The Fall of Ben Sisko

[ATimson]

However--even without that, if his depression is such that it would lead him to make irrational decisions in his personal life, surely it is not that big of a stretch to be concerned that it would affect his professional life?

Prove it.

Shouldn't the proof need to go the other way? You're postulating that a magic compartmentalization factor exists in Sisko, and in fact is the default for most people suffering from clinical depression, without providing a basis for said factor.

(I can only approach clinical depression from my admittedly semi-informed perspective of someone who's suffered it but hasn't done much independent research into it. But from what I know and what I experienced, I find myself agreeing with Rush Limborg here, and find the idea that clinical depression would affect Sisko's personal life but not his professional one... unlikely. Especially when it did affect his professional life during the "Emissary" timeframe.)

 

[Sci]

However--even without that, if his depression is such that it would lead him to make irrational decisions in his personal life, surely it is not that big of a stretch to be concerned that it would affect his professional life?

Prove it.

Shouldn't the proof need to go the other way?

No, the burden of proof falls with the person who wishes to demonstrate that he is unfit for command and should be discriminated against because of his medical condition.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Prove it.

Shouldn't the proof need to go the other way?

No, the burden of proof falls with the person who wishes to demonstrate that he is unfit for command and should be discriminated against because of his medical condition.

One thing to keep in mind is that Sisko took up active service before his depression had developed. His conference with Akaar on Earth occurred before he returned to Bajor and broke up with Kassidy. I would argue that Sisko's depression developed only at a later date, after he'd taken command.

Can I imagine circumstances where depressive tendencies would militate against command in Starfleet? Sure. Sisko, though, seems able to compartmentalize in ways that--frankly--I would never be able to. He's an effective captain, capable enough to be entrusted to handle sensitive discussions with Donatra, but one lacking in apparent rapport with his crew.

After the destruction of the Saratoga, similarly, Sisko was apparently an effective commander--he led the development of the Defiant class and he was slated to take over Deep Space 9--despite the devastation of his personal life.

 

[Sci]

Shouldn't the proof need to go the other way?

No, the burden of proof falls with the person who wishes to demonstrate that he is unfit for command and should be discriminated against because of his medical condition.

One thing to keep in mind is that Sisko took up active service before his depression had developed. His conference with Akaar on Earth occurred before he returned to Bajor and broke up with Kassidy. I would argue that Sisko's depression developed only at a later date, after he'd taken command.

Can I imagine circumstances where depressive tendencies would militate against command in Starfleet? Sure. Sisko, though, seems able to compartmentalize in ways that--frankly--I would never be able to. He's an effective captain, capable enough to be entrusted to handle sensitive discussions with Donatra, but one lacking in apparent rapport with his crew.

After the destruction of the Saratoga, similarly, Sisko was apparently an effective commander--he led the development of the Defiant class and he was slated to take over Deep Space 9--despite the devastation of his personal life.

Exactly. Clinical depression manifests very differently from person to person, and it's important not to adopt some ridiculous "one-size-fits-all" policy towards it. (Especially in the Federation Starfleet, whose officers may have to deal with numerous mental conditions brought on by biology depending upon their numerous different species.)

 

[Rush Limborg]

^I am simply working under the assumptions of the argument I was quoting--namely, that of Mage.

So, in other words, no, you don't know much about clinical depression and haven't done any research yourself.

That's something you should talk to Mage about--not me. He was the one who claimed that, when you're in depression--

your brain is no longer capable of making this neurotransmitter in enough quantities to help you manage with daily life, the normal things like getting out of bed in time and going to work and having a normal relationship.

Special note: "going to work".

Prove it.

Shouldn't the proof need to go the other way?

No, the burden of proof falls with the person who wishes to demonstrate that he is unfit for command and should be discriminated against because of his medical condition.

That didn't seem to be the mindset of Spock and McCoy in "Obsession", in which the pair--in one of the few instances in which they were visually in agreement--challenged Kirk to prove that he was of sound mind in his quest to take down the cloud creature--thereby laying the burden of proof on him.

 

[Sci]

No, the burden of proof falls with the person who wishes to demonstrate that he is unfit for command and should be discriminated against because of his medical condition.

