DSC and the Star Trek philosophy

[Spot261]

I disagree.. I think Burnham is a Narcissistic Sociopath.
https://www.verywellmind.com/understanding-the-narcissistic-sociopath-4587611

You're entitled to your own opinion, but I don't see it in her portrayal beyond the odd instance where one of the above could be applied. Instances, however, do not a pattern make.

Mirror Georgiou very much so on the other hand.

 

[Lord Garth]

Highly Arrogant --> You might have a case for that one. One of the problems of growing up on Vulcan.

Grandiose Sense of Status --> She was the First Officer of the Shenzhou, that mentality doesn't just go away.

Preoccupied with their own attractiveness --> I've never seen this with Burnham.

Sense of Entitlement --> You might have a case here too. "I'm going to Vulcan." "We have to go to the future." She makes declarations in these instances and gets her way. Granted she has arguments to base those cases upon but you feel like they're foregone conclusions.

Lacking in Empathy --> If this were true, she would've had no problem with Cornwell, Sarek, Georgiou, and the Admirals' plan for blowing up Qo'noS to end the war.

Exploits Others --> Who specifically has she exploited?

Grandiose Sense of Status --> Well, Spock's made it Federation Law that she and Discovery not ever be mentioned again under the Penalty of Treason to keep your side of the Trek Fan Isle happy... so, if that's true, then the joke's on her. But I think saving all life in the universe from Control is legitimately grandiose.

EDIT: Shit I did "Sense of Entitlement" twice. But I'll let it stay.

Delusions of Power --> I'm not quite sure what Burnham has done under which this qualifies. The closest I can think of is her idea to end the Klingon War. In that case, it's probably a good thing she made the suggestion she did. The aftermath of the destruction of Qo'noS wouldn't have been pretty and any remaining Klingons probably would've gone for a Scorched Earth strategy, literally. "Better to die on our feet than live on our knees" and all that.

.
.
.

With that out of the way, if the guy in that picture is really obsessed with attractiveness, the deep V-neck isn't the way to bring that out. And he needs to wax. That's some serious arm hair.

 

[Lord Garth]

Here's a post of mine from June 14th, 2018 on the subject of Michael Burnham as the hero of the show and why some people might have trouble with it.

Cutting and pasting:

Maybe this is the inherent issue with having the main character not be the Captain? If the Captain is always right, then people are less likely to have a problem with it because the Captain is the Authority Figure.

If Kirk, Picard, or Sisko disagreed with an Admiral, we were always inclined to take their side because the Captain was still in command and an Authority Figure who was disagreeing with another authority: an Admiral who was corrupt or clueless. Or, as Kira once put it in "The Search, Part I" when talking to Odo: "I don't care about what some idiot Starfleet Admiral thinks."

Burnham -- like Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and Janeway -- is "correct" but because she's not The Captain, and was stripped of rank for most of the first season, she's had to butt up against her shipmates and her immediate superiors on the same ship.

 

[starsuperion]

Here's a post of mine from June 14th, 2018 on the subject of Michael Burnham as the hero of the show and why some people might have trouble with it.

Cutting and pasting:

Maybe this is the inherent issue with having the main character not be the Captain? If the Captain is always right, then people are less likely to have a problem with it because the Captain is the Authority Figure.

If Kirk, Picard, or Sisko disagreed with an Admiral, we were always inclined to take their side because the Captain was still in command and an Authority Figure who was disagreeing with another authority: an Admiral who was corrupt or clueless. Or, as Kira once put it in "The Search, Part I" when talking to Odo: "I don't care about what some idiot Starfleet Admiral thinks."

Burnham -- like Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and Janeway -- is "correct" but because she's not The Captain -- and was stripped of rank for most of the first season -- she's had to butt up against her shipmates and her immediate superiors on the same ship.

