(geek thought) I've never really understood the Kobayashi Maru
For those out there who are not familiar with Star Trek's famous no-win scenario for Starfleet command-track cadets, the Kobayashi Maru is (in original continuity) a simulator scenario in which the cadet, as captain of a ship, must decide whether to enter the Neutral Zone and rescue a damaged civilian ship - violating the treaty in the process, or leave the civilian ship's crew to die and their choices during the simulation are supposed to reflect their character and likely command style. In the altered continuity of the 2009 movie, the cadet is ordered to rescue the civilian ship and the point is to see how the cadet faces certain death as a captain.
My response to the Kobayashi Maru test has always been "Bzuh?" though the new continuity one makes far less sense than the original. The basic scenario of a civilian ship having strayed into the Neutral Zone and been damaged by a mine is perfectly plausible. My problem with the original continuity version of the test is that it seems more to be saying that one shouldn't rescue civilian craft that have strayed into the Neutral Zone, since any attempt to rescue the Kobayashi Maru results in the death, not just of the Kobayashi Maru's crew, but of the Starfleet crew that tries to save them. With the new continuity test, the huge screaming problem is that it is a simulation. I do not "face death" when my WoW or Champion's characters are defeated. Yes, yes, it's more realistic than that, but the problem still stands. The cadet knows its a simulation. Of course, there's also the problem that Starfleet is portrayed in the new continuity as ordering a ship to its destruction for no gain.
Then there are the problems with both versions. There seems to be no possibility to contact the Klingons and say "Hey, there's a civilian ship in trouble just inside the Neutral Zone. Can we go get it?" (I have the vague notion that something along these lines has happened in real life, but I can't swear to that.) Nor do there seem to be alternatives that might seem less warlike - sending shuttles to repair the Kobayashi Maru or attach the space equivalent of tow cables to it or evacuate the personnel. Given the lack of these possibilities and that any attempt to rescue the ship with the Starfleet vessel results in instant Klingons and death, the new timeline's explanation almost seems the more internally consistent one. Not to mention the instant Klingons suggests that the ship is actually a trap, which goes back to my thinking that the simulation seems more likely to teach people never to try and rescue ships from the Neutral Zone in real life.
On top of that, there's a suggestion (or more than a suggestion) in both continuities that it's important that people understand that there are no-win situations. Okay, yes, there are, but there is no advantage to treating a situation as no-win and every advantage to treating a situation as winnable. I'm sure there are military examples, but I can think of a ton of aviation examples: oh crap, our passenger jet ran out of gas; oh crap, all four of our 747's engines quit and we can't restart them; oh crap, we just lost our hydraulics and our plane wants to make big loops to the right; oh crap, half the roof just came off; oh crap, birds took out the engines on takeoff. None of those accidents would have been improved by the crew going "Fuck it, we're gonna die." (And in four of those *points up*, no one died.) I know that, at least in new continuity, Spock thinks people should go "We're gonna die, but we still have to do our job." (Never mind that the scenario is set up so that doing their job accomplishes nothing.) And yes, sometimes there is nothing a crew can do: oh crap, we're on fire; oh crap, we exploded; oh crap, what happened to our controls? But they still tried. Does actively teaching people that there are no-win situations make them more or less likely to try? I'm not a psychologist, so, I suppose it's possible that it makes them more likely to try, but that seems wildly unlikely to me. It seems like it would either have no impact (the will to live is very strong) or a negative impact.
Is there something I'm missing? Is this just not a very well thought out bit of the Star Trek universe (to go with all the other not-very-well-thought-out bits)? Is it just my tendencies toward fatalism that make this seem so idiotic? Wouldn't a simulation in which it wasn't possible to save everyone make more sense? Fellow Star Trek fans, help me out.
My response to the Kobayashi Maru test has always been "Bzuh?" though the new continuity one makes far less sense than the original. The basic scenario of a civilian ship having strayed into the Neutral Zone and been damaged by a mine is perfectly plausible. My problem with the original continuity version of the test is that it seems more to be saying that one shouldn't rescue civilian craft that have strayed into the Neutral Zone, since any attempt to rescue the Kobayashi Maru results in the death, not just of the Kobayashi Maru's crew, but of the Starfleet crew that tries to save them. With the new continuity test, the huge screaming problem is that it is a simulation. I do not "face death" when my WoW or Champion's characters are defeated. Yes, yes, it's more realistic than that, but the problem still stands. The cadet knows its a simulation. Of course, there's also the problem that Starfleet is portrayed in the new continuity as ordering a ship to its destruction for no gain.
Then there are the problems with both versions. There seems to be no possibility to contact the Klingons and say "Hey, there's a civilian ship in trouble just inside the Neutral Zone. Can we go get it?" (I have the vague notion that something along these lines has happened in real life, but I can't swear to that.) Nor do there seem to be alternatives that might seem less warlike - sending shuttles to repair the Kobayashi Maru or attach the space equivalent of tow cables to it or evacuate the personnel. Given the lack of these possibilities and that any attempt to rescue the ship with the Starfleet vessel results in instant Klingons and death, the new timeline's explanation almost seems the more internally consistent one. Not to mention the instant Klingons suggests that the ship is actually a trap, which goes back to my thinking that the simulation seems more likely to teach people never to try and rescue ships from the Neutral Zone in real life.
On top of that, there's a suggestion (or more than a suggestion) in both continuities that it's important that people understand that there are no-win situations. Okay, yes, there are, but there is no advantage to treating a situation as no-win and every advantage to treating a situation as winnable. I'm sure there are military examples, but I can think of a ton of aviation examples: oh crap, our passenger jet ran out of gas; oh crap, all four of our 747's engines quit and we can't restart them; oh crap, we just lost our hydraulics and our plane wants to make big loops to the right; oh crap, half the roof just came off; oh crap, birds took out the engines on takeoff. None of those accidents would have been improved by the crew going "Fuck it, we're gonna die." (And in four of those *points up*, no one died.) I know that, at least in new continuity, Spock thinks people should go "We're gonna die, but we still have to do our job." (Never mind that the scenario is set up so that doing their job accomplishes nothing.) And yes, sometimes there is nothing a crew can do: oh crap, we're on fire; oh crap, we exploded; oh crap, what happened to our controls? But they still tried. Does actively teaching people that there are no-win situations make them more or less likely to try? I'm not a psychologist, so, I suppose it's possible that it makes them more likely to try, but that seems wildly unlikely to me. It seems like it would either have no impact (the will to live is very strong) or a negative impact.
Is there something I'm missing? Is this just not a very well thought out bit of the Star Trek universe (to go with all the other not-very-well-thought-out bits)? Is it just my tendencies toward fatalism that make this seem so idiotic? Wouldn't a simulation in which it wasn't possible to save everyone make more sense? Fellow Star Trek fans, help me out.