poll, so there really isn't any question in what he was looking to see from the responses or how it was presented. As above, you guys just can't stand the idea that 'taking a moral stand', wasn't actually the right answer, and that it would mean 'no big chair'...
What he intended isn't the point, he communicated that intention poorly. Let me put it in this analogy:
What Joran was trying to do was akin to this:
You approach a red traffic light. What do you do?
A ) Stop.
B ) Go faster.
What his post actually came across as was this:
What do you do?
A ) Stop.
B ) Go faster.
Why?
In the second example, you could pick any scenario where either choice works, but it's not making a hard choice, it's making an arbitrary choice and making up a justification later:
Which do you choose?
A ) Bajorans die, Cardassians live.
B ) Cardassians live, Bajorans die.
Why?
A better way of communicating his actual intention would be to say:
A dreadnought missile is approaching Cardassia Prime, and another is approaching Bajor. Both missiles will wipe out the populations of both planets. You are in range of both missiles, burst can only intercept one before the other reaches its target. Do you save:
A ) Bajor?
B ) Cardassia Prime?
See what I mean about context? In this scenario, the reader has to make a choice or both worlds perish. They know what's at stake and they know what the nature and the context behind the choice is. Even if the subject of the test chooses at random, arbitrarily, he has made the choice and there is nothing to justify, as opposed to what it says now which is asking you to choose and then give a scenario to justify your choice, whether that was the intention or not.
Good example from another franchise: In the concluding episode of the Shadow War arc in Babylon 5, "Into the Fire", the Vorlons and Shadows are both throwing planet-killers around and killing billions. They're headed for both Coriana VI and Centauri Prime, and Captain Sheridan chooses to stage his big knock-down-drag-out confrontation with the precursor species at Coriana VI because it has a population of 6 billion whereas Centauri Prime only has 3 billion residents.
Starsword gives a good example of a moral conundrum done right here. The options are clear, as are the consequences.
Do you see my point now? The question isn't properly worded to reflect what Joran is asking. You can't leave out the context of a moral dilemma or it ceases to be a moral dilemma.
And THAT is where you fail as a judge of character. And also why no one plays along with your "test". It's NOT a test at all, just random violence. You gun example.... no one with any character would choose A or B. So the fact that you think it's a valid choice says more about your incompetence as a Starfleet officer than the test itself ever could. See, in real life, no situation where someone tries to force you to make a "hard" choice is a situation where either of the choices is valid. It's part of why the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy exists. It's also why people who take hostages often get shot by police snipers.
Thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who is competent to fly a starship.
Says the person incapable of making a simple A or B choice 'because of reasons' Regardless of who is in charge of deciding, by not answering the test as required, you've guaranteed you would not be making the cut... And as above, I already know that I'd be considered 'temperamentally unsuited for command'... I don't have a problem with that... I do know that I passed a test which 'being moral' and trying to be smart and think of an alternative, meant failing, and which you guys can't accept that you failed, so are attacking the test and declaring it unfair, as if that will somehow make your 'choose Option C' somehow 'become the right answer'
It's not about random violence, or even the act itself, just an example of how someone is being required to choose A or B, and that there is absolutely no possible other C alternative... I'm sorry that you can't see that... I'm sure you've been raised to believe that if you argue long enough, or prove your point well enough, you will get the outcome you want. This scenario, this kind of 'choice test' (be it races, cars, people) not only serves to prove that sometimes life does not provide Option C, but that some simply cannot make the A or B decision.
Donald or Hillary? Oh wait, how about vote Johnson, or turn in a spoiled balot paper so as to not have to vote for Donald or Hillary (I sure wouldn't vote for either of them, but I can understand why people are voting Hillary to make sure Donald doesn't win...) Congratulations, the test has again been failed, due to not tackling the posed point...
No, the question asked here is, "Will you destroy the Lamborghini, or the Ferrari?" (The question asked here isn't which of two races you'd rather belong to, but rather which you'd rather see go extinct.) To which I answer, "Neither. Instead, while you're waiting for me to answer, I'll disable the device you're using to destroy the one I don't choose, then I'll drive off in my Tesla Roadster. Where'd I get a Roadster? Same place you got your Lambo and Ferrari."
If you click on the link, you'll see the trope (at TVTropes.com) to which I refer. (Heck, there's even Trek listed, under both Live-Action Movies and Live-Action TV.)
As I pointed out above, and joran confirmed it doesn't matter what choice is being offered, or how it is being phrased or presented...
Let me break it down even more, to the most fundamental: One is being told to choose between Option A, or Option B. It doesn't matter which one chooses... One is not being tested by one's chosen option... One is being tested on ones ability to make an unpleasant decision... By refusing to choose A or B, one fails the test. It doesn't matter if choosing Option C is displaying compassion/humanity/morals/whatever (I agree, it does) because that is not the purpose of the test, or what the test is trying to ascertain...
Being able to think of a third alternative is not the point of the test... You still fail to understand that... :-\
As I said above, it is only Plot which allows Kirk to take that no-win option, and still succeed for doing so. It doesn't actually always work that way...
To get speculative, why do you think that Troi's bridge officer exam featured a holo-Geordi? I'd wager that it is to create a psychological and empathic tension within the test: That she had to be able to send someone she knew and loved as a friend, to their unquestionable death. Without the ability to make that decision, someone is not, for lack of a better word, 'ruthless' enough to be an effective commander. I would suspect that someone taking the test on a different ship, the program would create holo-versions of that crew instead...
This is not a Kobayashi Maru test, Marcus, or the Bridge Officer's exam. The choice in those situations is supposed to reflect a situation where it is impossible to save both subjects of the test. In Wesley's psychiatric evaluation, he had to confront a situation where he had to leave another person to die to save a different person. This scenario is fundamentally different because it has absolutely NO context. It's like saying 'would you rather drop a nuke on Suffolk or Norfolk?' Why do we have to make the choice? What is the situation?!
For instance, if Cardassia were planning to destroy Bajor, and I had to choose between destroying Cardassia Prime or allowing Cardassia to destroy Bajor, I would choose to destroy Cardassia Prime, because Cardassia were the aggressor. Likewise, if the roles were reversed, I would destroy Bajor to protect the Cardassians. Context MATTERS! Our decisions are based in the context in which they are made. If one makes a choice before the question is even asked, they can make up any question they like to justify that choice! The question comes before the answer, not the other way round. What the OP is asking isn't "if you were in 'n' scenario and had to choose between 'x' and 'y', which would you choose?", it's "would you rather see 'x' or 'y' wiped out?" At that point, it ceases to be about morals or being able to command, it's about preferences and arbitrary choices. The question is worded terribly. Simple as that.
