The Psyche Behind The Character

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

 

This sort of reminds me of the Moriarty mind palace scene from HLV:

 

SHERLOCK: You. You never felt pain, did you? Why did you never feel pain?

MORIARTY: You always feel it, Sherlock. But you don’t have to fear it! Pain. Heartbreak. Loss. Death. It’s all good. It’s all good.

 

This scene never fails to give me major feels, because at the center of it is the idea that Sherlock has, probably from Mycroft, that feeling things is bad. That it's something to be feared b/c it's a disadvantage, a weakness, it leads to human error. Now clearly this is not Moriarty Moriarty, so it's not like Moriarty is giving him some nugget of truth or wisdom, so somewhere inside that funny old head of his he knows this deep down.... but will he ever grasp it? What will Series 4 Sherlock look like?

That gets me more excited for series 4 and further philosophical & psychological discussion on the character names Sherlock.

So this just adds to the discrepancies with Sherlock's mind -- emotions are bad, but emotions are what powers him to throw people out windows repeatedly, run into a bloody bonfire, and fight his way back to life.

Yep, that sounds about right

[Shadow Dweller]

Last thing: John's reaction to Sherlock figuring out his past: an interetsing reaction indeed. He's distrustful yet he enjoyed bein gread by Sherlock? Instead of getting angry or bitter or more closed off? Veeeery weird reaction no? And why? Does he like he thought of someone paying attention to him (with a drunk, lesbian sister, maybe he was never the center of attention of his parents and family) or is this another side of his 'twisted' personality, another proof he too abhors dull people and dull reactions like Sherlock?

 

Intellectual interest? Sounds more make sense to me rather than, "F*** off". That is the doctor in him talking, he entered diagnostic mode  ;)

 

 

Do you think that in The Great Game, Sherlock really was going to give Moriarty the stolen plans? Or do you think he just brought an empty memory stick to the pool? On the one hand, I can easily believe he didn't care much whether Moriarty had them or Mycroft at that early stage of his knowledge about his opponent (and himself). On the other hand, is (was) he really that careless?

And what might he have told Mycroft later about the whole thing? Did Mycroft ever get what he had asked for?

 

I wonder whether, when Mycroft had Moriarty imprisoned and was interrogating him, Moriarty told him "your little brother was going to give me the Bruce Partington data and the only reason I haven't gotten it is that I threw the memory stick into a swimming pool"?

If so, it might just have made Mycroft angry enough to really do some "blabbing" about Sherlock...

 

Hope he bring altered information laced with liberal dose of worms, viruses, rootkits and friends  :lol:

 

 

This sort of reminds me of the Moriarty mind palace scene from HLV:

 

SHERLOCK: You. You never felt pain, did you? Why did you never feel pain?

MORIARTY: You always feel it, Sherlock.  But you don’t have to fear it!  Pain. Heartbreak. Loss.  Death.  It’s all good.  It’s all good.

 

This scene never fails to give me major feels, because at the center of it is the idea that Sherlock has, probably from Mycroft, that feeling things is bad.  That it's something to be feared b/c it's a disadvantage, a weakness, it leads to human error.  Now clearly this is not Moriarty Moriarty, so it's not like Moriarty is giving him some nugget of truth or wisdom, so somewhere inside that funny old head of his he knows this deep down.... but will he ever grasp it?   What will Series 4 Sherlock look like? 

 

Agree with this one; Moriarty and Mycroft basically talk about the same thing (deal with your emotions and feelings) but their way to do it are polar opposites and be fit their own characters.

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

 

Last thing: John's reaction to Sherlock figuring out his past: an interetsing reaction indeed. He's distrustful yet he enjoyed bein gread by Sherlock? Instead of getting angry or bitter or more closed off? Veeeery weird reaction no? And why? Does he like he thought of someone paying attention to him (with a drunk, lesbian sister, maybe he was never the center of attention of his parents and family) or is this another side of his 'twisted' personality, another proof he too abhors dull people and dull reactions like Sherlock?

 

Intellectual interest? Sounds more make sense to me rather than. "F*** off". That is the doctor in him talking, he entered diagnostic mode  ;)

 

Ah, but remember how drunk Sherlock asks, "I'm you, aren't I?"  And at first, I thought it was just a silly guess while he and drunk John were playing Who Am I? but it wasn't.

