“Suddenly”??
Since we’re here, I thought of another real world test I have experienced that, whilst it has nothing like the situational urgency of the Kobayashi Maru, did set a problem for which there was no full solution, and the purpose was to observe behaviours, not to see who could solve it.
I was one of five shortlisted applicants for one job opening in a local government organisation. We were put in a room together, seven of us (five applicants and two stooges - we didn’t know they were stooges), plus the interviewers sitting at a distance from the group.
We were told to solve a problem relating to allocation of a number of council housing places to a list of applicants. The number of available spaces was not sufficient to allocate a place to everyone on the list
The people on the list were all described and the descriptions had been tailored to expose assumptions and prejudices; a single mother with three young children; a gay couple; a family of naturalised immigrants, etc.
The group tried to measure or assign merit to the various people on the list, some of it was quite earnest (young children are vulnerable so the single mother should have priority), some of it was based on prejudice (I’ll leave it to your imagination).
The purpose of the whole exercise was nothing to do with the allocation list we were supposed to derive.
The group argued for a bit. I realised something was amiss and focused more on trying to keep the discussion calm and fair to the participants. I also figured that we had not been given enough, or the right kind of information to make the decisions we were being asked to make, and asked the interviewer to clarify what the actual allocation priority criteria were supposed to be.
I got the job.
~30 years ago i was on one of the many IT courses we were sent
on, Computer Systems Design or something.
At the end of each day, we were assigned a few (5/6 iirc) tasks to complete
(homework !).
On the last day we were assigned over 30 !
Peni^H^H^Hanic ensued.
Of course it transpired that the real object was to recognize that
this was unachievable, and to negotiate with the ‘client’ for extra
time, or more achievable objectives.
That seems closer to the Voight-Kampff test to determine if someone is a replicant.
Is this a good time to note that the administration of the KM test, as described in Star Trek, is stupid?
When you tell cadets that
- They have to take the KM test
- They ANNOUNCE it (by the name)
- And it is the same scenario every damn time
then it is useless as a test of character. It needs to change every time, and not be cued by announcing it.
The closest example seen in ST was Wes Crusher’s test with the lab fire. That was a “test of character”, in that there was no way to save both people. Which do you pick? And “neither” is also a valid answer.
The only reason Kirk got " a commendation for original thinking" was because in space normal solutions don’t always apply. If he’d done that in today’s navy, he’d have been assigned to logistics, not a command path.
Past discussions about torture showed what the OP was looking for, about the closest one can get to an institution training their members about Kobayashi Maru like tests.
Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) is a training program, best known by its military acronym, that prepares U.S. military personnel, U.S. Department of Defense civilians, and private military contractors to survive and “return with honor” in survival scenarios.
Defenders of the use of torture missed the point entirely about parts of the SERE training, the torture bits are focused on the resistance training of USAs armed force members when confronted with a very bad or even deadly situation like torture from the enemy. Torture proponents ignored the part about commanders finding how soldiers and pilots would resist, endure, and even how they would face death; with the part about how the enemy dishonorably uses torture with little to show for.
Concentrating on the resistance part:
- The “code” of prisoners at the “Hanoi Hilton” Hỏa Lò Prison: “Take physical torture until you are right at the edge of losing your ability to be rational. At that point, lie, do, or say whatever you must do to survive. But you first must take physical torture.”[38][39]
- A pilot POW who gave the name of comic book heroes when his captors demanded the name of his fellow pilots.[40]
- Much from The Great Escape (book).
The teaching of “resistance” is typically done in a “simulation laboratory” setting where “resistance training” instructors act as hostile captors and soldier-students are treated as realistically as possible as captives/POWs with isolation, harsh conditions, close confinement, stress, mock interrogation, and torture “simulations”. While it is impossible to simulate the reality of hostile captivity, such training has proven very effective in helping those who have endured captivity know what to expect of their captivity and themselves under such conditions.[41][42]
Or one of the ancient text-based computer games. Or the time Batman was trying to find somewhere to throw a bomb.
