DSC and the Star Trek philosophy

[fireproof78]

Some pretty basic research demonstrated to me that Burnham has a number of symptoms of PTSD, just as I recognized, such as the below:

persistent and exaggerated negative beliefs or expectations about oneself or others,

persistent, distorted blame of self or others about the cause or consequences of the traumatic events

persistent fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame

feelings of detachment or estrangement from others

reckless or self-destructive behavior

Tyler's PTSD is based on recent events. Burnham's happend 20+ years ago as a child and has become the foundation of her adult personality, which has been addressed in the show, again and again and again.

Precisely so. PTSD varies from individual to individual, and we certainly see Burnham struggle with guilt, as well as freeze moments in different situations were lives are on the line.

We never once see Burnham paralyzed with fear or unable to think clearly after seeing her memories.

I don't know...but that seems to qualify in some way. I mean, I'm no psychologist, but PTSD shows up in a lot of different ways. Hard to tell with Burnham too, as she's been repressing her emotions for years on Vulcan...so she's not going to respond like a typical human.

@Vger23 you are pretty spot on in that PTSD can show up in a variety of ways, and not just one or two specific ways as mentioned. In fact, psychologists are working to understand trauma and its impact upon development for human beings over the course of the lifetime. While not PTSD itself (PTSD is a specific syndrome but doesn't encompass all trauma related reactions) trauma experiences will inform a person for the rest of their life. There is a reason why PTSD has specific criteria for children under 6.

For those truly curious here is the American Psychiatric Association's website regarding PTSD. I listed the short list of criteria, but it is quite expansive and can include many different reactions:

1. Intrusive thoughts such as repeated, involuntary memories; distressing dreams; or flashbacks of the traumatic event. Flashbacks may be so vivid that people feel they are re-living the traumatic experience or seeing it before their eyes.
2. Avoiding reminders of the traumatic event may include avoiding people, places, activities, objects and situations that bring on distressing memories. People may try to avoid remembering or thinking about the traumatic event. They may resist talking about what happened or how they feel about it.
3. Negative thoughts and feelings may include ongoing and distorted beliefs about oneself or others (e.g., “I am bad,” “No one can be trusted”); ongoing fear, horror, anger, guilt or shame; much less interest in activities previously enjoyed; or feeling detached or estranged from others.
4. Arousal and reactive symptoms may include being irritable and having angry outbursts; behaving recklessly or in a self-destructive way; being easily startled; or having problems concentrating or sleeping.

 

[Lord Garth]

Precisely so. PTSD varies from individual to individual, and we certainly see Burnham struggle with guilt, as well as freeze moments in different situations were lives are on the line.



@Vger23 you are pretty spot on in that PTSD can show up in a variety of ways, and not just one or two specific ways as mentioned. In fact, psychologists are working to understand trauma and its impact upon development for human beings over the course of the lifetime. While not PTSD itself (PTSD is a specific syndrome but doesn't encompass all trauma related reactions) trauma experiences will inform a person for the rest of their life. There is a reason why PTSD has specific criteria for children under 6.

For those truly curious here is the American Psychiatric Association's website regarding PTSD. I listed the short list of criteria, but it is quite expansive and can include many different reactions:

1. Intrusive thoughts such as repeated, involuntary memories; distressing dreams; or flashbacks of the traumatic event. Flashbacks may be so vivid that people feel they are re-living the traumatic experience or seeing it before their eyes.
2. Avoiding reminders of the traumatic event may include avoiding people, places, activities, objects and situations that bring on distressing memories. People may try to avoid remembering or thinking about the traumatic event. They may resist talking about what happened or how they feel about it.
3. Negative thoughts and feelings may include ongoing and distorted beliefs about oneself or others (e.g., “I am bad,” “No one can be trusted”); ongoing fear, horror, anger, guilt or shame; much less interest in activities previously enjoyed; or feeling detached or estranged from others.
4. Arousal and reactive symptoms may include being irritable and having angry outbursts; behaving recklessly or in a self-destructive way; being easily startled; or having problems concentrating or sleeping.

One of the benefits of having a therapist as a regular poster!

 

[fireproof78]

One of the benefits of having a therapist as a regular poster!

Well, thanks.

More my thing is just wanting proper information to be out there regarding different illnesses. Unfortunately, PTSD (among many others) is one that has a lot of misinformation around it in the media. So, I like providing information.

 

[gblews]

Didn't Burnham completely shit herself / act hysterical, have a total lapse of any and all objective professional judgement, commit assault and mutiny against her captain (also her mentor and best friend), and was seconds from firing (unprovoked) on a Klingon ship because the Klingons showed up in the first episode of the series?

Burnham's actions after waking up in sickbay were anything but hysterical. Her demeanor was a reflection of urgency to fire on the Klingon ship while Disco was able. Even before she implemented her radical plan, she sought counsel with Sarek who she knew had experience facing Klingons. This is something Georgiou should have done. So in a sense, Burnham was acting more rationally than her captain. Those are not actions spurred by mental illness.

