I can think of a hundred ways to criticize DSC and have. I hold to those criticisms if the producers haven't corrected the problem. That said: there's not a specific kind of DSC fan or person more likely to like or hate it.
Why so much negativity?
- Thread starter ELCHawk
- Start date
- Status
This is how this goes I say Michael burnam acts like a narcissist.
You say "no she doesn't".
I say: do you know what a narcissist is?
You say "show me proof she's a narcissist".
I say "go read up on narcissism, not just a 10 minute video of click bate, but a solid 10 or so hours of study."
Then after 10 hours, you can look up how people assess others, how first impressions determine how a person sees another person.
Now some people know this instantly, they don't need 10 hours of study, nor do they struggle with the concept that her appearance of having a personality disorder is a turnoff.
And of course you've heard that comment mentioned a hundred times.
But your reasoning is nah it's art, a character can't have definable personality traits it's just subjective.
And this narcissism issue is 1% of what people take issue with when it comes to the show.
But you need to turn 1% of the problem into a 10 hour story that you won't put the effort into.
Instead of accepting that clearly her amongst several others show incredibly narcissistic behaviors from the get go.
And at every step of the way you're gonna claim you dont' need to know these things because it's subjective.
Psychology isn't a subjective thing, a psychologist doesn't diagnose someone by their gut feelings, there's dsm's etc required to make these assessments.
And of course the topic keeps going. Because as I said they display behaviors, they don't consistently have these behaviors as the fundamentals of their personalities aren't even consistent across time.
And again there's very clear science as to why people don't want to watch a show with narcissistic people. It's obviously a spectrum some people are oblivious to these behaviors, etc, some people have been burned.
All you have to do is define your terms. Give me the standard you are using. It's very simple.
Instead, strawmen arguements and imaginary discussions keep popping up rather than providing the data that you assert is objective.
Yes, I use it daily. This conversation isn't about DSM diagnostics or narcissism.
Does burnam, the doctor, and lorca display narcissistic traits?
Does tilly come across as someone who rates low in conscientiousness? Do Starfleet characters in the past come across as having highly conscientiousness personality traits, with behavior where people come across as humble?
Do you question whether or not a substantial number of people are turned off by these traits?
I'd give more examples like this, but you won't even acknowledge that you can take a character and assess a character using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to point that out.
It's obviously not perfect, but it's obviously deeply relevant.
And again it's one of a 100 issues with the show.
Physicist disagree on global warming, they disagree on the exact details, rarely do credible scientist disagree if has or can happen.
Ordinarily characters are written with complexity enough so, upon watching a single episode, you'd have absolutely no idea what is going on in their mind.
However on discovery, it's blaring loud in the first episode. There's no fine print, it's just nothing but strong unfiltered personalities.
And again you've heard the phrase from tonnes of people that the characters come across as excessively arrogant, moody, and disorganized.
I'm telling that yes if you look up the DSM it's quite clear that they display these traits.
And I promise if you're willing to go through the hundred or so things the evidence at each step of the way backs it up.
DSC is my least-favorite live action Trek series by a mile. But I don't know where on earth you're going with this other than to listen to yourself talk.
Are you okay? Your posts seem to be becoming less coherent. Maybe take a break from this thread?
No it's not. And this is moving the goal posts. You don't have an objective standard any more. You have supposition. It was a simple question-demonstrate the objective standard.
I'm an educator, with experience working with kids who have mental health issues, not to mention degrees in biology and science education, and watched Trek for thirty years along with writing stories and designing ships and worlds, I don't think it'd matter to this guy/gal.
Difference is I've made it quite clear that I like things that are complete garbage. I love McDonald's, because I love it I don't have to pretend it isn't just a pile of fat and sugar.
I don't question why someone would avoid it. I don't get offended when someone calls it garbage.
I love the movie Armageddon but I accept why people hate it. I can't sit through peaky blinders, but I can admit it is really good.
I don't care if someone likes something that isn't well written. Subjectively some people value good writing over other aspects like good special effects.
Sometimes you get passionate about a topic and idea and don't care about the execution(I like asteroids).
If you get into the finer details of writing it is obviously crazy complicated. You can't rank things with precision. But when something is at an extreme it's easy to have that discussion.
And neither is what is occurring in the conversation. You've inserted it.
To deflect from the reality that not liking discovery isn't limited to star trek fans, or that you have to refined tastes to think it's bad. When in reality you get a strong viceral reaction from a large number of people. I don't think it's a stretch to think star trek fans are actually more likely to see past its flaws than non fans(once you get past a certain age).
And again people are refusing to even acknowledge that you can even make an argument in the first place that is based on objective aspects of the production.
So you don't think she displays narcissistic traits specifically within the first 3-5 episodes? Are you gonna make that claim with integrity?
^You are seeing an argument that doesn't really exist.
I'm going to derail this thread for a minute. The internet is just overwhelmingly negative. If Discovery and Picard were terrible and nobody watched like Youtube and sects of TrekBBS would have you imagine, they wouldn't be renewed. All social media is filled with the same criticisms of Discovery: It doesn't look like TOS, the bridge crew aren't the stars, Burnham cries too much, the Klingons look different, etc. It's almost like they're parroted. They've made at least four seasons. Spinoffs and comics and books still keep coming. A lot of people are watching and enjoying that don't talk about it. I am definitely critical of some of modern Trek, but there's a lot to criticize about 90's Trek too.
That depends, do you think a person's behaviors are relevant to whether or not a character is likable, and whether or not likable characters are important to a show?
Oh, geez. Unless you are a psychologist yourself, I suggest you don't question his credibility and integrity in psychological matters, especially when he didn't actually say anything about the characters in this thread.....
Well, I’ve never examined her or treated her, primarily because she’s a fictional character…
“Narcissistic traits” is a nearly meaningless term. Everybody has traits that fall under some personality disorder, primarily because all personality disorders are extreme and rigid manifestations of normal behavior.
If anything, I would say trauma is her biggest problem.
- Status
Similar threads