What I think was a lesson from TNG alot was a character being wrong, and how they handle that decision, which is more important, then say making everyone listen to you because you're always correct. In STD, Burnham is usually always correct, and because so, she feels entitled to always seem to want to be in charge, and this is a fundamental flaw with how she is written, because it gives the impression she is incapable of admitting any faults. Which makes her seem like she's arrogant and condescending to fellow crew members and especially at odds with authority. The tendency to always buck orders in favor of her own assured infalability makes her unlikable. Chain of command is something we hear a lot of in the context of a ship, and if we are to believe a character they should have flaws, and show how they are able to over come them. In Burnham's case the flaw is with everyone else and their inability to listen to her, when she is convinced she has the answers to all of life's choices.

 

[fireproof78]

Kirk would often buck orders and think he knew better than the admiralty. And was often proved quite correct.

I can see people viewing Burnham as unlikable. But, she is definitely a flawed character and I think that appeals to me more than whether or not she considers herself right. Largely, because I see too many people in the world who are convinced their point of view is right. So, Burnham fits right in.

 

[gblews]

I'm not sure anything could convince you here. You are asking for a scene by scene breakdown of something which is blatantly there embedded in the character from day one. Hence my comment "the ones on screen" in answer to your question about which scenes.

I wasn't being flippant.

I wasn't asking for each scene, just some examples that prove that Burnham is suffering from PTSD.

If you can't see how readily she fits the profile then it's hard to know what else I can actually give you since it's so painfully obvious, arguably overdone in fact.

And just as painfully obvious to me that the writers were not telling us Burnham had PTSD. Everyone says it's obvious, but no one can seem to offer any definitive on screen proof of it.

As pointed out before she has flashbacks,

She had dreams one time and those dreams had zero negative affects on her.

she is avoidant,

If you're talking about the Klingons in the marketplace, the Klingons did remind her of the Klingons who attacked her family, but later she was able to talk to Tyler about it with no problem.

When Burnham ran into the Klingon on the shrine, she wasn't avoidant. She immediately tried to communicate with him.

she seeks to self harm and is ambivalent about personal risk in a way which goes beyond mere "heroics",

When does she seek to self harm? Bravery is a symptom of PTSD?

her relationships are shaped by all of the above

How does this prove she has PTSD?

She mistrusts others, behaves irrationally around key trigger stimuli and punishes those who reach out to her, especially those who might for another character be viewed as parental figures. Intimacy is characterised as an outlet for paranoia and latent aggression.

Burnham mistrusts people only after going through her mutiny, demotion, and subsequent prison sentence. She initially has no trust in Capt. Georgiou, but we see that changes. But before her mutiny, she seems as well adjusted as anyone else on the ship, maybe more so because of her Klingon upbringing.

This experience profoundly changes Burnham. For a time, the changes are all negative as you describe, but later, as she regains her equilibrium, the positive affects of the experience at the Battle of the binary tars takes hold.

We see the resolution of Burnham's ordeal and it's affects, in the season finale. She is back to her old pre-mutiny self for the most part.

She is a classic PTSD portrayal from top to bottom.

Here is what I'm saying, your interpretation is just that, your interpretation. Most of the examples you mention here, are a result of her actions at the Battle of the Binary Stars, and subsequent consequences of those actions.

But had the writers meant to make having PTSD a part of Burnham's story, we wouldn't have to debate about it. Her PTSD would have been as obvious as they made Tyler's. The writers weren't as subtle as you think they were.

When did Burnham act irrationally? So, do you think Burnham is still suffering from PTSD in season 2? How about Tyler?

 

[fireproof78]

Most of the examples you mention here, are a result of her actions at the Battle of the Binary Stars, and subsequent consequences of those actions.

Which is another traumatizing event.

As I have repeatedly stated, Burnham is avoidant, has a negative worldview, and is highly distrustful of social relationships.

I'd say she had at least a trauma related disorder, if not full PTSD. The fact that she works through it doesn't preclude its existence.

 

[Spot261]

I wasn't asking for each scene, just some examples that prove that Burnham is suffering from PTSD.

And just as painfully obvious to me that the writers were not telling us Burnham had PTSD. Everyone says it's obvious, but no one can seem to offer any definitive on screen proof of it.

