This is an insteresting conundrum. Is he, or isn't he? 

I've come to a couple of different conclusions; (1) I agree with the poster who said that Sherlock may simply be "a gifted child." I'm going to add to that--I think he could be described very well as an HSP, or Highly Sensitive Person.

It doesn't mean that one is more emotionally touchy-feely or emotive, what it *does* mean is that the HSP takes in a whole lot more data than other "non-sensitives." And that can make them overwhelmed. That could be an explanation for the single-minded attention to facts, details, etc, while *not* focusing on feelings first-- it takes a lot of effort to weed out all that data and focus on what is important at the time to get the job done. 

(2) I think Sherlock has an artistic temperment. I'm going to preface this by telling you up front that I'm a professional, touring and recoding musician, and have rubbed elbows with some VERY talented people-- who exhibit some of the same personality quircks Sherlock does in the show. I call it "Rockstaritis"-- and it manifests in some of the follwoing ways: 

More focus on the art, performance, etc, than on people's feelings--
temper tantrums
Not dealing well with boredom, 
a tendency for substance abuse
an internal hierachy based on talent/value the work/project/performance
A single minded focus, the ability to tune oyt everything out except the music/performance/the work
etc, etc, etc, ... bad rock star behavior. :-)

Sherlock *is* a musician-- and I think he takes the same sort of single-minded, intuitive approach, and mixes with his scientific background-- and uses that in his work. I don;t think he actually has a disorder-- unless, being a "rock star" (and he is, in his field) is a disorder. 

By the way, rockers , though they be a contentious lot-- can also be generous, loving, kind, but it's usually going to be to those they feel are worth it and/or those they love/feel safe with. 

But that's just my take on it. 

Can't wait for the new season. 

Conan Doyle wrote it before any of those conditions were known, so, well.

Of course people can read into it whatever they want, we always project our own experiences on fictional characters (and real people for that matter). It's part of the fun. 

What is certain though is that Steven Moffat did not intend him to be autistic or APD or anything really. He said that in this interview (and also in others I can't find now), from 8.50. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ7RswJwKao

'Not really, although people say it often 'i'm a psychopath', he's not really aspergers, he's not really autistic. What's fascinating about Sherlock Holmes is that he has chosen to be this way. To make himself better at what he does, he has chosen to ignore whole parts of his life and his heart.' 

I also like the take this blogger had on it, she's a doctor and a Sherlockian and interviewed four professionals on autism. Their conclusion: he doesn't have it, not even close. 
http://wellingtongoose.tumblr.com/post/47219236641/sherlock-does-not-have-aspergers-or-autism-thanks

My opinion: I'm with the 'gifted child' theory that was proposed by some here and also by the doctor-blogger. I believe that's also Benedict's take, but I'm less certain about that. 

Last edited by silverblaze (December 28, 2013 11:51 am)

This is just something I've been pondering-- why is it  that we (in this culture, at this time in history) seem to think that the presence of  genius neccesitates either mental illness or some sort of diagnosible disabillity?

Is there no room for "different" in this culture?  I fear to think how Leonardo Da Vinci would have fared.

Just a thought.  

Basically! 

DAMNIT!  I do NOT have the time required to read all of this.  But as a chick WITH the Aspies (sounds like an award that way, don't you think?) I want to come back to this tonight after work.  DEAR SELF: PLEASE READ THIS THREAD.

Is there no room for "different" in this culture?  I fear to think how Leonardo Da Vinci would have fared.

Well, there's a trend today toward diagnosing EVERYBODY with something.

I'm not sure the "genius equal mentally illl" thing is specific to any one time period. There was a time we didn't talk so much in terms of mental health diagnoses but I'm not sure "genius" or "different" has ever been fully accepted...I don't think Da Vinci was really appreciated in his own time.

And in canon, Watson does use words like "manic" and "depression," to refer to Holmes' changing moods.

I am actually an "Aspie," too. 

You will see how my posts begin to reflect the way I over-analyze everything.

But I'm more like Watson - in my tendency to obsess over somebody or something the way he does about Sherlock. 


