belis wrote:

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.

I think what I'm railing against is the tendency to use those labels as slang, for those who are different. I worry that creative and gifted kids get labelled for not fitting into the norm, when *all* that's "wrong" with them is that their brains work differently from non-creatives, or non-gifted people. They may need coping skills, not meds. I could very easily see this happening to Sherlock, who now labels himself as a "High-Functioning Sociopath, when it's very clear he's not. 

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (January 21, 2014 2:26 am)

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

In fact, John seems addicted to excitement...which is the main reason he puts up with Sherlock...you would think someone with PTSD would shy away from working with Sherlock because it would bring back fear, etc.

John does have a quick temper and a tendency to resort to violence at the drop of a hat.(In canon, he THREATENS to beat up someone who hires a hit on Holmes (or perhaps "offers to" because he says it to Holmes)...in this series, he punches out someone who calls Sherlock "weird." I don't know if the medical profession would call that psychopathy, but it would be scary if you LIVED with that person.
 

That would be anger management issues. :-)  I always think it's interesting how often we tend to gloss over John's violent tendencies. And his very close to the surface, ever present anger. 

"Gloss over," is a very good phrase... in most other adaptations we're led to see Watson as very normal except for his willingness to live with and love Holmes despite Holmes' eccentricities. They try to convey a sense of "How do you put up with Sherlock Holmes."

In fact, there are adaptations, and fan fics, particularly by Johnlockers, that idealize Watson and present Holmes loving Watson for saving or normalizing him, but here, we have to wonder how many people would put up with JOHN. Maybe Sherlock's Asperger's (or whatever) helps him not be freaked out or offended by John.

Here, it seems to be more Sherlock saving or humanizing John than the other way around. John lacked an interest in life before he met Sherlock, whereas Sherlock already had the interest, because he already had his work. He didn't have relationships, but he wasn't necessarily miserable due to missing them.

And I can't recall any other adaptation where Holmes and Watson get this violently angry with each other. Whatever flaws either has in dealings with people, Holmes being none-too-complimentary about Watson's detective abilities is usually the extent of them manifesting those traits toward each other. In fact, when Holmes lies to Watson, his excuse is usually, "You're so open and honest you couldn't pretend to believe (I was dead / dying, or whatever)."

Indeed, ACD's Watson was no saint; he did have affairs with married women. 

In fanfic, and yes, in particular Johnlock, John IS often kind of a Mary Sue-- or the perpetual victim, the damsel in distress. And so, so wounded, that it's perfectly acceptable for him to literally *beat* Sherlock to a pulp, because Sherlock "lied to John" about the Fall. 

But as I re-watched Series 3, it did seem to me that John's in denial about his own "psycopathy" (since he's labeling everyone psycopaths). 

It's not lost on me that as many times as John attacked Sherlock in ep1, series3, Sherlock never hit back. Even Mary says that John is overreacting. Interesting. 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

I think what I'm railing against is the tendency to use those labels as slang, for those who are different. I worry that creative and gifted kids get labelled for not fitting into the norm, when *all* that's "wrong" with them is that their brains work differently from non-creatives, or non-gifted people. They may need coping skills, not meds. I could very easily see this happening to Sherlock, who now labels himself as a "High-Functioning Sociopath, when it's very clear he's not. 

I agree with that. I strongly believe that 'different' only needs a diagnosis when it results in distress  and/or affects person's ability to function. The diagnosis itself doesn't automatically translate into medication. I think practice differ a bit between US and UK. In UK we are a bit more reluctant to prescribe. I work in an inpatient service, with very unwell young people, still at least 25% of patients on my ward at the moment are unmedicated at the moment and likely to remain so on discharge. The way services are organised diagnosis gives access to psychological services and support to develop coping skills as the way as that's what funding depends on (not saying that this is right btw).

I am trying to think about when Sherlock describes himself as a "high functioning sociopath."

There's the one time in A Study in Pink when he's basically telling Anderson to go jump in a lake (he'd probably use harsher language but this is a family board).

And then two in season three -- one sort of light hearted, one really really not.

Others?  I'm not talking about the times other people describe him as a psychopath but when does he use such labels himself?

Of course he isn't a sociopath.  We've all discussed this a lot.

But for whatever reasons, sometimes this is the way he wants other people to see him.

At first I thought that he was so used to people being jerks (think of the horrid Sebastian from The Blind Banker as an example of what his "friends" were before John showed up) that he had basically decided he'd be a jerk first.

I do think that has been in play but I think the "high functioning sociopath" thing is more specific.  It's a threat.  He never describes himself that way with John, or Mrs. Hudson, or Molly, or even Lestrade or Mycroft.  He uses it to lash out at Anderson when he's under attack with the "drugs bust" and then two times in series 3 when he's saying "don't mess with me."

@ Raven Morgan Leigh, can you cite a specific example? Mary Morstan is a canonical love interest for Watson but she's not married when they meet.

He refers to having "experience of women on three continents." I guess I was young enough and naive enough when I first read canon that I didn't assume that meant he had necessarily SLEPT with all those women...but in any case that phrase says nothing about them being married.

I don't necesarily insist that Watson was canonically a saint. (Is that a pun?) He's a pretty terrible husband to Mary, actually, always running off with Holmes. Almost like a husband would do if he were cheating.

BUT, I know we are saying this series is not canon, BUT in canon, and in the Brett series, and, as far as I know in the Rathbone films, Holmes and Watson are NEVER violent toward each other. They do have verbal quarrels, and times of more coldness and distance, but there's a lot of tenderness between them, and their most serious acts of violence are in the name of protecting each other.