She had dreams one time and those dreams had zero negative affects on her.

If you're talking about the Klingons in the marketplace, the Klingons did remind her of the Klingons who attacked her family, but later she was able to talk to Tyler about it with no problem.

When Burnham ran into the Klingon on the shrine, she wasn't avoidant. She immediately tried to communicate with him.

When does she seek to self harm? Bravery is a symptom of PTSD?

How does this prove she has PTSD?

Burnham mistrusts people only after going through her mutiny, demotion, and subsequent prison sentence. She initially has no trust in Capt. Georgiou, but we see that changes. But before her mutiny, she seems as well adjusted as anyone else on the ship, maybe more so because of her Klingon upbringing.

This experience profoundly changes Burnham. For a time, the changes are all negative as you describe, but later, as she regains her equilibrium, the positive affects of the experience at the Battle of the binary tars takes hold.

We see the resolution of Burnham's ordeal and it's affects, in the season finale. She is back to her old pre-mutiny self for the most part.

Here is what I'm saying, your interpretation is just that, your interpretation. Most of the examples you mention here, are a result of her actions at the Battle of the Binary Stars, and subsequent consequences of those actions.

But had the writers meant to make having PTSD a part of Burnham's story, we wouldn't have to debate about it. Her PTSD would have been as obvious as they made Tyler's. The writers weren't as subtle as you think they were.

When did Burnham act irrationally? So, do you think Burnham is still suffering from PTSD in season 2? How about Tyler?

I don't think there's anything you'll accept here.

You don't "prove" anything here, you either see what is presented or you do not. That is also how diagnosis works (or is supposed to work) IRL, you look for overall patterns which reinforce diagnostic tools, you look for behavioural patterns and cognitive styles which are consistent with an overall picture. You don't look for a single "scene" or "incident" which "proves" the evidence of an illness.

You've accepted, apparently, that Tyler has PTSD (although that is actually more questionable given the unknown nature of his "treatment" - he may be better viewed as an allegory) yet somehow Burnham who has far more screen time and far more character development is a point of debate.

May I ask what exactly leads you to doubt what seems so evident to the rest of us?

What is it that makes Barclays' Social Anxiety Disorder such a slam dunk but Burnham invokes so much doubt?

"Avoidant" here isn't just in reference to Klingons, it's to attachments and relationships, to trust and intimacy and frankly to society as a whole where she sees forming connections to be letting down defences. She's simply disengaged and for much of her development shows little sign of challenging that. Arguably Tilly and Spock become key characters here in that she finds herself in positions where she chooses to engage emotionally from a position of strength, one in a role as mentor, one coming to the aid of a younger sibling. Tyler, likewise, suffers similar vulnerabilities to herself and is a natural partner but it's hardly a healthy relationship.

Losing Georgiou seems to have reinforced her mistrust of attachments, she took years apparently getting to where they were and retracts into herself after the death of a surrogate parent, one whose later incarnation would seemingly follow the pattern of impermanence in attachments.

She behaves irrationally on contact with Klingons and instantly resorts to seeking out Sarek, another surrogate parent. She then becomes strident and outright violent in her insistence on a singular course of action. Whilst there's the predictable Trek arc of coming to know ones' enemy there's little doubt that her reactions to Klingons are so far at a remove from those of her peers, or her own normal patterns and so in line with what might be expected of a PTSD diagnosis that it isn't an accident on the part of the writers.

 

[gblews]

I don't think there's anything you'll accept here.

Yes, I got that same feeling when you threw down your pedigree and then copy and pasted half the DSM V into a post.

But, I've had this argument before.

You don't "prove" anything here, you either see what is presented or you do not.

There's plenty that can be "proven" here. Burnham was extremely smart. Burnham had no experience with romance before meeting Tyler. Burnham had a partial role in starting the Klingon War. These are things that can be proven because they were part of the story. We know they were part of the story because we saw it on screen.

Perhaps what you mean is, there is no way for you to "prove" Burnham had PTSD, which is what I've been saying all along.

