Sherlock's Fun Facts and Trivia

[Van Buren Supernova]

I imagine john Watson thinks love is a­ mystery to me but the chemistry is incre­dibly simple, and very destructive.

This is your heart.., and you should neve­r let it rule your head.

 

‘Love’ is a nature way of messing with us­ with irresistible cocktail of chemicals.­ Scientists call it nature’s beautiful tr­ap to help keeping the species alive.

 

They work together to capture our hear­t and hold it hostage, in the process des­troys our capability to think clearly wit­h our brain (hey, Sherlock says it’s dest­ructive, I merely emphasize on it :p

 

Not including chemicals in making human feel lust (estrogen, testosterone), happin­ess (endorphins) and attachment (oxytocin­, vasopressin), this focuses on culprits ­behind attraction; sparks in the ­air, romance contaminates troposphere, str­atosphere and mesosphere, and uhm..highe­r, everything tastes like chocolate and a­ll things described in love songs.

 

Phenylethylamine (PEA), the dizzyi­ng feeling of euphoria, large quantities ­increase physical and emotional energy, this is also stimulant that causes the rel­ease of norepinephrine and dopamine. (PEA­ is famous for being found in chocolate, ­which leads to belief that eating chocola­te makes us happier, unfortunately, feeli­ng good by eating chocolate actually come­s from the sweetness, because PEA contain­ed in chocolate is rapidly metabolized be­fore reaching the brain.)

 

Norepinephrine stimulates producti­on of adrenalin; it makes our heart race,­ out palms sweat, it increases blood leve­l of adrenalin and cortisol. The main tar­get of norepinephrine is to ignite­ the receptors in our body.

 

Dopamine activates receptors in th­e brain that are associated with pleasure­ system. It has similar effect with takin­g cocaine, it stimulates desire and rewar­ds by triggering intense rush of pleasure­, increases energy, less need for sleep o­r food, more focused attention to the obj­ect of desire.

 

Serotonin makes us feel addictive;­ divert our mind to think about the lover­ and nothing else. The comparison of sero­tonin level in blood samples from people ­in love are equivalent to OCD patients.

 

In the end, are you really so obvious? Because this was textbook: the promise of love, the pain of loss, the joy of redemption...

[J.P.]

This describes quite well what happened to me after I saw Sherlock.    Maybe less of sweating hands, but busted creativity instead.

I mean, love is a kind of obsession, obsession is a kind of love...

 

BTW, I have seen the most stupid and ridiculous things made by people in love - risking their future, work, even life (My school's boarding home, second floor and a not so stable rain pipe. Deduce the rest). And falling in love always felt like an intoxication to me (in a negative sense), probably due to the fact that I always chose guys I couldn't have. So I do understand Sherlock very well.

[Van Buren Supernova]

If it makes you feel better, falling in love is actually out of your control, that's why it's called 'falling'. I don't have anything scientific to back that, but that sounds about right. :p

 

For me, I think I have tried to protect myself since I was young. Saw friends acting funny or stupid (those things you mentioned), seething jealousy madness and despairs. All those look very dangerous to me because of their helplessness.

 

So I implement a gate that I don't like someone before they like me, applicable to friends too. I keep my distance until I have good signals. Most often than not, my radar is extremely dull that I get figurative whack in the head because of their frustations. Also, I make it double gate and more difficult if I have very good chemistry with person I have just met because they are not easy to find, so I really want to be sure that it's not one-sided attraction/friendship.

It's stupid way maybe but it works. XD I still swear by it.

[J.P.]

Yepp, and that lack of control is scary. Even I did a quite stupid thing once, which could have had dire consequences if my instinct failed me. But how can you trust your instinct when you are drowning in a hormonal tsunami? The worst part of it? You can be fully aware you act stupid, but you do it anyway.

Well - it's no wonder that Mycroft wants to protect his little brother from this...

[Van Buren Supernova]

The worst part of it? You can be fully aware you act stupid, but you do it anyway.

Yes, that is exactly why it always looks dangerous to me, the helplessness.

And that is also the reasons behind everything weird done by people in the name of love, and I think that is why they call it "crime of passion?" for bad things done in name of love?

[J.P.]