In the Star Trek future, people are able to keep secrets. Nobody that has taken the KM explains it to anyone who hasn’t. It isn’t even published anywhere on the GWW.
Since this thread has been bumped, are airline pilots ever put in a scenario equivalent to say United 232 during simulator training? Which it to say, a scenario where crashing is pretty much inevitable, with the goal of evaluating how well they work with the rest of the crew in such a dire circumstance.
It’s not really clear to me what the purpose of the KM actually is. To see if the cadets will fight to the death in a combat simulation?
Isn’t the correct answer to the KM test “don’t enter the Neutral Zone”?
Random question, but how does interstellar comms work in Star Trek? Obviously they are not using the conventional electromagnetic spectrum. Like what “warp” speed does a typical broadcast from the Enterprise travel?
Very well thank you very much.
They travel at the speed of plot.
IIRC, that was established to have been Cadet Sulu’s response.
We don’t get KM scenarios, in my experience.
We are presented with some challenging situations, but I wouldn’t say they are hopeless. The bizjet I currently fly has a procedure for a dual engine failure, and we would then be expected to use our best airmanship to try to land somewhere.
Pilots are generally taught from the beginning how to crash. Don’t stall, and you want the wings to take the brunt and dissipate energy. So if you’re able, put it between two obstacles. There’s also guidance on water ditching and some other scenarios. When I flew the Cirrus, a plane with a parachute system, I was trained in how to use it - this included a sim session in which the engine fails over a forest and there’s no other option. Pulling the chute was “success” in that situation.
In the simulator they will combine some problems, but not to the point that there’s no chance of the pilot performing meaningful action. There’s no point in simulating multiple failures that result in a no-win situation, or things like the wing falling off.
Sim instructors want pilots to fight until the very end. I was once yelled at when I gave up in a situation I felt couldn’t be resolved, and I took the point to heart.
And in the middle of it, the floor manager asks you rotate the stock after you’ve folded the t-shirts… oh, and re-work that window display, please.
Non-pilot here, what is the point of that. I don’t understand why you would care about your interactions with others if you thought you were going to die in a few minutes. Wouldn’t the primary goal be to continue to fight for control, the rest of the crew’s feelings be damned?
Except we see that happen multiple times.
Not every crash is fatal, and even if it’s absolutely fatal to the flight deck, remaining professional and continuing to carry out your duties to the best of your abilities can reduce the severity of the final outcome. “That others may live” isn’t a bad way to die.
Crew Resource Management is maintaining a working crew in the face of the most extreme circumstances, and it’s absolutely essential to the best possible results.
Maybe I phrased it poorly, but that was what I meant. I wasn’t talking about the “rest of the crew’s feelings” but rather “crew resource management”, taking suggestions from the rest of the crew and utilizing each crewmember’s unique expertise to determine the best course of action, even if a crash landing might be the best possible outcome (as in United 232).
Ah, got it. Thanks.
Furthermore, the severity of the outcome simply isn’t knowable in a lot of critical incidents, so it absolutely makes sense to continue to work the problem as effectively as possible.
I’m having trouble figuring out why any other response is considered valid? It’s my understanding that entering the Neutral Zone means interstellar war with the Klingons or Romulans or whoever?
It seems to me that rather than create a contrived no-one test, it would be far more practical to run trainings for the actual protocol for a civilian ship accidently wandering into the Neutral Zone and becoming disabled. Ie “Call Starfleet and wait for orders while they make the necessary diplomatic calls.”
I feel like every IT project I ever work on is basically a Kobayashi Maru test. They always seem to amount to “I ran the numbers and it is mathematically impossible to deliver this project within the budget, timeframe and scope you are asking for. ‘Working weekends’ would only help if we added three times as many weekends to the current work week…for every week.”.