I agree, it's not, but it is testing the same judgement capabilities. joran said that on page 4 in quoting one of my posts... There is absolutely nothing you can say, no example you can give, which is going to shake my knowledge that I understood the intent of joran's conundrum, and that everyone who has tried to 'pull a Kirk', has failed to determine that, and shown themself incapable of making the required decision (which isn't a bad thing, compassion is never a bad thing, but it does show 'not temperamentally suited for command')
Did you even read the rest of my post? I literally explain in detail exactly why this poll is simply unsuited to testing that ability.
Yes. And no, you explained why you think it's unsuitable to testing that ability... That more information on each choice wasn't provided, or that you didn't realize that you were being tested, is irrelevant. joran said over the page that I had summed up his motives and goal with the poll, so there really isn't any question in what he was looking to see from the responses or how it was presented. As above, you guys just can't stand the idea that 'taking a moral stand', wasn't actually the right answer, and that it would mean 'no big chair'...
What he intended isn't the point, he communicated that intention poorly. Let me put it in this analogy:
What Joran was trying to do was akin to this:
You approach a red traffic light. What do you do?
A ) Stop.
B ) Go faster.
What his post actually came across as was this:
What do you do?
A ) Stop.
B ) Go faster.
Why?
In the second example, you could pick any scenario where either choice works, but it's not making a hard choice, it's making an arbitrary choice and making up a justification later:
Which do you choose?
A ) Bajorans die, Cardassians live.
B ) Cardassians live, Bajorans die.
Why?
A better way of communicating his actual intention would be to say:
A dreadnought missile is approaching Cardassia Prime, and another is approaching Bajor. Both missiles will wipe out the populations of both planets. You are in range of both missiles, burst can only intercept one before the other reaches its target. Do you save:
A ) Bajor?
B ) Cardassia Prime?
See what I mean about context? In this scenario, the reader has to make a choice or both worlds perish. They know what's at stake and they know what the nature and the context behind the choice is. Even if the subject of the test chooses at random, arbitrarily, he has made the choice and there is nothing to justify, as opposed to what it says now which is asking you to choose and then give a scenario to justify your choice, whether that was the intention or not.
Good example from another franchise: In the concluding episode of the Shadow War arc in Babylon 5, "Into the Fire", the Vorlons and Shadows are both throwing planet-killers around and killing billions. They're headed for both Coriana VI and Centauri Prime, and Captain Sheridan chooses to stage his big knock-down-drag-out confrontation with the precursor species at Coriana VI because it has a population of 6 billion whereas Centauri Prime only has 3 billion residents.
Starsword gives a good example of a moral conundrum done right here. The options are clear, as are the consequences.
Do you see my point now? The question isn't properly worded to reflect what Joran is asking. You can't leave out the context of a moral dilemma or it ceases to be a moral dilemma.
I totally get what you're meaning about context... I absolutely do, and saw that all along... But that's missing the point that context is irrelevant to the A/B selection process... The idea is that someone will likely face a scenario where they have to make a decision without context or without all the facts, but still has to make a 'best of a bad decision' choice...
No, the question asked here is, "Will you destroy the Lamborghini, or the Ferrari?" (The question asked here isn't which of two races you'd rather belong to, but rather which you'd rather see go extinct.) To which I answer, "Neither. Instead, while you're waiting for me to answer, I'll disable the device you're using to destroy the one I don't choose, then I'll drive off in my Tesla Roadster. Where'd I get a Roadster? Same place you got your Lambo and Ferrari."
If you click on the link, you'll see the trope (at TVTropes.com) to which I refer. (Heck, there's even Trek listed, under both Live-Action Movies and Live-Action TV.)
As I pointed out above, and joran confirmed it doesn't matter what choice is being offered, or how it is being phrased or presented...
Let me break it down even more, to the most fundamental: One is being told to choose between Option A, or Option B. It doesn't matter which one chooses... One is not being tested by one's chosen option... One is being tested on ones ability to make an unpleasant decision... By refusing to choose A or B, one fails the test. It doesn't matter if choosing Option C is displaying compassion/humanity/morals/whatever (I agree, it does) because that is not the purpose of the test, or what the test is trying to ascertain...
Being able to think of a third alternative is not the point of the test... You still fail to understand that... :-\
As I said above, it is only Plot which allows Kirk to take that no-win option, and still succeed for doing so. It doesn't actually always work that way...
To get speculative, why do you think that Troi's bridge officer exam featured a holo-Geordi? I'd wager that it is to create a psychological and empathic tension within the test: That she had to be able to send someone she knew and loved as a friend, to their unquestionable death. Without the ability to make that decision, someone is not, for lack of a better word, 'ruthless' enough to be an effective commander. I would suspect that someone taking the test on a different ship, the program would create holo-versions of that crew instead...
This is not a Kobayashi Maru test, Marcus, or the Bridge Officer's exam. The choice in those situations is supposed to reflect a situation where it is impossible to save both subjects of the test. In Wesley's psychiatric evaluation, he had to confront a situation where he had to leave another person to die to save a different person. This scenario is fundamentally different because it has absolutely NO context. It's like saying 'would you rather drop a nuke on Suffolk or Norfolk?' Why do we have to make the choice? What is the situation?!
For instance, if Cardassia were planning to destroy Bajor, and I had to choose between destroying Cardassia Prime or allowing Cardassia to destroy Bajor, I would choose to destroy Cardassia Prime, because Cardassia were the aggressor. Likewise, if the roles were reversed, I would destroy Bajor to protect the Cardassians. Context MATTERS! Our decisions are based in the context in which they are made. If one makes a choice before the question is even asked, they can make up any question they like to justify that choice! The question comes before the answer, not the other way round. What the OP is asking isn't "if you were in 'n' scenario and had to choose between 'x' and 'y', which would you choose?", it's "would you rather see 'x' or 'y' wiped out?" At that point, it ceases to be about morals or being able to command, it's about preferences and arbitrary choices. The question is worded terribly. Simple as that.
I agree, it's not, but it is testing the same judgement capabilities. joran said that on page 4 in quoting one of my posts... There is absolutely nothing you can say, no example you can give, which is going to shake my knowledge that I understood the intent of joran's conundrum, and that everyone who has tried to 'pull a Kirk', has failed to determine that, and shown themself incapable of making the required decision (which isn't a bad thing, compassion is never a bad thing, but it does show 'not temperamentally suited for command')
Did you even read the rest of my post? I literally explain in detail exactly why this poll is simply unsuited to testing that ability.
Yes. And no, you explained why you think it's unsuitable to testing that ability... That more information on each choice wasn't provided, or that you didn't realize that you were being tested, is irrelevant. joran said over the page that I had summed up his motives and goal with the poll, so there really isn't any question in what he was looking to see from the responses or how it was presented. As above, you guys just can't stand the idea that 'taking a moral stand', wasn't actually the right answer, and that it would mean 'no big chair'...
What he intended isn't the point, he communicated that intention poorly. Let me put it in this analogy:
What Joran was trying to do was akin to this:
You approach a red traffic light. What do you do?
A ) Stop.