True of most pastiches, too. The only except I can think of is The Seven Percent Solution, when Watson knocks Holmes down to prevent him escaping from the house where he's being treated for cocaine. And Watson admits that his anger added force to the blow.

I haven't seen the Russian series, or the Downey/Law movies.

Ironically, I think the only place I've ever come across Holmes and Watson physically fighting before IS fan fic - of the darker variety.

I think that may be what bothers me about this new series. John being physically violent toward Sherlock is a HUGE depature from everything I've ever seen of the character. Whereas the Sherlock may not be so much of a depature from the usual.

Part of the idea of idealizing him in fanfic is that Holmes would only let his guard down with someone ideal,, and I don't think Watson has to be perfect, but I like the implication that he provides "balance" to Holmes' nuttiness and is a role model in some ways. 

Last edited by SherlocklivesinOH (January 23, 2014 1:29 am)

belis wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

I think what I'm railing against is the tendency to use those labels as slang, for those who are different. I worry that creative and gifted kids get labelled for not fitting into the norm, when *all* that's "wrong" with them is that their brains work differently from non-creatives, or non-gifted people. They may need coping skills, not meds. I could very easily see this happening to Sherlock, who now labels himself as a "High-Functioning Sociopath, when it's very clear he's not. 

I agree with that. I strongly believe that 'different' only needs a diagnosis when it results in distress  and/or affects person's ability to function. The diagnosis itself doesn't automatically translate into medication. I think practice differ a bit between US and UK. In UK we are a bit more reluctant to prescribe. I work in an inpatient service, with very unwell young people, still at least 25% of patients on my ward at the moment are unmedicated at the moment and likely to remain so on discharge. The way services are organised diagnosis gives access to psychological services and support to develop coping skills as the way as that's what funding depends on (not saying that this is right btw).

Here in the US, it's more likely that someone will be medicated on an outpatient basis; and it seems to be hit or miss as to whether the patient will even get the correct meds. From what I can see, this is based on costs-- and they don't seem to be as concerned with providing coping skills and counseling-- unless you can pay for it; and that's very, very expensive. There was a recent story about how people being prescribed the wrong meds was leading to an upswing in suicides, particularily in young patients. 

Neither, He's a drama queen!

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

belis wrote:

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.

I think what I'm railing against is the tendency to use those labels as slang, for those who are different. I worry that creative and gifted kids get labelled for not fitting into the norm, when *all* that's "wrong" with them is that their brains work differently from non-creatives, or non-gifted people. They may need coping skills, not meds. I could very easily see this happening to Sherlock, who now labels himself as a "High-Functioning Sociopath, when it's very clear he's not. 

 
I've wondered whether, for whatever reason, Sherlock prefers the "sociopath" label to being seen as autistic?
I'm certainly no expert but from knowing someone with mild autism, I can see many of the traits in this version of Sherlock.
When he does that thing of using the full name of a friend when they're right there with him, instead of just the first name - that's something I've definitely seen in people who are slightly autistic ("Merry Christmas Molly Parker" "As this is the last time I'll see John Watson, can we have a minute alone?" - others would just say John or Molly) it's a small detail but, I think quite effective in showing who Sherlock is.
There's also the difficulty in adapting to change - hence him being a little off key in season 3, after finding his old lifestyle wasn't waiting unchanged for him.
I've a theory that this is why Mycroft can seem a little unkind to him at times, too - he seems to make sarcastic comments about Sherlock getting emotionally involved with John, but I think this is because Mycroft knows how badly loss or change affects him.
As for John's violence towards him - I understand that was his emotion manifesting in anger and violence but I have to say, I hated that scene, for so many reasons.

What irritates me is that people use the term 'autistic' in the colloqial sense, while they really mean 'introverted'. They're really different things, and extreme introversion to the extent that it becomes problematic is not called autistic, it's more likely gonna be schizoid personality disorder or schizoid traits or something. 

IMO, if you think Sherlock has ASD, you're really underestimating Benedict as an actor and Moftiss as writers. If they want to portray a person with ASD, it's gonna look like one. Unambiguisly. He'd at least have consistent deficits in theory of mind, that aren't responsive to bonding to someone. His ToM is actually really good, or he wouldn't be able to do the work that he does and the faux passes that he makes can also be explained by being focused on something else, or not being socialised very well (which they hinted). So I'd invoke Occam's razor and say he's neurotypical. 

You can absolutely have a character who can have all these character traits and not have ASD. Sherlock could be a massive introvert. It might not be ASD at all.

But I can see why a lot of people have called BS on the 'sociopath' thing. The two things are not the same and I'm pretty sure (not an expert so let me know) that there is no such thing as a 'high functioning sociopath.'

This has led people to think why, as an adult, Sherlock would identify himself as something that people could fear. The primary conclusion that many have reached is that Sherlock would rather be feared than pitied. ASD is classed largely as a disability and therefore he risks being pitied by everyone and not being given the same opportunites. Sherlock therefore needs (in his mind) another reason to explain his behaviour to others that would invoke a 'better' response (not that I think being labelled a 'freak' by the likes of Sally Donovan is any better but there you go.)

I think the reason a lot of people have picked up on it is because it was mentioned in passing by John in THoB and Benedict has mentioned playing Sherlock as having Asperger's in some interviews.

I, personally, get the feeling Sherlock is on the spectrum. Because there is introvesion and then there's asking a man you barely know if your response to something was 'not good' because an overwhelming silence has just descended onto the room.