 

 

John kills the cabbie in ASiP with his gun.                          Sherlock kills Magnussen in HLV with John's gun.

                                                                             

John gets agitated after a month of not seeing                  Sherlock gets agitated after four and a half seconds

Sherlock (and, by extension, not doing cases).                  without a case.

                                                                             

John gets attracted to a former trained assassin.              Sherlock gets attracted to a self-proclaimed "dominatrix".

                                                                             

 

 

There're some more uncanny similarities, but I can't think of 'em off the top of my head right now.

[Shadow Dweller]

 

 

Last thing: John's reaction to Sherlock figuring out his past: an interetsing reaction indeed. He's distrustful yet he enjoyed bein gread by Sherlock? Instead of getting angry or bitter or more closed off? Veeeery weird reaction no? And why? Does he like he thought of someone paying attention to him (with a drunk, lesbian sister, maybe he was never the center of attention of his parents and family) or is this another side of his 'twisted' personality, another proof he too abhors dull people and dull reactions like Sherlock?

 

Intellectual interest? Sounds more make sense to me rather than. "F*** off". That is the doctor in him talking, he entered diagnostic mode  ;)

 

Ah, but remember how drunk Sherlock asks, "I'm you, aren't I?"  And at first, I thought it was just a silly guess while he and drunk John were playing Who Am I? but it wasn't.

 

 

John kills the cabbie in ASiP with his gun.                          Sherlock kills Magnussen in HLV with John's gun.

                                                                             

John gets agitated after a month of not seeing                  Sherlock gets agitated after four and a half seconds

Sherlock (and, by extension, not doing cases).                  without a case.

                                                                             

John gets attracted to a former trained assassin.              Sherlock gets attracted to a self-proclaimed "dominatrix".

                                                                             

 

 

There're some more uncanny similarities, but I can't think of 'em off the top of my head right now.

 

 

Only at the surface, beneath it all they have very different motivations/reasons.

[Arcadia]

I agree, I think those are only surface similarities. If anything, I think John and Sherlock are meant to be near complements of one another; not opposites, not the same, but each providing pieces that complete the other.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I agree, I think those are only surface similarities. If anything, I think John and Sherlock are meant to be near complements of one another; not opposites, not the same, but each providing pieces that complete the other.

 

I 2nd that.  They may have some more in-depth similarities such as justice and morals,but they are different in how they respond and ideas for taking care of a problem.

[T.o.b.y]

Ah, but remember how drunk Sherlock asks, "I'm you, aren't I?"  And at first, I thought it was just a silly guess while he and drunk John were playing Who Am I? but it wasn't.

 

Well, lets look at the clues Sherlock had that made him think he was supposed to be John: Not as tall as people think, human, nice-ish, of importance to some people, most people don't like him because he tends to rub them up the wrong way. Yup, that could in fact be either John or Sherlock. Doesn't mean they're alike in general.

 

I don't think Sherlock and John are terribly similar. They share a few traits and tastes, but their personalities are pretty different. What I find funny though, and a good idea on the part of the writers, is how we get a slightly skewed impression of John because we always see him in contrast with Sherlock, who is so extreme in many things. For example, Sherlock is extremely bad with people (unless he makes an effort or plays a part, in which cases he's spectacularly good). That leaves John to take care of most social interactions on a case, and leaves us thinking John must be a kind, sympathetic doctor with a great bedside manner, but he really isn't. John, at least in my eyes, is actually something of a grouch.

 

One of my theories about why John likes to hang around Sherlock is that Sherlock has many of John's faults and other characteristics in the extreme, which gives John the chance to be "the nice / normal / responsible / approachble / supportive guy" for a change. Sherlock gives him a chance to be a different, possibly a better, person, while John simply allows Sherlock to realize his full potential. Something like that. 

 

 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

Ah, but remember how drunk Sherlock asks, "I'm you, aren't I?" And at first, I thought it was just a silly guess while he and drunk John were playing Who Am I? but it wasn't.

Well, lets look at the clues Sherlock had that made him think he was supposed to be John: Not as tall as people think, human, nice-ish, of importance to some people, most people don't like him because he tends to rub them up the wrong way. Yup, that could in fact be either John or Sherlock. Doesn't mean they're alike in general.