B ) Go faster.
What his post actually came across as was this:
What do you do?
A ) Stop.
B ) Go faster.
Why?
In the second example, you could pick any scenario where either choice works, but it's not making a hard choice, it's making an arbitrary choice and making up a justification later:
Which do you choose?
A ) Bajorans die, Cardassians live.
B ) Cardassians live, Bajorans die.
Why?
A better way of communicating his actual intention would be to say:
A dreadnought missile is approaching Cardassia Prime, and another is approaching Bajor. Both missiles will wipe out the populations of both planets. You are in range of both missiles, burst can only intercept one before the other reaches its target. Do you save:
A ) Bajor?
B ) Cardassia Prime?
See what I mean about context? In this scenario, the reader has to make a choice or both worlds perish. They know what's at stake and they know what the nature and the context behind the choice is. Even if the subject of the test chooses at random, arbitrarily, he has made the choice and there is nothing to justify, as opposed to what it says now which is asking you to choose and then give a scenario to justify your choice, whether that was the intention or not.
Good example from another franchise: In the concluding episode of the Shadow War arc in Babylon 5, "Into the Fire", the Vorlons and Shadows are both throwing planet-killers around and killing billions. They're headed for both Coriana VI and Centauri Prime, and Captain Sheridan chooses to stage his big knock-down-drag-out confrontation with the precursor species at Coriana VI because it has a population of 6 billion whereas Centauri Prime only has 3 billion residents.
Starsword gives a good example of a moral conundrum done right here. The options are clear, as are the consequences.
Do you see my point now? The question isn't properly worded to reflect what Joran is asking. You can't leave out the context of a moral dilemma or it ceases to be a moral dilemma.
I totally get what you're meaning about context... I absolutely do, and saw that all along... But that's missing the point that context is irrelevant to the A/B selection process... The idea is that someone will likely face a scenario where they have to make a decision without context or without all the facts, but still has to make a 'best of a bad decision' choice...
But that's the whole point: Being command material is about being able to make the choice I suggested above, where you can save one but not both planets, not about arbitrarily deciding which you would rather destroy. That is the problem with Joran's question as it's currently phrased: It asks you to say who you would rather destroy, not what you would do in an impossible situation. For example, we saw people a few pages back voting to wipe out the Bajorans, not out of any moral dilemma, but because they just don't like Bajorans (or are role playing Gul Dukat).
Do commanders have to make decisions where either way they 'lose'? Yes. But there's a distinct difference between choosing to only save one species because you can't save both and choosing to doom one species because there are no moral strings attached.
Donald or Hillary? Oh wait, how about vote Johnson, or turn in a spoiled balot paper so as to not have to vote for Donald or Hillary (I sure wouldn't vote for either of them, but I can understand why people are voting Hillary to make sure Donald doesn't win...) Congratulations, the test has again been failed, due to not tackling the posed point...
Wrong. Again, this choice has a context. One of the two people will be taking the Oath of Office in January, and we can look at their records to see the likely outcome of the choice. Given the current state of the electorate, and as we saw in 2000, voting for Johnson (or Stein) is in effect a vote for Trump - because none of his followers are going to vote third-party as spoilers. (There's also the fact that either Johnson or Stein would be terrible for the country, because he's even more ignorant than Trump, although not as arrogant, while she is far less willing to commit to principle than even Clinton - she's a medical doctor who, due to party doctrine, has decided to publicly express doubts about vaccines.)
In the context-free choice Joran has presented us with, the only question is, "Which of these canonical races would you prefer to see eliminated from the face of the universe?" It's no more "moral" than the poll asking who you'd eliminate - it's in fact asking the same question, just with different wording.
And for the record, my captain is a member of Starfleet - if he can only reach one world in time, he'll call in another ship to save the other world. Without context, I get to place my resources anywhere I like too.
Donald or Hillary? Oh wait, how about vote Johnson, or turn in a spoiled balot paper so as to not have to vote for Donald or Hillary (I sure wouldn't vote for either of them, but I can understand why people are voting Hillary to make sure Donald doesn't win...) Congratulations, the test has again been failed, due to not tackling the posed point...
Wrong. Again, this choice has a context. One of the two people will be taking the Oath of Office in January, and we can look at their records to see the likely outcome of the choice. Given the current state of the electorate, and as we saw in 2000, voting for Johnson (or Stein) is in effect a vote for Trump - because none of his followers are going to vote third-party as spoilers. (There's also the fact that either Johnson or Stein would be terrible for the country, because he's even more ignorant than Trump, although not as arrogant, while she is far less willing to commit to principle than even Clinton - she's a medical doctor who, due to party doctrine, has decided to publicly express doubts about vaccines.)
In the context-free choice Joran has presented us with, the only question is, "Which of these canonical races would you prefer to see eliminated from the face of the universe?" It's no more "moral" than the poll asking who you'd eliminate - it's in fact asking the same question, just with different wording.
And for the record, my captain is a member of Starfleet - if he can only reach one world in time, he'll call in another ship to save the other world. Without context, I get to place my resources anywhere I like too.
Thank you, ryan and Jon for making the point more clearly than I could. As I said, this really isn't a test to see if you had the guts to let a species die. Without the context under which you're making the choice, it's just a test of who do you hate the most.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
No, the question asked here is, "Will you destroy the Lamborghini, or the Ferrari?" (The question asked here isn't which of two races you'd rather belong to, but rather which you'd rather see go extinct.) To which I answer, "Neither. Instead, while you're waiting for me to answer, I'll disable the device you're using to destroy the one I don't choose, then I'll drive off in my Tesla Roadster. Where'd I get a Roadster? Same place you got your Lambo and Ferrari."
If you click on the link, you'll see the trope (at TVTropes.com) to which I refer. (Heck, there's even Trek listed, under both Live-Action Movies and Live-Action TV.)
As I pointed out above, and joran confirmed it doesn't matter what choice is being offered, or how it is being phrased or presented...
Let me break it down even more, to the most fundamental: One is being told to choose between Option A, or Option B. It doesn't matter which one chooses... One is not being tested by one's chosen option... One is being tested on ones ability to make an unpleasant decision... By refusing to choose A or B, one fails the test. It doesn't matter if choosing Option C is displaying compassion/humanity/morals/whatever (I agree, it does) because that is not the purpose of the test, or what the test is trying to ascertain...
Being able to think of a third alternative is not the point of the test... You still fail to understand that... :-\
As I said above, it is only Plot which allows Kirk to take that no-win option, and still succeed for doing so. It doesn't actually always work that way...
To get speculative, why do you think that Troi's bridge officer exam featured a holo-Geordi? I'd wager that it is to create a psychological and empathic tension within the test: That she had to be able to send someone she knew and loved as a friend, to their unquestionable death. Without the ability to make that decision, someone is not, for lack of a better word, 'ruthless' enough to be an effective commander. I would suspect that someone taking the test on a different ship, the program would create holo-versions of that crew instead...