I don't know...but that seems to qualify in some way. I mean, I'm no psychologist, but PTSD shows up in a lot of different ways. Hard to tell with Burnham too, as she's been repressing her emotions for years on Vulcan...so she's not going to respond like a typical human.

This to me, is the essence of fanon; reaching for meanings and explanations that are not only not shown on screen, but also not even conclusively implied.

Burnham was a model officer until she was triggered. After "Battle at the Binary Stars", she was a model officer again. As long as nothing that reminds her of the Klingon Raid triggers her again. Which is why she almost lost it in "Perpetual Infinity" when Gabrielle Burnham didn't want to see her.

Again, Burnham's actions at the Binary stars were radical but based entirely on logic.

Some pretty basic research demonstrated to me that Burnham has a number of symptoms of PTSD, just as I recognized, such as the below:

persistent and exaggerated negative beliefs or expectations about oneself or others,

persistent, distorted blame of self or others about the cause or consequences of the traumatic events

persistent fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame

feelings of detachment or estrangement from others

reckless or self-destructive behavior

How about backing up these assertions with corresponding on screen actions? Otherwise, all you're saying is "Burnham had PTSD".

Tyler's PTSD is based on recent events. Burnham's happend 20+ years ago as a child and has become the foundation of her adult personality, which has been addressed in the show, again and again and again.

I think what you're doing here is trying to logically explain why Tyler shows symptoms of PTSD and Burnham does not. But I think what it says is, the DSC writers meant for us to know Tyler had PTSD, so they showed his symptoms. Had they wanted us to know Burnham had PTSD, they would have shown her going through the symptoms just as they did Tyler. They did not.

Subtext is still canon.

Yeah, in the ENT forum back in the day, subtext had T'Pol madly in love with Capt Archer. I'm not trying to destroy anyone's belief that "subtext" indicated Burnham had PTSD, fine with me. My point is that there is no on screen proof that she had PTSD because if that had been the writer's intent, just like with Tyler, they would have shown it.

To me, the discussion shouldn't be whether or not she had PTSD, but why DIDN'T she have it?

 

[fireproof78]

To me, the discussion shouldn't be whether or not she had PTSD, but why DIDN'T she have it?

By watching her I would say she does. Or, some trauma history that informs her reactions. I think it is presented differently, as PTSD and trauma symptoms often can in different people, much less individuals who are raised in an emotion suppressing culture. It would be unreasonable for her to be expected to behave as Tyler did, even if I would say they both have PTSD.

 

[Vger23]

Burnham's actions after waking up in sickbay were anything but hysterical. Her demeanor was a reflection of urgency to fire on the Klingon ship while Disco was able. Even before she implemented her radical plan, she sought counsel with Sarek who she knew had experience facing Klingons. This is something Georgiou should have done. So in a sense, Burnham was acting more rationally than her captain. Those are not actions spurred by mental illness.

This to me, is the essence of fanon; reaching for meanings and explanations that are not only not shown on screen, but also not even conclusively implied.

Again, Burnham's actions at the Binary stars were radical but based entirely on logic.

How about backing up these assertions with corresponding on screen actions? Otherwise, all you're saying is "Burnham had PTSD".

I think what you're doing here is trying to logically explain why Tyler shows symptoms of PTSD and Burnham does not. But I think what it says is, the DSC writers meant for us to know Tyler had PTSD, so they showed his symptoms. Had they wanted us to know Burnham had PTSD, they would have shown her going through the symptoms just as they did Tyler. They did not.

Yeah, in the ENT forum back in the day, subtext had T'Pol madly in love with Capt Archer. I'm not trying to destroy anyone's belief that "subtext" indicated Burnham had PTSD, fine with me. My point is that there is no on screen proof that she had PTSD because if that had been the writer's intent, just like with Tyler, they would have shown it.

To me, the discussion shouldn't be whether or not she had PTSD, but why DIDN'T she have it?

Sure, sounds good.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Dsc s1: If all else fails drop a doomsday bomb into the core of your enemy's homeworld to engineer the outcome you want.
Dsc s2: We don't need no stinking time lines.

 

[gblews]

By watching her I would say she does. Or, some trauma history that informs her reactions. I think it is presented differently, as PTSD and trauma symptoms often can in different people, much less individuals who are raised in an emotion suppressing culture. It would be unreasonable for her to be expected to behave as Tyler did, even if I would say they both have PTSD.

Sounds like you're saying that 'we know Burnham had PTSD because she showed no symptoms'. Those are the kinds of crutches needed to prop up fanon. There is no on screen 'proof, but I just know it's so'.

But you may have hit upon the out of universe reason Burnham wasn't given PTSD; having two characters with the same mental illness simply would not have worked, especially since TPTB intended to put the two characters into a romance.

 

[fireproof78]

Sounds like you're saying that 'we know Burnham had PTSD because she showed no symptoms'. Those are the kinds of crutches needed to prop up fanon. There is no on screen

Nope. Not what I'm saying here.

 

[Guy Gardener]

There is one asylum in all the Federation with maybe 7 people in it.