 

I don't think Sherlock and John are terribly similar. They share a few traits and tastes, but their personalities are pretty different. What I find funny though, and a good idea on the part of the writers, is how we get a slightly skewed impression of John because we always see him in contrast with Sherlock, who is so extreme in many things. For example, Sherlock is extremely bad with people (unless he makes an effort or plays a part, in which cases he's spectacularly good). That leaves John to take care of most social interactions on a case, and leaves us thinking John must be a kind, sympathetic doctor with a great bedside manner, but he really isn't. John, at least in my eyes, is actually something of a grouch.

 

One of my theories about why John likes to hang around Sherlock is that Sherlock has many of John's faults and other characteristics in the extreme, which gives John the chance to be "the nice / normal / responsible / approachble / supportive guy" for a change. Sherlock gives him a chance to be a different, possibly a better, person, while John simply allows Sherlock to realize his full potential. Something like that.

 

Totally agree. Never thought of it that way before but it makes total sense. We do see some of John's grouchy side when Sherlock takes his computer, Sherlock not getting the groceries, & after he gets Sherlock from jail in TRF.

 

I was also thinking that a better response to the blog counter stopping at 1895 would be good. Not just the it must be broken that ends up being the final response on it. Maybe something with the special will somehow answer it as we answer what happened with Moriarty.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... Sherlock is extremely bad with people (unless he makes an effort or plays a part, in which cases he's spectacularly good). That leaves John to take care of most social interactions on a case, and leaves us thinking John must be a kind, sympathetic doctor with a great bedside manner, but he really isn't. John, at least in my eyes, is actually something of a grouch....

 

... Never thought of it that way before but it makes total sense. We do see some of John's grouchy side when Sherlock takes his computer, Sherlock not getting the groceries, & after he gets Sherlock from jail in TRF....

 

Y'all are pushing my John Watson buttons again!  :P

 

I will agree that many of what we see as Sherlock's characteristics and John's characteristics are pointed up by the contrast between the two men.  However, the contrast is not merely an illusion.  Sherlock really is kinda tall (for example), and John really is kinda short.  Likewise, I think Sherlock really does tend to be manipulative, and John really is basically a decent fellow -- even though Sherlock may sometimes be thoughtful and John may sometimes be grumpy.  (Hey, you just try living with a thoughtless, manipulative bastard for a couple of years without ever feeling grumpy!)

 

If anything, I think John and Sherlock are meant to be near complements of one another; not opposites, not the same, but each providing pieces that complete the other.

I agree.  Like a jigsaw puzzle.  And the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and all that.

 

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

 

... Sherlock is extremely bad with people (unless he makes an effort or plays a part, in which cases he's spectacularly good). That leaves John to take care of most social interactions on a case, and leaves us thinking John must be a kind, sympathetic doctor with a great bedside manner, but he really isn't. John, at least in my eyes, is actually something of a grouch....

 

... Never thought of it that way before but it makes total sense. We do see some of John's grouchy side when Sherlock takes his computer, Sherlock not getting the groceries, & after he gets Sherlock from jail in TRF....

 

Y'all are pushing my John Watson buttons again!  :P

 

I will agree that many of what we see as Sherlock's characteristics and John's characteristics are pointed up by the contrast between the two men.  However, the contrast is not merely an illusion.  Sherlock really is kinda tall (for example), and John really is kinda short.  Likewise, I think Sherlock really does tend to be manipulative, and John really is basically a decent fellow -- even though Sherlock may sometimes be thoughtful and John may sometimes be grumpy.  (Hey, you just try living with a thoughtless, manipulative bastard for a couple of years without ever feeling grumpy!)

 

If anything, I think John and Sherlock are meant to be near complements of one another; not opposites, not the same, but each providing pieces that complete the other.

I agree.  Like a jigsaw puzzle.  And the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and all that.

 

Most of the fandom agrees that John is a Cancer, which is the complementary opposite to Capricorn -- Sherlock.

 

(Come to think of it, John and Sherlock function very much like a typical Cancer-Capricorn relationship.)

[T.o.b.y]

How do people figure out fictional characters' zodiac signs? How?