This is not a Kobayashi Maru test, Marcus, or the Bridge Officer's exam. The choice in those situations is supposed to reflect a situation where it is impossible to save both subjects of the test. In Wesley's psychiatric evaluation, he had to confront a situation where he had to leave another person to die to save a different person. This scenario is fundamentally different because it has absolutely NO context. It's like saying 'would you rather drop a nuke on Suffolk or Norfolk?' Why do we have to make the choice? What is the situation?!
For instance, if Cardassia were planning to destroy Bajor, and I had to choose between destroying Cardassia Prime or allowing Cardassia to destroy Bajor, I would choose to destroy Cardassia Prime, because Cardassia were the aggressor. Likewise, if the roles were reversed, I would destroy Bajor to protect the Cardassians. Context MATTERS! Our decisions are based in the context in which they are made. If one makes a choice before the question is even asked, they can make up any question they like to justify that choice! The question comes before the answer, not the other way round. What the OP is asking isn't "if you were in 'n' scenario and had to choose between 'x' and 'y', which would you choose?", it's "would you rather see 'x' or 'y' wiped out?" At that point, it ceases to be about morals or being able to command, it's about preferences and arbitrary choices. The question is worded terribly. Simple as that.
I agree, it's not, but it is testing the same judgement capabilities. joran said that on page 4 in quoting one of my posts... There is absolutely nothing you can say, no example you can give, which is going to shake my knowledge that I understood the intent of joran's conundrum, and that everyone who has tried to 'pull a Kirk', has failed to determine that, and shown themself incapable of making the required decision (which isn't a bad thing, compassion is never a bad thing, but it does show 'not temperamentally suited for command')
Did you even read the rest of my post? I literally explain in detail exactly why this poll is simply unsuited to testing that ability.
Yes. And no, you explained why you think it's unsuitable to testing that ability... That more information on each choice wasn't provided, or that you didn't realize that you were being tested, is irrelevant. joran said over the page that I had summed up his motives and goal with the poll, so there really isn't any question in what he was looking to see from the responses or how it was presented. As above, you guys just can't stand the idea that 'taking a moral stand', wasn't actually the right answer, and that it would mean 'no big chair'...
What he intended isn't the point, he communicated that intention poorly. Let me put it in this analogy:
What Joran was trying to do was akin to this:
You approach a red traffic light. What do you do?
A ) Stop.
B ) Go faster.
What his post actually came across as was this:
What do you do?
A ) Stop.
B ) Go faster.
Why?
In the second example, you could pick any scenario where either choice works, but it's not making a hard choice, it's making an arbitrary choice and making up a justification later:
Which do you choose?
A ) Bajorans die, Cardassians live.
B ) Cardassians live, Bajorans die.
Why?
A better way of communicating his actual intention would be to say:
A dreadnought missile is approaching Cardassia Prime, and another is approaching Bajor. Both missiles will wipe out the populations of both planets. You are in range of both missiles, burst can only intercept one before the other reaches its target. Do you save:
A ) Bajor?
B ) Cardassia Prime?
See what I mean about context? In this scenario, the reader has to make a choice or both worlds perish. They know what's at stake and they know what the nature and the context behind the choice is. Even if the subject of the test chooses at random, arbitrarily, he has made the choice and there is nothing to justify, as opposed to what it says now which is asking you to choose and then give a scenario to justify your choice, whether that was the intention or not.
Good example from another franchise: In the concluding episode of the Shadow War arc in Babylon 5, "Into the Fire", the Vorlons and Shadows are both throwing planet-killers around and killing billions. They're headed for both Coriana VI and Centauri Prime, and Captain Sheridan chooses to stage his big knock-down-drag-out confrontation with the precursor species at Coriana VI because it has a population of 6 billion whereas Centauri Prime only has 3 billion residents.
Starsword gives a good example of a moral conundrum done right here. The options are clear, as are the consequences.
Do you see my point now? The question isn't properly worded to reflect what Joran is asking. You can't leave out the context of a moral dilemma or it ceases to be a moral dilemma.
I totally get what you're meaning about context... I absolutely do, and saw that all along... But that's missing the point that context is irrelevant to the A/B selection process... The idea is that someone will likely face a scenario where they have to make a decision without context or without all the facts, but still has to make a 'best of a bad decision' choice...
But that's the whole point: Being command material is about being able to make the choice I suggested above, where you can save one but not both planets, not about arbitrarily deciding which you would rather destroy. That is the problem with Joran's question as it's currently phrased: It asks you to say who you would rather destroy, not what you would do in an impossible situation. For example, we saw people a few pages back voting to wipe out the Bajorans, not out of any moral dilemma, but because they just don't like Bajorans (or are role playing Gul Dukat).
Do commanders have to make decisions where either way they 'lose'? Yes. But there's a distinct difference between choosing to only save one species because you can't save both and choosing to doom one species because there are no moral strings attached.
Donald or Hillary? Oh wait, how about vote Johnson, or turn in a spoiled balot paper so as to not have to vote for Donald or Hillary (I sure wouldn't vote for either of them, but I can understand why people are voting Hillary to make sure Donald doesn't win...) Congratulations, the test has again been failed, due to not tackling the posed point...
Wrong. Again, this choice has a context. One of the two people will be taking the Oath of Office in January, and we can look at their records to see the likely outcome of the choice. Given the current state of the electorate, and as we saw in 2000, voting for Johnson (or Stein) is in effect a vote for Trump - because none of his followers are going to vote third-party as spoilers. (There's also the fact that either Johnson or Stein would be terrible for the country, because he's even more ignorant than Trump, although not as arrogant, while she is far less willing to commit to principle than even Clinton - she's a medical doctor who, due to party doctrine, has decided to publicly express doubts about vaccines.)
In the context-free choice Joran has presented us with, the only question is, "Which of these canonical races would you prefer to see eliminated from the face of the universe?" It's no more "moral" than the poll asking who you'd eliminate - it's in fact asking the same question, just with different wording.
And for the record, my captain is a member of Starfleet - if he can only reach one world in time, he'll call in another ship to save the other world. Without context, I get to place my resources anywhere I like too.
Donald or Hillary? Oh wait, how about vote Johnson, or turn in a spoiled balot paper so as to not have to vote for Donald or Hillary (I sure wouldn't vote for either of them, but I can understand why people are voting Hillary to make sure Donald doesn't win...) Congratulations, the test has again been failed, due to not tackling the posed point...
Wrong. Again, this choice has a context. One of the two people will be taking the Oath of Office in January, and we can look at their records to see the likely outcome of the choice. Given the current state of the electorate, and as we saw in 2000, voting for Johnson (or Stein) is in effect a vote for Trump - because none of his followers are going to vote third-party as spoilers. (There's also the fact that either Johnson or Stein would be terrible for the country, because he's even more ignorant than Trump, although not as arrogant, while she is far less willing to commit to principle than even Clinton - she's a medical doctor who, due to party doctrine, has decided to publicly express doubts about vaccines.)