That is also how diagnosis works (or is supposed to work) IRL, you look for overall patterns which reinforce diagnostic tools, you look for behavioural patterns and cognitive styles which are consistent with an overall picture. You don't look for a single "scene" or "incident" which "proves" the evidence of an illness.

Burnham is not your patient. The patterns you think you see have been placed there by writers who are telling you and all of us who Burnham is, and there is no more to her than what they tell us or show us. But we are free to interpret certain things about character the way we want.

Yes, in real life perhaps you can't look for single scenes or incidents that prove a particular illness, but with a fictional story and character, many things we know and do not know about the character can be determined by a single or series of scenes. It is all up to the needs of the story and the writer's desires.

You're approaching this character as though you've had time to examine all the aspects of her life and have subjected her to psychiatric testing. You have not. There is no reason to because the show's writers are telling us who Burnham is and who she is not.

And they did not tell us she was suffering from PTSD.

You've accepted, apparently, that Tyler has PTSD (although that is actually more questionable given the unknown nature of his "treatment" - he may be better viewed as an allegory) yet somehow Burnham who has far more screen time and far more character development is a point of debate.

May I ask what exactly leads you to doubt what seems so evident to the rest of us?

The simple answer is because the writers didn't show us Burnham suffering from PTSD. We saw definitive on screen proof of Tyler suffering from the malady. We saw on screen proof that Dr. Culber was probably suffering from it as well in season 2. So we know that the writers have no problem conveying to us that a character has PTSD.

We see Burnham depressed and despondent only after her mutiny, subsequent conviction, sentencing, and demotion. She has no trouble functioning when she gets to Discovery.

What is it that makes Barclays' Social Anxiety Disorder such a slam dunk but Burnham invokes so much doubt?

Different writers? Different story? Different character? Reg's illness was obviously a part of his story. If the DSC writes had wanted a mental illness to be a part of Burnham's story, we would know it because it would have likely been as definitively depicted as was Reg, Tyler, and Culber's were.

"Avoidant" here isn't just in reference to Klingons, it's to attachments and relationships, to trust and intimacy and frankly to society as a whole where she sees forming connections to be letting down defences. She's simply disengaged and for much of her development shows little sign of challenging that. Arguably Tilly and Spock become key characters here in that she finds herself in positions where she chooses to engage emotionally from a position of strength, one in a role as mentor, one coming to the aid of a younger sibling. Tyler, likewise, suffers similar vulnerabilities to herself and is a natural partner but it's hardly a healthy relationship.

Tyler has PTSD. Burnham was raised as a Vulcan.

Losing Georgiou seems to have reinforced her mistrust of attachments, she took years apparently getting to where they were and retracts into herself after the death of a surrogate parent, one whose later incarnation would seemingly follow the pattern of impermanence in attachments.

This means she had PTSD? I'm not arguing that Burnham didn't have trauma in her life, just that the writers were not telling us she had PTSD as a result of the trauma.

Burnham had trouble with personal relationships because she was raised as a Vulcan. Now, you may choose to interpret this as a result of Burnham having PTSD, but if you know Trek (and I'm not saying you don't), and you know DSC (again not saying you don't), then interpreting Burnham's issues with her fellow crew members as a result of PTSD is not a given.

She behaves irrationally on contact with Klingons and instantly resorts to seeking out Sarek, another surrogate parent. She then becomes strident and outright violent in her insistence on a singular course of action. Whilst there's the predictable Trek arc of coming to know ones' enemy there's little doubt that her reactions to Klingons are so far at a remove from those of her peers, or her own normal patterns and so in line with what might be expected of a PTSD diagnosis that it isn't an accident on the part of the writers.

She didn't act irrationally when she encountered the Klingon at at the shrine. Burnham's actions after being rescued were quite logical if a bit radical. She was strident because she knew that the ship and crew were in more danger than they knew. She ran to the bridge to inform Georgiou of the Klingons. Then she sought counsel on how to deal with the Klingons from the only person she knew who had any experience with them in Sarek.