 

I keep reading different things about those anyway. Read two descriptions of the same one and it can sound like completely different people.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

How do people figure out fictional characters' zodiac signs? How?

 

I keep reading different things about those anyway. Read two descriptions of the same one and it can sound like completely different people.

Sometimes a birthday is actually given within the character's story line. Other times it is when the character was first made available. So if the hobbit had been made available on march 20 for the first time anywhere, then Bilbo's birthday could be considered that day (yes I realize his birthday is in September). From there follow real life zodiac break downs which I find don't apply to me well maybe because I was one of many blessed with the borderline birthday between 2 signs.

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

A common belief is that people who are born on the end/beginning of a zodiac sign's time have a mixture of that sign's traits and the traits of the preceding/succeeding sign.

[Arcadia]

Not bad. But Sherlock, as usual, seems to defy all definitions....

 

"Both Signs can be depended on to make frugal, conservative decisions..." Sherlock? Frugal and conservative? Well, okay, conservative in his dress, maybe.... but I love how he resists being pinned to any particular label. Just like real people!

[SherlockedCAMPer]

A common belief is that people who are born on the end/beginning of a zodiac sign's time have a mixture of that sign's traits and the traits of the preceding/succeeding sign.

 

Interesting.  Had I been born anywhere in Asia/Oceania at the equivalent time I was born in the US, my birthday would have been a day later than it is.  Maybe that explains my crazy personality.  Not many creative people are also analytical.  I am very much both to a fault sometimes.

 

 

Not bad. But Sherlock, as usual, seems to defy all definitions....

 

"Both Signs can be depended on to make frugal, conservative decisions..." Sherlock? Frugal and conservative? Well, okay, conservative in his dress, maybe.... but I love how he resists being pinned to any particular label. Just like real people!

 

Yes he does defy all definitions & resists labels.  He can be kind of frugal too.  He goes to restaurants where he can get a deal on food and his landlady gives him a break on his rent because he has helped them out. [i realize that some may say it is more out of the fact that they(the restaurants more so than Mrs. Hudson) owe him because he helped them out of a jam.]

[Shadow Dweller]

How do people figure out fictional characters' zodiac signs? How?

 

I keep reading different things about those anyway. Read two descriptions of the same one and it can sound like completely different people.

 

In anime it is often based on blood type too (most inaccurate, I would say, even after counting the forer effect). It is hard to read what exactly lay under the surface of a character and their creator probably the only one who know what it is really like, lol.

[Boton]

I have no idea where to put this, so feel free to correct me, mods.

 

I'm reading this really interesting article about exceptional and profound giftedness (The Intellectual and Psychosocial Nature of Extreme Giftedness; Powel P. and Haden T., 1984).  It talks about normal ability being 90-110 IQ, moderate giftedness landing 130-149 (they don't account for the gap), and extreme giftedness landing 150+.  Then the authors say this:
 

"To give the reader a better feel for the differences in thinking among the three ability levels, imagine the three detectives from Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes: Inspector Lestrade, Dr.Watson and Sherlock Holmes himself. Analytical Inspector Lestrade would solve the case step by step with concrete evidence. Dr. Watson would appreciate clues which had obvious and non-obvious connections to one another and synthesize abstract clues. Sherlock Holmes would find and generate clues which he could hypothetically integrate to solve a crime. Holmes was an interesting mixture of brilliant analytical skills and synthetic ability which enabled him to perceive the minutest details, assign proper weight to each, and to integrate these into a large-scale picture of the entire situation. For us, Inspector Lestrade is of normal intellectual ability, Dr. Watson is of the moderately gifted level, and Holmes is extremely gifted."

 

That's the extent of the Sherlock connection, but I thought it was an interesting character analysis, and it sheds some light on how Sherlock can make the extraordinary leaps he does, while John is able to more or less follow Sherlock's methods (as canon Holmes always puts it) but doesn't generate those methods himself.  The article talks about the ability to generate structure being a hallmark of EP giftedness.

 

The link, if anyone would like to nerd out:

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10083.aspx

[Shadow Dweller]

>> the higher the level of giftedness, the greater the chance of psychological and social adjustment difficulties.