In the context-free choice Joran has presented us with, the only question is, "Which of these canonical races would you prefer to see eliminated from the face of the universe?" It's no more "moral" than the poll asking who you'd eliminate - it's in fact asking the same question, just with different wording.
And for the record, my captain is a member of Starfleet - if he can only reach one world in time, he'll call in another ship to save the other world. Without context, I get to place my resources anywhere I like too.
Thank you, ryan and Jon for making the point more clearly than I could. As I said, this really isn't a test to see if you had the guts to let a species die. Without the context under which you're making the choice, it's just a test of who do you hate the most.
Guys, I totally understand your points, and am not going to argue with you about it any further joran's already explained the context of the poll, so if you want to consider it an unfair test, you'll have take it up with him
No, the question asked here is, "Will you destroy the Lamborghini, or the Ferrari?" (The question asked here isn't which of two races you'd rather belong to, but rather which you'd rather see go extinct.) To which I answer, "Neither. Instead, while you're waiting for me to answer, I'll disable the device you're using to destroy the one I don't choose, then I'll drive off in my Tesla Roadster. Where'd I get a Roadster? Same place you got your Lambo and Ferrari."
If you click on the link, you'll see the trope (at TVTropes.com) to which I refer. (Heck, there's even Trek listed, under both Live-Action Movies and Live-Action TV.)
As I pointed out above, and joran confirmed it doesn't matter what choice is being offered, or how it is being phrased or presented...
Let me break it down even more, to the most fundamental: One is being told to choose between Option A, or Option B. It doesn't matter which one chooses... One is not being tested by one's chosen option... One is being tested on ones ability to make an unpleasant decision... By refusing to choose A or B, one fails the test. It doesn't matter if choosing Option C is displaying compassion/humanity/morals/whatever (I agree, it does) because that is not the purpose of the test, or what the test is trying to ascertain...
Being able to think of a third alternative is not the point of the test... You still fail to understand that... :-\
As I said above, it is only Plot which allows Kirk to take that no-win option, and still succeed for doing so. It doesn't actually always work that way...
To get speculative, why do you think that Troi's bridge officer exam featured a holo-Geordi? I'd wager that it is to create a psychological and empathic tension within the test: That she had to be able to send someone she knew and loved as a friend, to their unquestionable death. Without the ability to make that decision, someone is not, for lack of a better word, 'ruthless' enough to be an effective commander. I would suspect that someone taking the test on a different ship, the program would create holo-versions of that crew instead...
This is not a Kobayashi Maru test, Marcus, or the Bridge Officer's exam. The choice in those situations is supposed to reflect a situation where it is impossible to save both subjects of the test. In Wesley's psychiatric evaluation, he had to confront a situation where he had to leave another person to die to save a different person. This scenario is fundamentally different because it has absolutely NO context. It's like saying 'would you rather drop a nuke on Suffolk or Norfolk?' Why do we have to make the choice? What is the situation?!
For instance, if Cardassia were planning to destroy Bajor, and I had to choose between destroying Cardassia Prime or allowing Cardassia to destroy Bajor, I would choose to destroy Cardassia Prime, because Cardassia were the aggressor. Likewise, if the roles were reversed, I would destroy Bajor to protect the Cardassians. Context MATTERS! Our decisions are based in the context in which they are made. If one makes a choice before the question is even asked, they can make up any question they like to justify that choice! The question comes before the answer, not the other way round. What the OP is asking isn't "if you were in 'n' scenario and had to choose between 'x' and 'y', which would you choose?", it's "would you rather see 'x' or 'y' wiped out?" At that point, it ceases to be about morals or being able to command, it's about preferences and arbitrary choices. The question is worded terribly. Simple as that.
I agree, it's not, but it is testing the same judgement capabilities. joran said that on page 4 in quoting one of my posts... There is absolutely nothing you can say, no example you can give, which is going to shake my knowledge that I understood the intent of joran's conundrum, and that everyone who has tried to 'pull a Kirk', has failed to determine that, and shown themself incapable of making the required decision (which isn't a bad thing, compassion is never a bad thing, but it does show 'not temperamentally suited for command')
Did you even read the rest of my post? I literally explain in detail exactly why this poll is simply unsuited to testing that ability.
Yes. And no, you explained why you think it's unsuitable to testing that ability... That more information on each choice wasn't provided, or that you didn't realize that you were being tested, is irrelevant. joran said over the page that I had summed up his motives and goal with the poll, so there really isn't any question in what he was looking to see from the responses or how it was presented. As above, you guys just can't stand the idea that 'taking a moral stand', wasn't actually the right answer, and that it would mean 'no big chair'...
What he intended isn't the point, he communicated that intention poorly. Let me put it in this analogy:
What Joran was trying to do was akin to this:
You approach a red traffic light. What do you do?
A ) Stop.
B ) Go faster.
What his post actually came across as was this:
What do you do?
A ) Stop.
B ) Go faster.
Why?
In the second example, you could pick any scenario where either choice works, but it's not making a hard choice, it's making an arbitrary choice and making up a justification later:
Which do you choose?
A ) Bajorans die, Cardassians live.
B ) Cardassians live, Bajorans die.
Why?
A better way of communicating his actual intention would be to say:
A dreadnought missile is approaching Cardassia Prime, and another is approaching Bajor. Both missiles will wipe out the populations of both planets. You are in range of both missiles, burst can only intercept one before the other reaches its target. Do you save:
A ) Bajor?
B ) Cardassia Prime?
See what I mean about context? In this scenario, the reader has to make a choice or both worlds perish. They know what's at stake and they know what the nature and the context behind the choice is. Even if the subject of the test chooses at random, arbitrarily, he has made the choice and there is nothing to justify, as opposed to what it says now which is asking you to choose and then give a scenario to justify your choice, whether that was the intention or not.
Good example from another franchise: In the concluding episode of the Shadow War arc in Babylon 5, "Into the Fire", the Vorlons and Shadows are both throwing planet-killers around and killing billions. They're headed for both Coriana VI and Centauri Prime, and Captain Sheridan chooses to stage his big knock-down-drag-out confrontation with the precursor species at Coriana VI because it has a population of 6 billion whereas Centauri Prime only has 3 billion residents.
Starsword gives a good example of a moral conundrum done right here. The options are clear, as are the consequences.
Do you see my point now? The question isn't properly worded to reflect what Joran is asking. You can't leave out the context of a moral dilemma or it ceases to be a moral dilemma.
I totally get what you're meaning about context... I absolutely do, and saw that all along... But that's missing the point that context is irrelevant to the A/B selection process... The idea is that someone will likely face a scenario where they have to make a decision without context or without all the facts, but still has to make a 'best of a bad decision' choice...