Sarek then told her essentially, that the Klingons would blow up Disco without provocation and that the Vulcans alleviated this problem by firing first. Burnham knew from her Starfleet training, which she apparently thought was inadequate for this problem, that Georgiou wouldn't agree. But because she thought it was a matter of life and death, she attacked and disabled Phillipa so she could complete her objective of saving the crew.

Seems a quite logical but radical plan, to me. Hardly irrational.

The whole PTSD thing started around here as a result of Burnham's actions in this episode. I think people (not saying you), were looking for a reason that a honorable Starfleet officer would commit a mutiny. It was easier to chalk her actions up to mental illness rather than the logical but radical actions of a Starfleet officer. So, for some, it became a given (around here and probably other parts as well), that Burnham's actions were a result of PTSD. That's how fanon gets started.

I get that you interpreted all of this differently but I think we both can agree that that doesn't make you right.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

^You keep saying Burnham was raised by Klingons, just fyi...

 

[Spot261]

Yes, I got that same feeling when you threw down your pedigree and then copy and pasted half the DSM V into a post.

But, I've had this argument before.

There's plenty that can be "proven" here. Burnham was extremely smart. Burnham had no experience with romance before meeting Tyler. Burnham had a partial role in starting the Klingon War. These are things that can be proven because they were part of the story. We know they were part of the story because we saw it on screen.

Perhaps what you mean is, there is no way for you to "prove" Burnham had PTSD, which is what I've been saying all along.

Burnham is not your patient. The patterns you think you see have been placed there by writers who are telling you and all of us who Burnham is, and there is no more to her than what they tell us or show us. But we are free to interpret certain things about character the way we want.

Yes, in real life perhaps you can't look for single scenes or incidents that prove a particular illness, but with a fictional story and character, many things we know and do not know about the character can be determined by a single or series of scenes. It is all up to the needs of the story and the writer's desires.

You're approaching this character as though you've had time to examine all the aspects of her life and have subjected her to psychiatric testing. You have not. There is no reason to because the show's writers are telling us who Burnham is and who she is not.

And they did not tell us she was suffering from PTSD.

The simple answer is because the writers didn't show us Burnham suffering from PTSD. We saw definitive on screen proof of Tyler suffering from the malady. We saw on screen proof that Dr. Culber was probably suffering from it as well in season 2. So we know that the writers have no problem conveying to us that a character has PTSD.

We see Burnham depressed and despondent only after her mutiny, subsequent conviction, sentencing, and demotion. She has no trouble functioning when she gets to Discovery.

Different writers? Different story? Different character? Reg's illness was obviously a part of his story. If the DSC writes had wanted a mental illness to be a part of Burnham's story, we would know it because it would have likely been as definitively depicted as was Reg, Tyler, and Culber's were.

Tyler has PTSD. Burnham was raised as a Klingon.

This means she had PTSD? I'm not arguing that Burnham didn't have trauma in her life, just that the writers were not telling us she had PTSD as a result of the trauma.

Burnham had trouble with personal relationships because she was raised as a Klingon. Now, you may choose to interpret this as a result of Burnham having PTSD, but if you know Trek (and I'm not saying you don't), and you know DSC (again not saying you don't), then interpreting Burnham's issues with her fellow crew members as a result of PTSD is not a given.

She didn't act irrationally when she encountered the Klingon at at the shrine. Burnham's actions after being rescued were quite logical if a bit radical. She was strident because she knew that the ship and crew were in more danger than they knew. She ran to the bridge to inform Georgiou of the Klingons. Then she sought counsel on how to deal with the Klingons from the only person she knew who had any experience with them in Sarek.

Sarek then told her essentially, that the Klingons would blow up Disco without provocation and that the Vulcans alleviated this problem by firing first. Burnham knew from her Starfleet training, which she apparently thought was inadequate for this problem, that Georgiou wouldn't agree. But because she thought it was a matter of life and death, she attacked and disabled Phillipa so she could complete her objective of saving the crew.

Seems a quite logical but radical plan, to me. Hardly irrational.