I could never have Sherlock's career because I'm not nearly that observant of small details in my environment.

But on the other hand, I sometimes feel other people's feelings. My mom works with kids who need special education services: when she talks to me about being angry because the schools won't provide services, I get angry.

Last edited by SherlocklivesinOH (January 12, 2014 9:37 pm)

Davina wrote:

I agree whole heartedly with ths. Sherlock does show certain traits of a personality disorder it s unclear which this is. Anyway, I think it is generally accepted that labels do not fit the range of personalities that exist. Labels tend to be used by professionals but putting individuals into labelled boxes is an artificial constraint.

Personaly I think that he is very excentric but does not qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis. If my arm was twisted very hard I would go for schizoid personality disorder. In order to win this particular prize in the ICD-10 lottery you need to meet  4 out of the 9 criteria below:

1. Emotional coldness, detachment or reduced affect. To an extent. Most of the time he does come across as pretty detached. So lets give him this one.
2. Limited capacity to express either positive or negative emotions towards others. I think that he is perfectly capable when it suits him. He can be socially ackward at times but at the same time we see him time and time again use emotions to manipulate others. There are a few scenes where he does express genuine emotions with people that are close to him. Fails to score on this one.
3.Consistent preference for solitary activities. Not a part type, for sure. Other people seem to get on his nerves most of the time. However he seem to enjoy company of people he has good relationship with and spends a lot of time with Dr Watson. Desputable.
4. Very few, if any, close friends or relationships, and a lack of desire for such. Point for this one.
5. Indifference to either praise or criticism. Not to bothered about criticism for sure. Seems to enjoy people prasing his superior intelect. Desputable.
6. Little interest in having sexual experiences with another person (taking into account age). We have seen one girlefriend so far. The underlying motive was however to solve the case rather than relationship itself. Yes, I think we can give him a point for this one.
7.Taking pleasure in few, if any, activities. Aside of solving cases and playing the violin he does not seem to enjoy that many things. Point here.
8. Indifference to social norms and conventions. Most deffinitely. It's not that he does not understand or does not know how to behave. He just plainly does not care. Point.
9. Preoccupation with fantasy and introspection. Yes for the introspection.

So in total 6/9.
 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

The thing is--  having a preference for solitary activities? That could describe every artist, musician, writer, or person that needs long periods of intense focus on one's work! This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  That kind of dedication to one's work is now thought of as a symptom of a disorder. Yikes. 

Preoccupation with fantasy and introspection? Every writer, artist, musician, etc, should apparently be treated-- as, here's another symptom of a disorder. 

Very true. That's why having a couple of features of a particular disorder does not automatically qualify anyone for the diagnosis. You need a constelation. Although how exactly it is decided how many criteria is sufficient is a bit arbitrary to say at least.

In clinical practice the most important question is whether particular symptom or personality feature couses a person any problems. If it does not couse distress and does not affect functioning then it should not be treated. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ;)

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

We know John has PTSD...does Sherlock have it? As I saw the beginning of TEH, it occurred to me that, while PTSD is common for those who have served in the military (and Sherlock has not actually served), he has certainly been through enough experiences that could give a person PTSD...and if he hadn't before the hiatus, he has now. Wasn't he actually being tortured?

I'm not convinsed that John has PTSD. From what we see on screen there is not enough there for him to meet the diagnostic criteria. He might have been much worse before though and we first see him when he is already partially recovered. So I'm not going to question his diagnosis to much.

Sherlock himself doesn't show any symptoms. So at the moment I would say that he doesn't have it.  It's hard to predict who is going to develop PTSD after a traumatic event. Theoretically it's possible that he would develop it. I find it unlikely to happen from the plot point of view though.

Personally I think that the diagnosis or a 'label' does add to the list of symptoms. It pulls all the symptoms together into much more coherant picture and helps with treatment planning. Most research and clinical guidelines are based around diagnosis. Personally I think that it's more usefull to the professionals as it serves as a shorthand for communication but it can also help the patient. Generally speaking people like to know what's going on with them and have a name for their experiences.

I'm biased though becouse I have a medical background. Collegues coming from more psychological angle often have a different take on it.