That didn't seem to be the mindset of Spock and McCoy in "Obsession", in which the pair--in one of the few instances in which they were visually in agreement--challenged Kirk to prove that he was of sound mind in his quest to take down the cloud creature--thereby laying the burden of proof on him.

It's been a long time since I've seen "Obsession," but I seem to remember that this mindset of theirs was brought upon by his actual command decisions, not decisions in his personal life of which they disapproved.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^My point is made, regardless--they didn't give him reasoning to relieve him of command, they demanded from him reasoning to not relieve him of command. Circumstances do not affect how the burden of proof was applied.

Another example: "The Corbomite Maneuver". Bones took note of Bailey's emotional state. Kirk shrugged it off...on the grounds that it wasn't affecting Bailey's work.

Bones, however, understood full well that the personal emotional state was a powder keg waiting to erupt--despite the fact that, to us and to Kirk, he seemed fine for the most part.

 

[Sci]

^My point is made,

No, it's not, because their mindset was that there was probable cause to think his command judgment was impaired as a result of his actual job performance.

Sisko's job performance has not been affected by his depression in his personal life. Therefore, there is no cause to question his ability to command.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^There wasn't much on Bailey, either, as far as Kirk was concerned--and yet, Bones was proved to be in the right.

Further--read my full quote:

My point is made, regardless--they didn't give him reasoning to relieve him of command, they demanded from him reasoning to not relieve him of command. Circumstances do not affect how the burden of proof was applied.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Prove it.

Shouldn't the proof need to go the other way? You're postulating that a magic compartmentalization factor exists in Sisko, and in fact is the default for most people suffering from clinical depression, without providing a basis for said factor.

(I can only approach clinical depression from my admittedly semi-informed perspective of someone who's suffered it but hasn't done much independent research into it. But from what I know and what I experienced, I find myself agreeing with Rush Limborg here, and find the idea that clinical depression would affect Sisko's personal life but not his professional one... unlikely. Especially when it did affect his professional life during the "Emissary" timeframe.)

No, the burden of proof falls with the person who wishes to demonstrate that he is unfit for command and should be discriminated against because of his medical condition.

The burden of proof falls on the person who wishes to contradict psychology 1:1, something that any psychology book can tell you - that depression affects the ability to function of a person in ALL areas, and this only gets worse with time.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Sci, you are the one who comes with such 'out there' affirmations. Until you prove them, they're just a really shallow religious dogma only you believe in.

 

[Sci]

Shouldn't the proof need to go the other way? You're postulating that a magic compartmentalization factor exists in Sisko, and in fact is the default for most people suffering from clinical depression, without providing a basis for said factor.

(I can only approach clinical depression from my admittedly semi-informed perspective of someone who's suffered it but hasn't done much independent research into it. But from what I know and what I experienced, I find myself agreeing with Rush Limborg here, and find the idea that clinical depression would affect Sisko's personal life but not his professional one... unlikely. Especially when it did affect his professional life during the "Emissary" timeframe.)

No, the burden of proof falls with the person who wishes to demonstrate that he is unfit for command and should be discriminated against because of his medical condition.

<SNIP>

depression affects the ability to function of a person in ALL areas, and this only gets worse with time.

Then there should be no problem citing a specific decision or decisions that demonstrate that his command judgment is impaired.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Sci
There are plenty of psychology books that demonstrate that a human being - ANY human being - affected by depression is affected in ALL areas.
Go to wikipedia or google books and read up on depression.

RBoE amply demonstrates that Sisko suffers from depression.
You claim that Sisko exhibits some sort of INHUMAN compartmentalisation - and his command judgment is not impaired by this depression?

Prove it - this extraordinary claim of yours.
Or are you just pulling it out of your thin air - as you usually do?

 

[Sci]

Or are you just pulling it out of your thin air - as you usually do?

Yes, Edit, you long ago made it clear that you don't like me. This is not interesting.

Please cite some aspect of Sisko's job performance that marks him as unfit for command.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Or are you just pulling it out of your thin air - as you usually do?

Yes, Edit, you long ago made it clear that you don't like me. This is not interesting.