The whole PTSD thing started around here as a result of Burnham's actions in this episode. I think people (not saying you), were looking for a reason that a honorable Starfleet officer would commit a mutiny. It was easier to chalk her actions up to mental illness rather than the logical but radical actions of a Starfleet officer. So, for some, it became a given (around here and probably other parts as well), that Burnham's actions were a result of PTSD. That's how fanon gets started.

I get that you interpreted all of this differently but I think we both can agree that that doesn't make you right.

You seem to have missed the single point you've raised which invalidates this whole debate.

We can't prove anything about any of these characters because they aren't real. What the writers put on the screen is all we can go by and nothing constitutes "proof" in that context. Nothing really can because proof positive is the assertion of the truth of a thing, a thing which we know to be a fabrication.

If you are claiming Tyler is provably a sufferer you are invalidating everything you've raised as objections to Burnham because the same underlying rules apply in each case. If what is shown on screen qualifies as "proof" by your measure for him then I can respond in kind, I believe there's ample evidence that Burnham is either:

1) intended to have PTSD

OR

2) someone who may not be written that way but simply happens to fit the bill very well indeed.

In either case my point stands that if you can apply a criteria to one character the same must by necessity apply to another, which in turn means we can simply go by what is on screen and consider from the perspective of suspension of disbelief.

Burnham more readily fits the DSM criteria in my view than Tyler precisely because she doesn't just show the classic "hollywood" PTSD symptoms. She doesn't simply have the flashbacks, night terrors and colds sweat we are used to seeing in portrayals of the disorder on screen. She displays patterns of behaviour which are entirely consistent with the reality of the disorder and how it alters someones' interactions, attachments and relationships.

If she isn't intended to be a PTSD sufferer then the writers did an awfully good job of portraying one by accident.

 

[gblews]

^You keep saying Burnham was raised by Klingons, just fyi...

Oops, thanks. My mistake.

 

[gblews]

You seem to have missed the single point you've raised which invalidates this whole debate.

We can't prove anything about any of these characters because they aren't real. What the writers put on the screen is all we can go by and nothing constitutes "proof" in that context. Nothing really can because proof positive is the assertion of the truth of a thing, a thing which we know to be a fabrication.

If you are claiming Tyler is provably a sufferer you are invalidating everything you've raised as objections to Burnham because the same underlying rules apply in each case. If what is shown on screen qualifies as "proof" by your measure for him then I can respond in kind, I believe there's ample evidence that Burnham is either:

But that's not what I wrote. What I wrote was that you can prove only that which is shown or spoken on screen. Go back and check it. Also, what I wrote was that because the characters aren't real, conclusions about the characters can only realistically be gleaned from what we are told and shown by the character's writer.

1) intended to have PTSD

OR

2) someone who may not be written that way but simply happens to fit the bill very well indeed.

Earlier in this thread when discussing this issue with someone else, I wrote that maybe the more significant question about Burnham isn't "does she or does she not have PTSD" but "why doesn't she have PTSD?" (considering all she has been through).

It seems that the writers wanted to put Burnham through a bunch of stuff and then show her negative reaction to all this stuff. But, IMO, they stopped short of showing her with the same level, the same severity, of mental illness that Tyler was shown to have.

It's like they had two characters who they wanted to show having a reaction to mental trauma, but didn't want to (more like couldn't) show them having the same reaction. This was an even bigger problem because they were going to involve the two in a romance. They couldn't have both of them displaying the same symptoms of mental illness.

I think this may have been confusing. Some thought, well she must have PTSD, look at how she is acting. Others thought, Tyler has PTSD, Burnham does not.

Now, I stand on my belief that the only things we can know about a character are what we see and hear about the character on screen, and because she was not shown with Tyler-like symptoms, the writers were not telling us Burnham had PTSD (and therefore she did not have lt). But I can at least see how some might have the urge to believe that Burnham is suffering from PTSD. I think there is ample evidence that she is not, and I think many of the examples people give as support for it are simply not accurate, but Burnham does display some symptoms of mental trauma..