 

Oh Sherlock.... Although my opinion is, Sherlock actually revel in his 'strangeness' because it marked him as different and above the unwashed masses (hint of insecurity).  :P

 

Someone I know had earned a score within range of the Moderately Gifted (tested by accredited agency) but the way they process information is 'step by step with concrete evidence' aka plodding. In layman's term, it is like difference between single core with higher processing speed and multiple core, each with lower processing capability. If the gap between them is not big enough then (generally) the multiple core win.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think the "step by step" vs. "leap" forms of thinking are at least partly due to left-brain and right-brain thinking.

 

When I am really on a roll, things just kind of flow, and it's wonderful.  The reason I'm pretty sure that it depends on which hemisphere I'm using is that if someone in the next cubicle has their radio on, it's very difficult for me.  Apparently, that sort of "flow" thinking uses the same brain half as does listening to music, and I can't use it for both things at once.  So at times like that, I have to resort to the "step by step" method of thinking, which I find very slow and annoying.

 

[Shadow Dweller]

Are you sure that it is not a case of sensory overload? Some people actually have to 'flip around and explore' an input before proceeding to the next one. If a lot of packets coming on great speed then a bottleneck is guaranteed to happen. 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Music is actually encompassed by both hemispheres.  The right side is the creative side where music is most often associated and where the automatic, long-term thinking is located.  The left side is the short-term thinking and all things analytical.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Are you sure that it is not a case of sensory overload? Some people actually have to 'flip around and explore' an input before proceeding to the next one. If a lot of packets coming on great speed then a bottleneck is guaranteed to happen. 

 

You may be right about that.  I was raised to either pay attention to music or turn it off.  My family didn't use television or music as "wallpaper."  So yeah, I definitely have trouble ignoring it.  And I do tend to focus pretty strictly on one thing at a time -- which means that I pay very close attention, but am no good whatsoever at doing two things at once.

 

Music is actually encompassed by both hemispheres.  The right side is the creative side where music is most often associated and where the automatic, long-term thinking is located.  The left side is the short-term thinking and all things analytical.

 

I'm pretty sure that I have a high degree of connectivity between my hemispheres -- not sure how that ties in to your information, though.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

Are you sure that it is not a case of sensory overload? Some people actually have to 'flip around and explore' an input before proceeding to the next one. If a lot of packets coming on great speed then a bottleneck is guaranteed to happen.

You may be right about that. I was raised to either pay attention to music or turn it off. My family didn't use television or music as "wallpaper." So yeah, I definitely have trouble ignoring it. And I do tend to focus pretty strictly on one thing at a time -- which means that I pay very close attention, but am no good whatsoever at doing two things at once.

Music is actually encompassed by both hemispheres. The right side is the creative side where music is most often associated and where the automatic, long-term thinking is located. The left side is the short-term thinking and all things analytical.

I'm pretty sure that I have a high degree of connectivity between my hemispheres -- not sure how that ties in to your information, though.

It means that you use both sides of your brain regularly, which I do as well. I'm of the odd breed of being both very creative and extremely analytical which apparently is not that common. Most people are 1 or the other.

[T.o.b.y]

Interesting article, Boton. Thanks for the link.

 

On a completely unrelated note, I was just thinking: Sherlock seems to be one of those people who manages, intentionally or no, to hurt nearly everybody who loves him, and the amount of hurt seems to be roughly proportional to the strength of the other person's fondness. John, Irene, Janine - all got "burned" pretty badly. Molly so far has gotten away comparatively unscathed, but she's had to put up with some pretty bad behavior from him, and I do think he's broken her heart a little time and time again. His parents seem to hardly ever hear from him, when they come to visit after his two-year-long exile, he shuts the door in their faces as soon as John shows up, and god knows what they went through during his "drug years". As for Mycroft, while I do think he does Sherlock more harm than vice versa, the only times we've seen him really upset was when his little brother had caused some kind of trouble.

 

Poor Sherlock with his upturned coat collar. It's all a bit tragic, but I like it. I don't think he does it on purpose, he just... isn't very good at loving people. Or at letting people love him. One or the other. He's still a very good friend, in his own way. But you have to be brave and strong to endure that friendship...

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I'm creative, but I don't like being analitical. But that may be more environmental conditioning then any thing else. My dad and his mother were very open people and tried to teach us kids never to pick on anyone for any reason. The old "if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all."