But that's the whole point: Being command material is about being able to make the choice I suggested above, where you can save one but not both planets, not about arbitrarily deciding which you would rather destroy. That is the problem with Joran's question as it's currently phrased: It asks you to say who you would rather destroy, not what you would do in an impossible situation. For example, we saw people a few pages back voting to wipe out the Bajorans, not out of any moral dilemma, but because they just don't like Bajorans (or are role playing Gul Dukat).
Do commanders have to make decisions where either way they 'lose'? Yes. But there's a distinct difference between choosing to only save one species because you can't save both and choosing to doom one species because there are no moral strings attached.
Donald or Hillary? Oh wait, how about vote Johnson, or turn in a spoiled balot paper so as to not have to vote for Donald or Hillary (I sure wouldn't vote for either of them, but I can understand why people are voting Hillary to make sure Donald doesn't win...) Congratulations, the test has again been failed, due to not tackling the posed point...
Wrong. Again, this choice has a context. One of the two people will be taking the Oath of Office in January, and we can look at their records to see the likely outcome of the choice. Given the current state of the electorate, and as we saw in 2000, voting for Johnson (or Stein) is in effect a vote for Trump - because none of his followers are going to vote third-party as spoilers. (There's also the fact that either Johnson or Stein would be terrible for the country, because he's even more ignorant than Trump, although not as arrogant, while she is far less willing to commit to principle than even Clinton - she's a medical doctor who, due to party doctrine, has decided to publicly express doubts about vaccines.)
In the context-free choice Joran has presented us with, the only question is, "Which of these canonical races would you prefer to see eliminated from the face of the universe?" It's no more "moral" than the poll asking who you'd eliminate - it's in fact asking the same question, just with different wording.
And for the record, my captain is a member of Starfleet - if he can only reach one world in time, he'll call in another ship to save the other world. Without context, I get to place my resources anywhere I like too.
Donald or Hillary? Oh wait, how about vote Johnson, or turn in a spoiled balot paper so as to not have to vote for Donald or Hillary (I sure wouldn't vote for either of them, but I can understand why people are voting Hillary to make sure Donald doesn't win...) Congratulations, the test has again been failed, due to not tackling the posed point...
Wrong. Again, this choice has a context. One of the two people will be taking the Oath of Office in January, and we can look at their records to see the likely outcome of the choice. Given the current state of the electorate, and as we saw in 2000, voting for Johnson (or Stein) is in effect a vote for Trump - because none of his followers are going to vote third-party as spoilers. (There's also the fact that either Johnson or Stein would be terrible for the country, because he's even more ignorant than Trump, although not as arrogant, while she is far less willing to commit to principle than even Clinton - she's a medical doctor who, due to party doctrine, has decided to publicly express doubts about vaccines.)
In the context-free choice Joran has presented us with, the only question is, "Which of these canonical races would you prefer to see eliminated from the face of the universe?" It's no more "moral" than the poll asking who you'd eliminate - it's in fact asking the same question, just with different wording.
And for the record, my captain is a member of Starfleet - if he can only reach one world in time, he'll call in another ship to save the other world. Without context, I get to place my resources anywhere I like too.
Thank you, ryan and Jon for making the point more clearly than I could. As I said, this really isn't a test to see if you had the guts to let a species die. Without the context under which you're making the choice, it's just a test of who do you hate the most.
Guys, I totally understand your points, and am not going to argue with you about it any further joran's already explained the context of the poll, so if you want to consider it an unfair test, you'll have take it up with him
Not trying to argue for the sake of argument, but Joran didn't give the context of the poll, he basically said 'make your own context' and called anyone who didn't do so already unimaginative.
Not trying to argue for the sake of argument, but Joran didn't give the context of the poll, he basically said 'make your own context' and called anyone who didn't do so already unimaginative.
And on page four, he quoted a post I'd made, and said that I'd summed up his intent and content more eloquently than he could...
I totally get what you're meaning about context... I absolutely do, and saw that all along... But that's missing the point that context is irrelevant to the A/B selection process... The idea is that someone will likely face a scenario where they have to make a decision without context or without all the facts, but still has to make a 'best of a bad decision' choice...
Context is the REASON you are making a decision. Without context there is no reason to do anything but flip a coin to choose the outcome. Being a captain means knowing that the consequences of your decisions might be permanent. This also means that you need to consider very carefully what to do. If you don't have ANY information at all, your choice will probably be wrong.
See, the Kobayashi Maru test was not arbitrary. It was NOT about seeing if you could make the right choice, but about seeing how well you made choices under extreme pressure. Each individual choice made would be evaluated as a good or bad idea in the context. But there was loads of context. Those taking the test knew what was happening and why. Obviously it's a fictional scenario, but the same rules apply as in a real world scenario.
Also, as for the idea that choices are always A or B. I found this to be a very realistic hostage scenario, part of why I liked the new Dredd so much. I think all it really needed was a more colorful uniform. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzC0qt2yHHk
I totally get what you're meaning about context... I absolutely do, and saw that all along... But that's missing the point that context is irrelevant to the A/B selection process... The idea is that someone will likely face a scenario where they have to make a decision without context or without all the facts, but still has to make a 'best of a bad decision' choice...
Context is the REASON you are making a decision. Without context there is no reason to do anything but flip a coin to choose the outcome. Being a captain means knowing that the consequences of your decisions might be permanent. This also means that you need to consider very carefully what to do. If you don't have ANY information at all, your choice will probably be wrong.
See, the Kobayashi Maru test was not arbitrary. It was NOT about seeing if you could make the right choice, but about seeing how well you made choices under extreme pressure. Each individual choice made would be evaluated as a good or bad idea in the context. But there was loads of context. Those taking the test knew what was happening and why. Obviously it's a fictional scenario, but the same rules apply as in a real world scenario.
Also, as for the idea that choices are always A or B. I found this to be a very realistic hostage scenario, part of why I liked the new Dredd so much. I think all it really needed was a more colorful uniform. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzC0qt2yHHk
Got to disagree with you there, amigo... There's a huuuge difference, because even without context, one is going to have feelings and preference towards the options, and favor one more than the other. A coin flip (or dice roll) is really only helpful in deciding if one truly isn't fussed either way about the outcome. Indeed, along that line, in an episode of Big Bang Theory, Amy points out that flipping a coin is a way of not only making a decision, but finding out which opinion Sheldon adtually wanted (even if subconsciously) with the rationale that, by flipping a coin, if he was disappointed by the outcome, then the alternative was the option he truly favored (even if subconsciously)
Ah, but fore-knowledge of the choices counts as context. Although the scale of this choice is something that demands more than that.
Also part of why I mentioned Dredd was the way the movie showed how they made choices about what they did.
I disagree... Knowing choices/options doesn't give the context for which they're being referenced...