Ah, in case you wonder - I might be a gray asexual, but I'm not aromantic. Which is a weird combination, as a hormonal coctail still can flood my brain, but it doesn't have much to do with a desire to... ah... spread your genes. ;)

[Arcadia]

You know, I used to I wonder where I fall in the spectrum. I enjoy romance, as long as it's not too flowery; but I like adventure and puzzles better. I have a sex drive, I just don't want sex for the sake of having sex. I don't find porn titillating but rather gross, but I'm mesmerized by that stupid gif of BC walking in a field. I have no desire to have children, but I enjoy playing with them. (Babies, on the other hand; ick. XD ) Definitely attracted to men, not women, so no confusion there ... but I can't stand he-man types, such as Superman (I know, extreme example, but go with me here.) If I were to draw my ideal man, some people would think he looks too feminine; I like 'em slim and smart, not bulky and hormonal. I don't like coarse, sexual humor, but I know one filthy joke that makes me howl with laughter every time I tell it. I find pleasure in sex, but I think it should be a private activity, not a public one; I avoid "sexy" movies. This is how I was brought up to believe a refined, intelligent, self-respecting woman should think and act; only to have people laugh in my face and say how "quaint" or "innocent" I was. When I was younger I genuinely began to worry if there was something wrong with me; why was everyone else (or so it seemed) in such a hurry to boink someone, anyone, as long as they were "doing it?" Why did sex seem to be the only thing on their minds? And a little later; why can't I find a person I want to be with? Why don't I fit the "norm"?
 
I'm old enough now though, that I genuinely don't give a fig. When people inform me that I'm "weird", I usually laugh and say thank you (love the look on their faces when I do that.) I genuinely enjoy the feeling of being unique, whether I actually am or not. I'm proud of myself for not following the crowd. I don't feel I've missed out on something "important". I'm not lonely, although I do worry about being alone when I'm too old to take care of myself any more. But since women generally outlive their male partners, that would probably happen anyway. And who knows, a Mr. Right might still come along; I'm not closed to the idea. But I'm not spending my time pining for him either.
 
So what does that make me? Me. Find a label for me if you can, I won't wear it anyway.

[J.P.]

Sometimes I wonder if I miss something important, something that seems to be a very important aspect of being human.

Then, sometimes, I wish someone would look at me the way Ben looks at Sophie - just once. But if it happened, most probably I would be running so fast, that only what you'd see of me was a condensation trail and a cloud of dust.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Lately there are a couple of articles showed in science news, titled something like 'single people are happier'. I didn't read it, because I have known that. :p

 

Very well put, guys. I think there are not a lot of things that makes me submissive with someone intelligence faster than when they start their sentence with,"You are not normal if...." "The way of life is..."

Rubbish. Just because it's your way, doesn't mean it's mine.

 

I am solitary at best, and would die if I have to fit into anyone's expectation of normalcy.

I can really relate with most of the things you guys say eventhough I have Mr.Right, an angel who puts up with me, he is as weird and as independent. We stay apart because of work, and we heck care about all social norms. I always think we are two best friends who just understand with each other.

Still, I've been criticized and viewed as weird way too often, they always have reasons and interests to pick at our way of life.

 

Well, I guess it's not our fault that we are so fascinating to them. :p

[Arcadia]

Yeah, they're just jealous! :d

[J.P.]

Something different.

http://naturalshocks.tumblr.com/post/148830619108/obotligtnyfiken-straight-ahead-or-two-steps

[Carol the Dabbler]

Cool!

 

It does seem to me, though, that even though both TSo3 and HLV look like real messes, there's a major structural difference. In TSo3, the discontinuities finish their business and then go tidily right back where they came from (in software terminology, they act like proper subroutines). But in HLV (and to some extent in TEH), there's no such tidiness (in other words, it's spaghetti code!).

[Arcadia]

No wonder I love TSo3; it makes a beautiful graphic!

 

Now I have to go back and look at the HLV one and figure out what Carol means...

[Arcadia]

Okay, I've taken another look, and I don't think I agree; with the exception of the little jump near the end, it looks to me like each "subroutine" goes back exactly where it started in HLV. And the TEH line has no jumps at all. It makes me wonder if we're seeing the same graphic?

 

And TSo3 is the one that looks like spaghetti to me. It's gorgeous, I love it. (And where's the one for TAB? That'd be a trip!)

 

And finally, I'm surprised to see only one little jump in Scandal; I could have sworn there were more gaps than that. So I wonder again if maybe the graphics aren't showing up right on my screen? Anyone else see the same thing I do?
 

[Van Buren Supernova]

Cool!

It does seem to me, though, that even though both TSo3 and HLV look like real messes, there's a major structural difference. In TSo3, the discontinuities finish their business and then go tidily right back where they came from (in software terminology, they act like proper subroutines). But in HLV (and to some extent in TEH), there's no such tidiness (in other words, it's spaghetti code!).

:D

I have to figure out too, but in layman understanding, they both seem similar, with TSoT more hectic. Because TSOT contain many stories, some without conclusion by the time it was told (mayfly man for example) and some has invisible connection (bloody guard and mayfly) and connection of the mystery to the current scene is ongoing story.

 

While HLV even when the business is not finishes it's one business with clear path, so if I have to choose one spaghetti, TSOT is more haywire to me.

 

 

And finally, I'm surprised to see only one little jump in Scandal; I could have sworn there were more gaps than that. So I wonder again if maybe the graphics aren't showing up right on my screen? Anyone else see the same thing I do?

 

I thought the jumps refer to flashbacks, not time gaps?

