I appreciate the response ... I surely do. Barclay has been claimed by many others to have been "relatable," however, and I've just never seen it, myself. Unlike TNG's main cast, he isn't perfect, so I'm supposed to "connect" with him? That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Like I'm supposed to lump an ostrich in the same category as a T-Rex, just because it's dinosaurian? You know, it would be more acceptable to me, that Barclay was meant to represent The Common Man, if he weren't so neurotic and socially awkward. When I'm in an unfamiliar situation, yes, I do feel a little uncertainty, but what are they going to do - mow me down with a machinegun - just how panicky am I supposed to get?
Again, I appreciate what you're trying to say and you're not alone in that interpretation, I do see it often. But I find nothing familiar in the character. He seems very cartoonish to me - honestly, he seems like a caricature, or an "homage" to Jerry Lewis, or someone like that. In the episode "Imaginary Friend," for example, there's Daniel Sutter whom I found to be, perhaps, more realistic than the usual TNG character. He's a single parent who's reluctantly sending his kid to a shrink. He does his job well, but he seems suitably obscure, like he's just another guy onboard. Someone like this, to me, seems much more realistic and acceptable than Barclay ever was.