Sure, but the role of a Judge, is very different to a (certainly a 25th Century) Starfleet commander(of a ship) as the commander has way more accountability to Starfleet Command, than the Judges have to the Justice Department... Judge Dredd can use armor-piercing and incendiary rounds against (admitedly armed) civilians, and That's Oh Kay, 'cause he's doing his job... Worf blows up a civilian freighter in the middle of a battle, and gets thrown in the brig and put on trial for his career...
Let me put this another way: Joran didn't ask the question he thought he was asking. If he wanted to know, was 'x' player character capable of making the decision to let an entire sapient species die to save another, period, assuming no viable third option, which is indeed possible (say, you're on your own on a five-year mission and therefore the nearest backup is months away, and any local species either don't have the tech or think both subject species suck), then he needed to ask that question. And for the record, Eleya could make that decision, and it would probably give her a new recurring nightmare.
Instead he asked which species people liked better or least.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Let me put this another way: Joran didn't ask the question he thought he was asking. If he wanted to know, was 'x' player character capable of making the decision to let an entire sapient species die to save another, period, assuming no viable third option, which is indeed possible (say, you're on your own on a five-year mission and therefore the nearest backup is months away, and any local species either don't have the tech or think both subject species suck), then he needed to ask that question. And for the record, Eleya could make that decision, and it would probably give her a new recurring nightmare.
Instead he asked which species people liked better or least.
I see what you're saying, I really do. But no, because that defeats the purpose of this kind of test, ie, the subject either shouldn't be aware that they're being tested, or shouldn't be aware what they're being tested about or how they're being tested... If I remember, when Troi kept failing the bridge officer exam, I think Riker gave her the hint that it didn't matter how many schematics she studied to get the right answer, giving the clue that she wasn't being tested purely on her knowledge and handling of ship's systems...
yeah.... no. Not the same thing. Troi's test was to figure out which solution was least bad. The reason she failed was not because she didn't make a choice, but because she kept trying things she knew would probably not work and ignored an option she didn't like. The OP is just random stupidity.
yeah.... no. Not the same thing. Troi's test was to figure out which solution was least bad. The reason she failed was not because she didn't make a choice, but because she kept trying things she knew would probably not work and ignored an option she didn't like. The OP is just random stupidity.
Noo, the test, was passed as soon as she gave an order which would be fatal to the recipient, which says exactly what was being tested, and given what the test was for (to be able to hold command of a/the ship) it's easy to understand that that is a capacity required of a commanding officer...
In the episode where the Enterprise struck a quantum filament (I think) Ro Kept On Telling Her to seperate the saucer incase the warp core breached, but Troi kept refusing 'because there were people alive' in the stardrive... That event is interesting, because while Troi held Lieutenant Commander's rank, she was a psychologist. Ro was the command division officer (and who by rights, should have also been a Lieutenant Commander, which would have put them at equal rank, seperated only by division) and Troi should have defered to Ro's judgement, or called it taking her advice, but she not only didn't, but couldn't do it, because her moral compass dictated otherwise... Hence the bridge officer's exam... Looking back, I'd be willing to bet that Ro had taken the test and passed, but had the qualification revoked when she lost her rank (over an incident which has never been explained and possibly not allowed (at that time) to re-certify, ie beuracracy, rather than actual ability/capability for the responsibility...
The OP asked a stupid question and when people called him out on his stupid question he tried to disguise it in philosophical nonsense, and you fell for it hook line and sinker. So now your trying to defend the philosophical nonsense and are completely unwilling to see the stupid question hiding behind it.
The OP asked a stupid question and when people called him out on his stupid question he tried to disguise it in philosophical nonsense, and you fell for it hook line and sinker. So now your trying to defend the philosophical nonsense and are completely unwilling to see the stupid question hiding behind it.
yeah.... no. Not the same thing. Troi's test was to figure out which solution was least bad. The reason she failed was not because she didn't make a choice, but because she kept trying things she knew would probably not work and ignored an option she didn't like. The OP is just random stupidity.
Noo, the test, was passed as soon as she gave an order which would be fatal to the recipient, which says exactly what was being tested, and given what the test was for (to be able to hold command of a/the ship) it's easy to understand that that is a capacity required of a commanding officer...
But see, this is exactly the point: the BOT scenario has sufficient context to go with it so as to nudge a test subject towards the correct answer, so that what's being tested genuinely is whether the prospective CO has the guts to knowingly send crew members, especially friends and loved ones, to their deaths for the greater good (i.e. that of the ship and the mission).
The question the OP asks has no context, it's just a string of interchangeable binary choices.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
yeah.... no. Not the same thing. Troi's test was to figure out which solution was least bad. The reason she failed was not because she didn't make a choice, but because she kept trying things she knew would probably not work and ignored an option she didn't like. The OP is just random stupidity.
Noo, the test, was passed as soon as she gave an order which would be fatal to the recipient, which says exactly what was being tested, and given what the test was for (to be able to hold command of a/the ship) it's easy to understand that that is a capacity required of a commanding officer...
But see, this is exactly the point: the BOT scenario has sufficient context to go with it so as to nudge a test subject towards the correct answer, so that what's being tested genuinely is whether the prospective CO has the guts to knowingly send crew members, especially friends and loved ones, to their deaths for the greater good (i.e. that of the ship and the mission).
The question the OP asks has no context, it's just a string of interchangeable binary choices.
I have no desire to be drawn back onto this topic.
Comments
This is not a Kobayashi Maru test, Marcus, or the Bridge Officer's exam. The choice in those situations is supposed to reflect a situation where it is impossible to save both subjects of the test. In Wesley's psychiatric evaluation, he had to confront a situation where he had to leave another person to die to save a different person. This scenario is fundamentally different because it has absolutely NO context. It's like saying 'would you rather drop a nuke on Suffolk or Norfolk?' Why do we have to make the choice? What is the situation?!
For instance, if Cardassia were planning to destroy Bajor, and I had to choose between destroying Cardassia Prime or allowing Cardassia to destroy Bajor, I would choose to destroy Cardassia Prime, because Cardassia were the aggressor. Likewise, if the roles were reversed, I would destroy Bajor to protect the Cardassians. Context MATTERS! Our decisions are based in the context in which they are made. If one makes a choice before the question is even asked, they can make up any question they like to justify that choice! The question comes before the answer, not the other way round. What the OP is asking isn't "if you were in 'n' scenario and had to choose between 'x' and 'y', which would you choose?", it's "would you rather see 'x' or 'y' wiped out?" At that point, it ceases to be about morals or being able to command, it's about preferences and arbitrary choices. The question is worded terribly. Simple as that.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Did you even read the rest of my post? I literally explain in detail exactly why this poll is simply unsuited to testing that ability.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
It's like saying, you're placed in front of two unarmed people, given a gun, and told to shoot them. But the guy who gave you the gun is holding a gun to your head. Literally pressing into the back of your skull so hard it hurts. If you don't shoot one of them, he will shoot you. Saying "I'd turn round and shoot him!" haha, very clever to think of that! You've been shot in the head the instant you begin to turn... See where Taking Option Three got you? Your brains over the people you were told to choose between...
