Exactly. Valeris took part in a conspiracy because she was afraid of the future. Sarek admitted that his logic was uncertain where his son is concerned. Vulcan children bullied Spock for being half-human (something referenced as far back as "Journey to Babel" and depicted onscreen in "Yesteryear"), which probably counts as bigotry. Saavik shed a tear at Spock's funeral. Sybok went off the deep end and became a religious fanatic. The evil Romulan in "Gambit" turned out to be a treacherous Vulcan in disguise. Etc. All of which was before Deep Space Nine.
Under various extenuating circumstances, Pon Farr, Trellium D, melding with a psychopath, and yes politicking though in Enterprise it seems they had backslidden somewhat from Sarek's teachings.. And holding to tradition in TOS and Voyager(somewhat) is perfectly within their dichotomy
Was T'Pring suffering from Ponn Far when she arranged for Spock or Kirk to be murdered? Was Valeris under some nefarious influence when she conspired to assassinate Gorkon and the Federation President? Was T'Paal when she along with several other Vulcan wanted to purge Vulcan of all aliens?
As I said their traditions and the insular attitudes and behaviors that result are part of their dichotomy. All you said falls under their insularity, traditionalism, or perceived self interest.
Yes, extenuating circumstances. Like severe trauma from being in a war zone and watching friends and colleagues die.
No sure what difference that makes. What about Jossen and Menos and at least 5 other Vulcans who undercover work "broke" them? Or T'Pol who's killing of Jossen traumatized her?
Bottom line: Vulcans have never been as flawlessly logical and unemotional as they like to claim they are, going all the way back to TOS, Theodore Sturgeon, and D.C. Fontana. And that's not a bad thing; makes them more interesting. And when it comes to war . . .. well, war is hell and often profoundly illogical. One could argue that Vulcans would be less equipped to cope with the horrors of war than more emotional species who have more experience with that kind of thing.
Vulcans are extremely tough and endurable both psychologically and physically and for those reasons I find it exceedingly difficult to believe they wouldn't be able to hold up under the pressure of war.
"Just about" doesn't tell us much about the reactions of their frontline soldiers in the aftermath of war.. There maybe many Vulcans suffering from PTSD. T'Pol and Chu'lak seem to prove this.
Vulcans are not a monolith and they are not interchangeable. The vast majority may well be able to deal with traumas of war without becoming psychotic. This one individual could not. I don't understand this insistence on defining an entire species by such narrow parameters.
All Star Trek humans are duplicitous dirt-bags. I know this based on the fact that we have seen several of them over the last five decades.
Exactly. Kirk and Picard and Sisko and Janeway never cracked under pressure, but any number of other Starfleet captains and admirals have. So I have no trouble believing that some Vulcans would cope better with the horrors of war than others. All Vulcans are not the same, even if they share a common culture and biology, just as all humans are not the same, or even all Starfleet officers. . And if all Vulcans don't act the exactly the same, that's not an error. It's a bonus: giving us a bigger, broader picture of the Vulcans as a people.
Vulcans aren't just humans with elf ears they are supposed to be made of a longer stronger stuff in terms of psychological stability and resiliency. Humans of the Trekverse has shown us anything are much weaker in these regards.
Yes Klingons are physically stronger and have(arguably) a psychological need for battle. Vulcans are the logical and disciplined ones, heck they have a neurosuppressor in their brains that keeps their passions subdued. There is nothing else but that to take away.
Doesn't mean they're psychologically sounder. Or even superior to human's psychologically Suppression isn't always a good thing. Never heard of this "neurosuppressor". Where's that from? I thought it was control discipline that kept their emotion's in check. From my recollection they're very passionate and that passion almost killed them. No biological element keeps that in check
If you know the behind-the-scenes story, that's exactly why the "Field of Fire" serial killer was a shell-shocked Vulcan solider. That was to indicate: "Holy crap! The war is going really badly if a Vulcans, who came from a culture that encourages training to have great control over their feelings and actions, cracked under the amount of pressure the conflict is putting on the soldiers and other players." Also, not all Vulcans are alike or fit the ideals of their culture and upbringing (heck, ENT showed that in full force), even if they strive for that. T'Pol from ENT had her emotions close to the surface since that was a part of her personality, unlike say, Tuvok, who seemed more suited to the stoic life. Heck, there was the v'tosh'ka'tur sect in ENT that wanted to embrace both logic and emotion, not just one. (Also, the Vulcan killer, having cracked, acted pretty consistently within Vulcan culture. When asked why he did it, he said that logic dictated it. While his mind is messed up, to be sure, he was shown to be doing what his damaged mental state thought fit within Vulcan ideals.) There isn't. Now, "Meld" (VOY) does establish that Vulcans have a psycho-suppression system in the brains that can suppress emotions, which maybe what @Voth commando1 was thinking of. However, that doesn't mean that all Vulcans can automatically stop feeling (in fact, the need for training to be stoic strongly suggests that the brain thing is an aid, not the main method) or that the feature works flawlessly. After all, Vulcans are naturally emotional beings by nature. (And the brain suppressor wouldn't have helped the "Field of Fire" Vulcan much if his mind was already a mess.) Edit: Yep, see above.