It's very very very possible that I am wrong. :p

[Van Buren Supernova]

Plagiarism in Sherlock's world is so obvious. :p

[Arcadia]

 

And finally, I'm surprised to see only one little jump in Scandal; I could have sworn there were more gaps than that. So I wonder again if maybe the graphics aren't showing up right on my screen? Anyone else see the same thing I do?

I thought the jumps refer to flashbacks, not time gaps?

It's very very very possible that I am wrong. :P

I thought when the line jumped back, that was a flashback, but if it just makes a bump, that's a jump forward. There's a rather large bump near the end of the HLV timeline, which I assumed was the time between Sherlock collapsing at Baker Street and Christmas. But I could be wrong too. :p Or the person who made the graph is wrong....... 

 

Plagiarism in Sherlock's world is so obvious. :P

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sorry, I wasn't at all clear, was I? I wasn't talking about the graph so much as I was talking about my impressions from watching the two episodes. They both had a lot of time jumps, but they were handled so differently that I was surprised they looked so similar on the graph.

[T.o.b.y]

If it makes you feel better, falling in love is actually out of your control, that's why it's called 'falling'.

 

I am inclined to disagree. I think we do have control over whom we love and how. At least we can decide whether we want to allow our feelings to run rampant or whether we want to guide them into smoother waters. This might not be easy, but I do think it can be done. For example, when somebody falls in love with a person who is happily married to somebody else, I do believe they have a choice as to whether they want to obsess about that person all day long, piss off their spouse and try to break up the marriage, whether they would rather crawl into a hole of sadness and jealousy or whether they want to work on their feelings, tone them down to a level where they don't hurt anybody, wish the beloved person well and move on with their life. Not saying this is easy, but it can be done, and "love" is not a valid excuse for bad behavior.

 

I certainly don't feel helpless at the hands of my emotions and affections. I like them, without them I wouldn't feel alive. They are a bit chaotic and unruly sometimes, but I think I can work with them, and besides, they are more often helpful than not.

[Arcadia]

I'll stake out a middle ground in there somewhere ... if "falling in love" is that moment when you're attracted to someone, then I sort of agree; you don't have any control over that. But then the rational mind kicks in (if you let it ) and yeah, then you can tell yourself to "go for it" or "no, it's a hopeless case." So you may be falling, but at least you can have a controlled descent.

[J.P.]

In my cases I did have control over my deeds (in 99% of them), but not of the longing. You can tell yourself to behave, but not your brain. Someone should find a pill against it.

[Arcadia]

I think they have, it's called chocolate. (Keeping busy helps too.)

[Van Buren Supernova]

I think we do have control over whom we love and how. At least we can decide whether we want to allow our feelings to run rampant or whether we want to guide them into smoother waters. This might not be easy, but I do think it can be done. For example, when somebody falls in love with a person who is happily married to somebody else, I do believe they have a choice as to whether they want to obsess about that person all day long, piss off their spouse and try to break up the marriage, whether they would rather crawl into a hole of sadness and jealousy or whether they want to work on their feelings, tone them down to a level where they don't hurt anybody, wish the beloved person well and move on with their life. Not saying this is easy, but it can be done, and "love" is not a valid excuse for bad behavior.

Actually, from your explanation, I think it's very similar to J.P and Arcadia and mine too.

 

We can't really choose who we love, but we can choose what we do with it: whether to pursue or move on especially when the other side is not available like your example, but still, the reality is he/she still loves him/her and if they could choose, of course they would go for someone more attainable. It's controlled descent, instead of plummeting to pavement, you can land on the awning, but you still fall.

 

Higher level of it imo, is the decision to see the person you love happy even if it means you are not in the scenario, wish them well and try to move on eventhough it sacrifices your own feeling. Is it almost altruistic? Maybe not, because the main purpose is probably he/she wants to cling on own sanity.

 

I am not a fan of romcom, but I really like a scene in Love Actually when someone holding cards to express how he feels after trying to hide it for her happiness.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Continue the discussion guys.. like it.

 

I just slip this one here after last night write up, before I misplace or accidentally delete it.

 

 

 

 

 

I could write about Yakuza tattoo, but instead I'd go with Atomic Tattoo, because it's... intriguing.

 

Around 1950, during the cold war there was real fear of atomic bomb attack, so for civil defense measure, blood-type tattoo was introduced. It's tattoo of blood type located underarm of the left chest.

 

 

Known as Operation Tat-Type, this is a measurement for possible chaotic medical situation in case of atomic attack, for rapid transfusion and walking blood bank solution.

 

It's short lived, the concept failed to catch on nationally for various reasons, but not without record of implementation for schoolchildren in Lake County, Indiana and Cache and Rich counties, Utah.

 

Various sources, but this one has more info if you want further reading, including first hand accounts.

Atomic Tattoo

[J.P.]

Actually, having a blood type somehow attached to you might be a life saver in any emergency.