And that, is the kind of consequences (albeit to a career) that the tests have.
So someone fails the Kobyashi Maru... Big whoop, that's the point of the test...
So someone fails the bridge officer's exam... Big whoop, they're not getting kicked out of Starfleet, they're just not going to be allowed to be in a situation which would put them in being in charge of a ship...
There is a test, you guys just can't stand the idea that you failed it and aren't cut of the right mustard to command a Starship (arguably, neither am I... I'd let my dog pi55 on someone's Sacred Tree during a First Contact scenario, then go General Order 24 on their backwater planet, and wind up in Garth's old cell, while a sexy Vulcan asks me what I see when I look at ink blots, and asks me to tell her the good things about my mother...
Thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who is competent to fly a starship.
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
What he intended isn't the point, he communicated that intention poorly. Let me put it in this analogy:
What Joran was trying to do was akin to this:
You approach a red traffic light. What do you do?
A ) Stop.
B ) Go faster.
What his post actually came across as was this:
What do you do?
A ) Stop.
B ) Go faster.
Why?
In the second example, you could pick any scenario where either choice works, but it's not making a hard choice, it's making an arbitrary choice and making up a justification later:
Which do you choose?
A ) Bajorans die, Cardassians live.
B ) Cardassians live, Bajorans die.
Why?
A better way of communicating his actual intention would be to say:
A dreadnought missile is approaching Cardassia Prime, and another is approaching Bajor. Both missiles will wipe out the populations of both planets. You are in range of both missiles, burst can only intercept one before the other reaches its target. Do you save:
A ) Bajor?
B ) Cardassia Prime?
See what I mean about context? In this scenario, the reader has to make a choice or both worlds perish. They know what's at stake and they know what the nature and the context behind the choice is. Even if the subject of the test chooses at random, arbitrarily, he has made the choice and there is nothing to justify, as opposed to what it says now which is asking you to choose and then give a scenario to justify your choice, whether that was the intention or not.
Starsword gives a good example of a moral conundrum done right here. The options are clear, as are the consequences.
Do you see my point now? The question isn't properly worded to reflect what Joran is asking. You can't leave out the context of a moral dilemma or it ceases to be a moral dilemma.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
It's not about random violence, or even the act itself, just an example of how someone is being required to choose A or B, and that there is absolutely no possible other C alternative... I'm sorry that you can't see that... I'm sure you've been raised to believe that if you argue long enough, or prove your point well enough, you will get the outcome you want. This scenario, this kind of 'choice test' (be it races, cars, people) not only serves to prove that sometimes life does not provide Option C, but that some simply cannot make the A or B decision.
Donald or Hillary? Oh wait, how about vote Johnson, or turn in a spoiled balot paper so as to not have to vote for Donald or Hillary (I sure wouldn't vote for either of them, but I can understand why people are voting Hillary to make sure Donald doesn't win...) Congratulations, the test has again been failed, due to not tackling the posed point...
But that's the whole point: Being command material is about being able to make the choice I suggested above, where you can save one but not both planets, not about arbitrarily deciding which you would rather destroy. That is the problem with Joran's question as it's currently phrased: It asks you to say who you would rather destroy, not what you would do in an impossible situation. For example, we saw people a few pages back voting to wipe out the Bajorans, not out of any moral dilemma, but because they just don't like Bajorans (or are role playing Gul Dukat).
Do commanders have to make decisions where either way they 'lose'? Yes. But there's a distinct difference between choosing to only save one species because you can't save both and choosing to doom one species because there are no moral strings attached.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
In the context-free choice Joran has presented us with, the only question is, "Which of these canonical races would you prefer to see eliminated from the face of the universe?" It's no more "moral" than the poll asking who you'd eliminate - it's in fact asking the same question, just with different wording.
And for the record, my captain is a member of Starfleet - if he can only reach one world in time, he'll call in another ship to save the other world. Without context, I get to place my resources anywhere I like too.
/totallynotgettingintorealworldpolitics
Thank you, ryan and Jon for making the point more clearly than I could. As I said, this really isn't a test to see if you had the guts to let a species die. Without the context under which you're making the choice, it's just a test of who do you hate the most.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Not trying to argue for the sake of argument, but Joran didn't give the context of the poll, he basically said 'make your own context' and called anyone who didn't do so already unimaginative.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
See, the Kobayashi Maru test was not arbitrary. It was NOT about seeing if you could make the right choice, but about seeing how well you made choices under extreme pressure. Each individual choice made would be evaluated as a good or bad idea in the context. But there was loads of context. Those taking the test knew what was happening and why. Obviously it's a fictional scenario, but the same rules apply as in a real world scenario.
Also, as for the idea that choices are always A or B. I found this to be a very realistic hostage scenario, part of why I liked the new Dredd so much. I think all it really needed was a more colorful uniform.
My character Tsin'xing
Dredd was an excellent movie
Also part of why I mentioned Dredd was the way the movie showed how they made choices about what they did.
My character Tsin'xing
Sure, but the role of a Judge, is very different to a (certainly a 25th Century) Starfleet commander(of a ship) as the commander has way more accountability to Starfleet Command, than the Judges have to the Justice Department... Judge Dredd can use armor-piercing and incendiary rounds against (admitedly armed) civilians, and That's Oh Kay, 'cause he's doing his job... Worf blows up a civilian freighter in the middle of a battle, and gets thrown in the brig and put on trial for his career...
[Edit to add]
Jeans or khakis?
Instead he asked which species people liked better or least.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
My character Tsin'xing
In the episode where the Enterprise struck a quantum filament (I think) Ro Kept On Telling Her to seperate the saucer incase the warp core breached, but Troi kept refusing 'because there were people alive' in the stardrive... That event is interesting, because while Troi held Lieutenant Commander's rank, she was a psychologist. Ro was the command division officer (and who by rights, should have also been a Lieutenant Commander, which would have put them at equal rank, seperated only by division) and Troi should have defered to Ro's judgement, or called it taking her advice, but she not only didn't, but couldn't do it, because her moral compass dictated otherwise... Hence the bridge officer's exam... Looking back, I'd be willing to bet that Ro had taken the test and passed, but had the qualification revoked when she lost her rank (over an incident which has never been explained and possibly not allowed (at that time) to re-certify, ie beuracracy, rather than actual ability/capability for the responsibility...
But see, this is exactly the point: the BOT scenario has sufficient context to go with it so as to nudge a test subject towards the correct answer, so that what's being tested genuinely is whether the prospective CO has the guts to knowingly send crew members, especially friends and loved ones, to their deaths for the greater good (i.e. that of the ship and the mission).
The question the OP asks has no context, it's just a string of interchangeable binary choices.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/