Please cite some aspect of Sisko's job performance that marks him as unfit for command.

On the contrary, I find your incessant use of logical fallacies quite interesting.

In the present case - you have yet to present any shred of evidence for your extraordinary claim.
And the implied ~"because I want it so" doesn't count.

 

[Sci]

Or are you just pulling it out of your thin air - as you usually do?

Yes, Edit, you long ago made it clear that you don't like me. This is not interesting.

Please cite some aspect of Sisko's job performance that marks him as unfit for command.

On the contrary, I find your incessant use of logical fallacies quite interesting.

In the present case - you have yet to present any shred of evidence for your extraordinary claim.
And the implied ~"because I want it so" doesn't count.

In other words, no, you cannot cite any aspect of Sisko's job performance that marks him as unfit for command.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Yes, Edit, you long ago made it clear that you don't like me. This is not interesting.

Please cite some aspect of Sisko's job performance that marks him as unfit for command.

On the contrary, I find your incessant use of logical fallacies quite interesting.

In the present case - you have yet to present any shred of evidence for your extraordinary claim.
And the implied ~"because I want it so" doesn't count.

In other words, no, you cannot cite any aspect of Sisko's job performance that marks him as unfit for command.

In other words, I won't engage your logical fallacies by actually pretending they have some merit, Sci.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

Admiral Akaar was curious about Sisko's mental/emotional state which is why he wanted to speak with Sisko before recomissioning him. Akaar (Sisko's superior) found him capable of command. after that interview.

The admiralty was concerned about Chakotay's mental/emotional state in Full Circle, assigned him a councilor, found him unfit for command, and didn't restore him to Voyager's center chair. Later, Chakotay was able to get his life and mental state in order and the decision was reversed.

Obviously sometimes a person's personal affairs and accompanying emotional state do prevent them from doing their job. Sisko, though under tremendous distress was fit for command. There are plenty of professionals with broken family lives and personal distress who can leave it at the door enough to do their jobs but these have to be handled in a case-by-case basis.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Case-by-case matters are always quite interesting. As a rule, they tend to strike me as humanity making things more complicated than they necessarily have to be. In the field of fiction, in particular, they therefore seem to be solely at the discretion of the writer at the time--with little or no further motivation.

In this case, I can't help but wonder if Akaar's decision was, again, a plot contrivance for Sisko's sake. Apparently, the Admiral (whom I normally admire greatly) didn't see fit to assign a counselor to Sisko, too? Or at the very least, give him command on the express condition that he see the ships counselor on a regular basis--as, in "Family" (TNG), it was implied Picard had had to do?

 

[Sci]

^Case-by-case matters are always quite interesting. As a rule, they tend to strike me as humanity making things more complicated than they necessarily have to be. In the field of fiction, in particular, they therefore seem to be solely at the discretion of the writer at the time--with little or no further motivation.

In this case, I can't help but wonder if Akaar's decision was, again, a plot contrivance for Sisko's sake. Apparently, the Admiral (whom I normally admire greatly) didn't see fit to assign a counselor to Sisko, too? Or at the very least, give him command on the express condition that he see the ships counselor on a regular basis--as, in "Family" (TNG), it was implied Picard had had to do?

I think it would have been reasonable for the admiral to insist that Sisko see a counselor as a condition of retaining command.

I also think that in the wake of 63 billion deaths and the loss of 40% of Starfleet, there's a good chance that Starfleet has a shortage of both captains and counselors, and that there are a hell of a lot of captains who need counselors just as much or more. If Starfleet started removing every captain suffering some level of clinical depression from command right now, there's a good chance there wouldn't be anyone left to command their starships.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

Perhaps Akaar is just a REALLY good judge of character and didn't see the need to get a counselor, as is his perogative. Interviews with Ernest Shackleton for the Imperial Trans Antarctic Expedition usually were only a few minutes long and, for the most part, the Boss did a great job choosing his men.

Shackleton himself probably would have failed a medical examination for his own expedition if he had subjected himself to one but if he had, his men probably wouldn't have survived the ordeal without him.

Sometimes it is best to not get the doctors' professional opinions, ask any pilot.