If it sounds like I'm blaming the writers, well I kinda am. They've done a great ob with DSC but they're not perfect. They had some great ideas for Burnham and Tyler that didn't quite dovetail, but they went with it anyway. I think they maybe went a bit too far with Tyler by including the rape. I think his flashbacks should maybe have just been him "seeing" Voq's memories, and not have the effects be so severe. Then they could have shown Burnham with the heavy handed PTSD symptoms. That would have been more interesting to me.

If she isn't intended to be a PTSD sufferer then the writers did an awfully good job of portraying one by accident.

Maybe they didn't do enough research on PTSD which may have allowed them to show Burnham being affected by mental trauma, but not so much that a person with a more discerning eye for these things would think they were seeing PTSD (if that is not what the writers intended). But what can I say, it's Trek, not Mad Men.

 

[Spot261]

But that's not what I wrote. What I wrote was that you can prove only that which is shown or spoken on screen. Go back and check it. Also, what I wrote was that because the characters aren't real, conclusions about the characters can only realistically be gleaned from what we are told and shown by the character's writer.

It's what I wrote. Nothing is provable here by definition because the whole thing isn't real. "Proof" is what we apply to the real world, to fundamental truths which can be verified. This is a TV show.

I'm sorry to make that point bluntly but it seems worth emphasising given that the idea keeps recurring that we somehow have "proof" in one instance but not the other. We have no proof at all and never could. What we do have are overall patterns in the characterisation which are in fitting with those observed in real world sufferers.

I maintain that not only does Burnham show such patterns but she does so much more comprehensively than Tyler.

Now, I stand on my belief that the only things we can know about a character are what we see and hear about the character on screen, and because she was not shown with Tyler-like symptoms, the writers were not telling us Burnham had PTSD (and therefore she did not have lt). But I can at least see how some might have the urge to believe that Burnham is suffering from PTSD. I think there is ample evidence that she is not, and I think many of the examples people give as support for it are simply not accurate, but Burnham does display some symptoms of mental trauma..

What on earth makes you think they "tell us" Tyler has PTSD but don't "tell us" Burnham does? All you have is the interpretation you came away with, much the same as I or anyone else does.

Unless someone onscreen says "I have PTSD" or similar then all we have are portrayals of fictional characters. No one told us Tyler had anything, no one told us Barclay had anything. There's no "proof".

We just had the behaviours and interactions which lead us to infer that.

Maybe they didn't do enough research on PTSD which may have allowed them to show Burnham being affected by mental trauma, but not so much that a person with a more discerning eye for these things would think they were seeing PTSD (if that is not what the writers intended). But what can I say, it's Trek, not Mad Men.

Or maybe they did indeed intend it?

 

[gblews]

Or maybe they did indeed intend it?

You know, in order to address your latest post in it's entirety, I'd have to begin repeating myself and that I find not only boring but a waste of time. So, unless something new comes up, I think it's time for me to exit the discussion.

 

[Noname Given]

I disagree.. I think Burnham is a Narcissistic Sociopath.
https://www.verywellmind.com/understanding-the-narcissistic-sociopath-4587611

^^^
IDK - There were many times Picard fit the above profile.

 

[starsuperion]

^^^
IDK - There were many times Picard fit the above profile.

Actually out of all the main characters to me, Picard gets the biggest pass, he certainly should have PTSD especially after the Borg and the Cardasian jailer...torturer..

 

[serabine]

Actually out of all the main characters to me, Picard gets the biggest pass, he certainly should have PTSD especially after the Borg and the Cardasian jailer...torturer..

That, and his life as Kamin in The Inner Light. If you think about it, he spend 40 years with people he cared deeply about, who all met a terrible, tragic end, and of which he retained the memory. Can you imagine the survivors guild and grief a person would suffer from irl if they experienced something of which they know intellectually that it wasn't real but which was designed to feel real? In a way he went through a similar thing to O'Brien's stint in mind prison (albeit a more pleasant version of it).