The Effectiveness of the Kobayashi Maru Test

[Christopher]

For instance, I would think, rather than training cadets that there are no-win situations where one can only be concerned with how one faces death, you'd want to train them to never accept defeat and keep fighting to accomplish the mission to the bitter end.

That sounds all cool and macho, but is it really such a good idea? Like I said, an important trait in a good leader is humility, the ability to recognize that one is capable of failure. It keeps you from getting too full of yourself.

Besides, fighting to the bitter end is exactly what the Kobayashi Maru is about. The point is to teach acceptance that sometimes you may have to fight to the bitter end -- and that you may still fail by doing so. The question is whether, when you're faced with that situation where your only option is to go down in flames, you keep your cool and remain an effective commander to the end, rather than falling into panic or despair because your training never prepared you for a no-win scenario.

Also, my contention that seasoned officers and instructors could evaluate a cadet's ideas based on their own experience without having to run actual physical trials of them flies, I know, in the face of the oft-used Trek concept of young upstarts knowing more than their clueless "betters."

That view never occurred to me as a factor in my considerations. I've explained what my reasoning actually was, so now you're changing the subject to something that has nothing to do with anything I've said or anything I believe.

I suppose you have a point that experience could be a factor, if the cadet comes up with a solution that has been tried successfully before. I guess I was thinking too specifically about coming up with new solutions.

Still, I'd think that just about every test and simulation in the Academy is about testing problem-solving skills in some way or other. I mean, that's basically what a test is -- a set of problems you're assigned to solve. And I'm sure there are plenty of things that test determination and perseverence, like survival training. So neither of those really works for me as a primary purpose for the KM simulation. Its purpose is to be an exception to the normal tests and trials, a reminder that no matter how smart and quick and determined and adaptable you are, sometimes your luck just plain runs out. It's the memento mori principle: "Remember thou art mortal."

In ancient Rome, the words are believed to have been used on the occasions when a Roman general was parading through the streets during a victory triumph. Standing behind the victorious general was his slave, who was tasked to remind the general that, though his highness was at his peak today, tomorrow he could fall or, more likely, be brought down. The servant conveyed this by telling the general that he should remember, "Memento mori."

Yes, you need ambition and determination to succeed, but you also need to retain a sense of perspective. The Kobayashi Maru is the voice whispering in a captain's ear, reminding them of their mortality and making sure they remember the stakes of their decisions.

 

[Kieran1701]

Part of military training is breaking down civilian mindsets, and rebuilding them with proper military thinking. The KMT is Starfleet's way of breaking down cadets.

I'm in the US Navy's ROTC program, so I see where you're coming from with this, but I see it more as sort of a capstone test for a semester or year for a leader.

I envision the Kobayashi Maru as a test designed for evaluating the Academy's equivalent of a squad leader, company commander, or whatever they choose to call a subdivision of cadets. The bridge crew consists of subordinates from the leader's squad, company, etc. with him or her as captain. After several simulations from the past that the group of cadets has successfully done, the leader is evaluated in several areas, such as keeping control of subordinates.

Essentially, the test is nothing more than a test of leadership for an upperclassman. But, that's just my thought...

 

[Christopher]

Essentially, the test is nothing more than a test of leadership for an upperclassman. But, that's just my thought...

Oh, yes, it's definitely for cadets in their final year. Saavik had already earned lieutenant's rank when she took it, though she was in a cadet-red turtleneck (an odd anomaly) -- but she was in command white by TSFS, so she presumably graduated between films, shortly after TWOK. And Kirk was evidently in his final year when he took it in the 2009 movie.

 

[Paradon]

Yes, like what Hanibbal said: "Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee"! He himself let his personal feelings get in the way of making good decision...going against his own teachings because he hated Rome so much. KM really test how each cadet reacts to the test like the above posters said without letting his personal view or political view getting in the way of making good decision. Am I wrong here?

 

[Christopher]

^Err, only in that "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" was said by Muhammad Ali (the boxer), not Hannibal.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

That sounds all cool and macho, but is it really such a good idea? Like I said, an important trait in a good leader is humility, the ability to recognize that one is capable of failure. It keeps you from getting too full of yourself.

Being aware of one's "capability of failure" might be useful in some situations, choosing among competing plans of action, for instance. However, in the middle of performings one's duty in a crisis (what the KB scenario simulates), I think one's focus should be on anything but failure. (Oops! Didn't mean to get all cool and macho again! )

The question is whether, when you're faced with that situation where your only option is to go down in flames, you keep your cool and remain an effective commander to the end...