PTSD is fixed with one pill.

 

[fireproof78]

There is one asylum in all the Federation with maybe 7 people in it.

PTSD is fixed with one pill.

 

[eschaton]

There are lots of issues with the moral subtext of the first season which make it...for lack of a better way to describe it...problematic.

1. As was noted, the show brings up rape and PTSD, but has nothing intelligent to say about it. Earlier Trek would have at least worked in a B-plot in an episode somewhere which allowed us to feel out the issues.
2. I had a major issue with how the show felt the need to destroy the credibility of the Federation as a whole (along with Sarek and Cornwell) in order to paint Burnham as the hero. Typically when there are betryals of Federation values, it's portrayed as an "insane admiral" or something acting outside of the chain of command. There have been rare cases in the past where Starfleet has either looked the other way while a rogue agency attempted Genocide (Section 31 and the Founders) or actively considered it (against the Borg). But the difference in those cases are the plans offered were not only last-ditch, they were also smart. The plan as presented is "we blow up Kronos, and maybe the armada retreats." Klingon psychology suggests they're just as likely to be enraged and wipe Earth off the map. The plan wasn't just evil, it was STUPID, which is why I'm really unforgiving regarding their choices in the last two episodes.
3. The "we are Starfleet" speech was all well and good. But the more "ethical" solution that Burnham figured out was to install a friendly dictator who only kept power due to having a finger on a killswitch - threatening her entire planet with destruction if they didn't do as she asked. That's hardly the "Starfleet way" - it's acting like the CIA in the 20th century.

 

[Nyotarules]

^The UFP has the same lofty ideals as the US constitution ...on paper

 

[Bad Thoughts]

But the more "ethical" solution that Burnham figured out was to install a friendly dictator who only kept power due to having a finger on a killswitch - threatening her entire planet with destruction if they didn't do as she asked. That's hardly the "Starfleet way" - it's acting like the CIA in the 20th century.

I think it was more like Picard revealing the existence of a Starfleet cloaking device to the Romulans: a gesture that admits the failings of the Federation and placing the trust in someone who is one's enemy.

Arguably, there will never be a good Chancellor or Pro-Consul. Both governments are shown to have limited democracy, if any.

 

[fireproof78]

^The UFP has the same lofty ideals as the US constitution ...on paper

That's how we get all the insane admirals, crazy Federation council decisions, and coups.

 

[Nyotarules]

That's how we get all the insane admirals, crazy Federation council decisions, and coups.

Exactly , crazy ideas are not unique to DISC its a Starfleet tradition. General Order 'bomb planet to kingdom come' is on the books, even Kirk threatened to use it. He was inspired by his hero Admiral Cornwall.

 

[fireproof78]

Exactly , crazy ideas are not unique to DISC its a Starfleet tradition. General Order 'bomb planet to kingdom come' is on the books, even Kirk threatened to use it. He was inspired by his hero Admiral Cornwall.

Exactly. I am often confused by this idea that some how the Federation and Starfleet must be near perfect in terms of their actions, like they are somehow paragons of virtue which must never be questioned. I thought Star Trek was all about rationality and being able to think for yourself. Why should I expect perfect decision making? Perish the thought that our protagonists might make poor decisions based upon fear and uncertainty in wartime!

I think it was more like Picard revealing the existence of a Starfleet cloaking device to the Romulans: a gesture that admits the failings of the Federation and placing the trust in someone who is one's enemy.

Interesting idea.

 

[Nyotarules]

Exactly. I am often confused by this idea that some how the Federation and Starfleet must be near perfect in terms of their actions, like they are somehow paragons of virtue which must never be questioned. I thought Star Trek was all about rationality and being able to think for yourself. Why should I expect perfect decision making? Perish the thought that our protagonists might make poor decisions based upon fear and uncertainty in wartime!
Interesting idea.

Perhaps some fans have translated the TOS Star Trek where humanity have overcome their Earth based prejudicial differences (political, sexual, religous, race etc) to mean humans are perfect with each other and perfect with the rest of the universe!
Not even real life is like that, we might not have civil wars in the UK anymore to solve our issues (War of the Roses anyone?) but we still have issues! (Hello BREXIT!) lol
This is why I am a DS9 fan, future humans still make questionable decisions, even when born and raised in Paradise!

 

[Guy Gardener]

This is the only mention of an election in the federation ever, and if each member world gets one vote, is it really a fair democracy?

JARESH-INYO: I never sought this job. I was content to simply represent my people on the Federation Council. When they asked me to submit my name for election, I almost said no. Today I wish I had.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

This is the only mention of an election in the federation ever, and if each member world gets one vote, is it really a fair democracy?

That's a big if riding a massive lack of clarity of what he's even talking about. Is his 'people' his world, or his district, or his species, or something else? And is he representative of all Federation Council members or just one set of them (ie, do they have multiple sets of representatives, like Germany)? And what exactly is his power level as a council member? Are there differences between council members influence, and if so based on what? What exactly does the council even control specifically, beyond overseeing Starfleet and Earth itself?