Yes, tenacity and ingenuity. That's what I said.

That view never occurred to me as a factor in my considerations. I've explained what my reasoning actually was, so now you're changing the subject to something that has nothing to do with anything I've said or anything I believe.

No, I haven't "changed the subject." I'm merely giving my own opinions on Star Trek in general and the Kobyashi Maru scenario in particular, which is the subject of this thread. The comment wasn't intended as a reply to just your post or to necessarily have anything to do with what you said or believe, but as a contribution to the general thread. It's fine if that view never occurred to you; it has occurred to me.

 

[Paradon]

^Err, only in that "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" was said by Muhammad Ali (the boxer), not Hannibal.

Perhaps, that's why he's one of the best boxer, if not the best, ever.... I guess the same rules apply in the rings.

 

[YARN]

Here's what I don't like about the test; if a captain really is in a no win scenario, it does not matter.

KIRK: A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face. Has that never occurred to you?
SAAVIK: No sir. It has not.
KIRK: How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?

Imagine, for example, that you wake up in free fall at 25,000 ft in the air. No parachute. No one to help. This is a no win scenario. You don't need to prepare for it, because even if you did prepare for it, the outcome would be the same.

Preparing Captain's to have a moment of Zen before their ship is destroyed in a truly "no-win scenario" is functionally useless as a training strategy.

 

[Paradon]

What happened if let's say they needed to fight in no win scenarios so that your comrades can set up a defensive perimeter in time, or so your comrades could retreat and escape in time? I think those are the two no win scenarios. Sometimes, they'd fight to death anyway in Thailand instead of being captured alive besides those two scenarios. Back then it was better dead than being slaves. I think anyone who is going to lead people into combats needs to face the facts that they have to put their lives on the line in order to win. Sometimes, it seems that way in the beginning...that you're going to loose because of the adrinalin...but if the Commander is brave enough he pull himself together and see that maybe it is possible to win, then they probably have a chance. It's hard in a real battle when you think you're going to die. You really have to either do it or don't...no inbetween's...and that's hard when you think you're gonna die.

 

[Captain Rob]

If Kirk was truly in a no-win situation; with no hope of escape. I would have him give one last final order: "Scotty; prepare to detonate the warp core and antimatter pods. If we're going to die, I'm going to take all of the Klingons with us."

 

[Paradon]

The Klingons probably admired Kirk for this reason...that was probably why they signed the peace treaty at Khitomer.

And, perhaps, the KMT is just an assessment test; that is all. Nothing more...nothing less.

 

[Timo]

Oh, yes, it's definitely for cadets in their final year. Saavik had already earned lieutenant's rank

...So it could be both for cadets in their final year, and for postgraduates who chose an easier path to graduation the first time around and now want to upgrade their command credentials (a bit like Troi, but earlier on, and with the goal set higher).

Which of course begs the question of whether Kirk was the only one ever to win the game, or merely the only cadet to do so.

Imagine, for example, that you wake up in free fall at 25,000 ft in the air. No parachute. No one to help. This is a no win scenario.

But not analogous to the one seen in the movies. There, you can decide how to die. And death management in cases like that does make a difference, as you may e.g. decide to die so that others would live, die and take everybody else with you, die to set an example, let others die for you, etc. etc. Very educational, that.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[YARN]

But not analogous to the one seen in the movies. There, you can decide how to die. And death management in cases like that does make a difference, as you may e.g. decide to die so that others would live, die and take everybody else with you, die to set an example, let others die for you, etc. etc. Very educational, that.

Timo Saloniemi

In the Kobayahsi Maru scenario you are simply toast.

Attempt to save that ship and Klingons will appear and blast your ship to bits. Kirk says, "Prayer, Mr. Saavik. Klingons don't take prisoners." Of course, they actually do, but not in this scenario where the ship is pummeled to death with photon torpedoes.

What would be educational is a seeming no-win scenario that allows for some measure of victory.

 

[Paradon]

Perhaps, Kirk should have ordered his crew to abandon ship and set the ship to autodistruct around the Klingon ships like what the above poster said. He probably would have gotten a better grade.

 

[Timo]

^^Saavik's test certainly does: she can e.g. opt to deprive the Klingon Empire of at least one battle cruiser by suicide attack. Or opt to let Starfleet retain one heavy cruiser, by deciding not to go in at all. Saavik may also surrender to save lives in the short term, and then weasel her way through Klingon customs and mores and wring a degree of survival victory out of that.

I see no educational benefit from having the scenario allow for big victories; teaching the subject to appreciate small ones is important in itself, and can't be taught if the subject has the (in real life unrealistic) chance of completing the mission as intended.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Paradon]

The Klingons certainly appreciate a good death. that might go a long way in a peace talk with them.

 

[T'Girl]

So, do you think Kirk did the right thing?

I continue to wonder if the "solution" used by nu-Kirk, was the same as the the one used by original Kirk. We know that one Kirk received a commendation and the other one faced a hearing board.

Saavik had already earned lieutenant's rank when she took it, though she was in a cadet-red turtleneck (an odd anomaly)

Some cadets in modern military academies do have cadet ranks, Captains, Lieutenants, Sergeants, Corporals. At West Point, the senior most cadet rant is that of "First Captain." During the course of TWOK, Kirk and others might have been referring to Saavak by her cadet rank.

If the events of TWOK were to constituted her senior cruise, by the time of TSFS, Saavik could have been a commissioned Lieutenant Junior Grade.

 

[7thsealord]

Here's what I don't like about the test; if a captain really is in a no win scenario, it does not matter.

KIRK: A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face. Has that never occurred to you?
SAAVIK: No sir. It has not.
KIRK: How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?

Imagine, for example, that you wake up in free fall at 25,000 ft in the air. No parachute. No one to help. This is a no win scenario. You don't need to prepare for it, because even if you did prepare for it, the outcome would be the same.

In that specific case, you can either scream uselessly all the way down OR, to paraphrase Bill Cosby, you can start flapping your arms. Absolutely nothing to lose, and you never know until you try ....

Preparing Captain's to have a moment of Zen before their ship is destroyed in a truly "no-win scenario" is functionally useless as a training strategy.

Not really. Consider, as a crude example, test pilots.

Those are the guys who take up aircraft and help make them safe for other people to fly. That involves clear recognition that any flight could be their last - might be a lot safer than it once was, but still.

Bailing out might be an option in extreme cases, giving up and just letting the aircraft plough in never was. Numerous instances of, even when things are hopeless, they keep trying - AND relaying their instrument readings so that, whatever else happens, that data might help someone else down the line.

In both cases, test pilots and starship captains (and a few other fields of human endeavour), you do not give up.

 

[Timo]

I continue to wonder if the "solution" used by nu-Kirk, was the same as the the one used by original Kirk. We know that one Kirk received a commendation and the other one faced a hearing board.

Also, one Kirk supposedly was much younger than the other when taking the test - and had not lost his father and deranged into a rebel without a clue, but (according to Spock Prime at least) would have been going through the Academy while aware that Daddy was proudly watching. Odds would seem to be on Kirk Prime and NuKirk making different choices in such differing circumstances.

On the issue of cadet ranks, IMHO it would be a bit out of the norm for our commissioned heroes to address Saavik solely as "Lieutenant" and never directly as "Cadet". Courteous, perhaps, and Kirk would certainly be courteous and encouraging in the context. But still somewhat unusual (by the standards of our local military, that is - US practices might differ).

Two competing theories seem to hold water equally well: that the test is taken before graduation, and by a select elite group that could well be carrying high cadet ranks; and that the test is part of a special Command curriculum that only a select few people complete before graduation, while others finish it after graduation. Having a red collar after graduation shouldn't be much of a problem, as Kirk's own original backstory would seem to require him spending considerable time as an Academy instructor after graduation but before his first actual space mission. The red collar might well be associated with instructor duties, postgraduate courses and the like, then. And "partial red", as seen on some background characters and especially on Valeris, would fit somewhere in that odd little niche as well.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jonas Grumby]

KIRK: How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?

Preparing Captain's to have a moment of Zen before their ship is destroyed in a truly "no-win scenario" is functionally useless as a training strategy.

Yes, that's the way I initially interpreted that statement by Kirk, too. And that "zen moment" interpretation always rubbed me the wrong way. It's just too "touchy-feely" for my taste.

But Kirk's statement there is fairly vague. I'd be interested in ideas on how else it could be interpreted. Anyone?