BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Sherlock- Asperger's syndrome and sociopathy

belis · May 16, 2014 8:39 am

nakahara wrote:
This article (althrough written in a really alarmist manner, inacurate and placed on an alarmist site) illustrates my concern in that area:

http://www.naturalnews.com/z044862_psychiatrists_mental_illness_oppositional_defiant_disorder.html

The article is a bit alarmist and I often wonder how much experience in dealing with issues described people who write those things really have. I will give you my take on oppositional defiant disorder. It is a condition that we usualy diagnose in children and young people. Not children who rebel against the rules and are trying to find their own place in the world as you would expect at this stage in personality development. Children who engage in criminal behaviour and harm others on regular basis. I'm not talking about occassional shop lifting here. I'm talking about arson, violent bulling involving weapons, threatening behaviour etc. The society asks us a question here. Should we be punishing those children and taking them through the justice system or is there something else going on here. In many instances we believe that there are underlying issues like trauma, parenting difficulties, substance abuse etc that contribute to this behaviour. We use diagnosis to divert those kids from prison and to offer treatment. I'm sorry but I think that if someone for example sets a school on fire after being told off by a teacher then it isn't something that sould be seen in the light of their freedom of expression. We are social animals and we have pack rules. I have a problem with a notion that everyone should be free to do whatever they want becouse when they start harming others in the process I think society has an obligation to stop them. At the same time I don't believe that locking those young people up and punishing them helps them. What does help is tailored therapy, social skills training and a lot of positive regard and support.

Last edited by belis (May 16, 2014 8:48 am)

nakahara · May 16, 2014 9:08 am

belis wrote:
nakahara wrote:
This article (althrough written in a really alarmist manner, inacurate and placed on an alarmist site) illustrates my concern in that area:

http://www.naturalnews.com/z044862_psychiatrists_mental_illness_oppositional_defiant_disorder.html

The article is a bit alarmist and I often wonder how much experience in dealing with issues described people who write those things really have. I will give you my take on oppositional defiant disorder. It is a condition that we usualy diagnose in children and young people. Not children who rebel against the rules and are trying to find their own place in the world as you would expect at this stage in personality development. Children who engage in criminal behaviour and harm others on regular basis. I'm not talking about occassional shop lifting here. I'm talking about arson, violent bulling involving weapons, threatening behaviour etc. The society asks us a question here. Should we be punishing those children and taking them through the justice system or is there something else going on here. In many instances we believe that there are underlying issues like trauma, parenting difficulties, substance abuse etc that contribute to this behaviour. We use diagnosis to divert those kids from prison and to offer treatment. I'm sorry but I think that if someone for example sets a school on fire after being told off by a teacher then it isn't something that sould be seen in the light of their freedom of expression. We are social animals and we have pack rules. I have a problem with a notion that everyone should be free to do whatever they want becouse when they start harming others in the process I think society has an obligation to stop them.

Of course that the article was alarmist - there´s no such things as "psychiatrists say" (as if they were an international conspiracy and not an individuals practising medicine ).
What intrigued me on the article was exactly that "oppositional defiant disorder" you described above. I had no idea that such thing actually exists - and of course, as a lawyer, I´m professionaly deformed and immediately see some ways of how to abuse that diagnose in some ways. In cases of those young arsonist and bullies you mention - I would probably just treat them as normal young deliquents and punish them using means of actual penal system at hand, but of course, it´s questionable if it would be just in individual cases.
The article also posted the link concerning the study of various ways psychiatry was abused by regimes in former USSR and China. That link was quite educational, I think - it´s human tendency to repeat the mistakes from the past, so it good to be informed about them.

It´s my notion that we as a society need to allow also a bit of "craziness" (but not of the kind you mentioned above ) as to not become stagnant.
It was certainly crazy when Sir Alexander Fleming nurtured moulds and fungus in his laboratory - but without it, we wouldn´t have peniciline.
Where would our cuisine be, if some crazy people never dared to taste potatoes (from a highly toxic plant) or blue cheese (swarming with ugly blue mold)?
Also, some disorders can be quite funny and enjoyable:

belis · May 16, 2014 9:59 am

nakahara wrote:
Of course that the article was alarmist - there´s no such things as "psychiatrists say" (as if they were an international conspiracy and not an individuals practising medicine ).

There are many people who believe us to be a part of conspiracy trying to take over the world. Who knows, maybe. Muhahaha

nakahara wrote:
What intrigued me on the article was exactly that "oppositional defiant disorder" you described above. I had no idea that such thing actually exists - and of course, as a lawyer, I´m professionaly deformed and immediately see some ways of how to abuse that diagnose in some ways. In cases of those young arsonist and bullies you mention - I would probably just treat them as normal young deliquents and punish them using means of actual penal system at hand, but of course, it´s questionable if it would be just in individual cases.

It is a fine line and not an easy decision as to who should be divereted from the criminal system. When it comes to under 18s though courts in the UK are keen to give them best possible chance at rehabilitation and that will involve adressing any mental health issues if there are present. Those kids are not particularly easy to work with and not likeable becouse of all the violence and cruelty. However there are reasons why they turned up to be that way. Their life stories usualy involve a lot of early neglect, domestic violence, all sorts of abuse. Correctional facilities often strugle to acomodate their needs and that is one of the reasons why they are accomodated within secure mental health instead. Can't say that we perform miracles as this disorder is hard to treat. There is growing evidence that those kids have underlying changes to those kids brains that can be seen on functional MRIs. It appears that the areas in the brain responsible for empathy and emotional regulation are not functioning well.

nakahara wrote:
The article also posted the link concerning the study of various ways psychiatry was abused by regimes in former USSR and China. That link was quite educational, I think - it´s human tendency to repeat the mistakes from the past, so it good to be informed about them.

Deffinitely. I think doctors in all specialities have done some awful things at some point and we need to remember that. Society gives us a lot of responsibilities and have high expectations but at the same time they give us a lot of power as a profession. We need to be careful not to abuse it.

nakahara wrote:
It´s my notion that we as a society need to allow also a bit of "craziness" (but not of the kind you mentioned above ) as to not become stagnant.

I agree. I find it intresting that psychiatry is practiced very differently around the world. I think in the US psychiatry is much more about diagnosing and prescribing. I think in the UK we are more likely to for example say to people that they have no mental illness and try to help them solve practical issues like debt or housing problems rather then give them medication for 'depression'.

nakahara · May 16, 2014 10:51 am

So now you admit you are a part of a conspiracy! I knew it!

What puzzled me about "oppositional defiant disorder" was the reason of why it was recognised as a diagnosis in the first place. Most penal systems have a special treatment of the young and underage deliquents anyway (for example, they get shorter prison terms or less harsh punishments than adults), the mental state of such criminals is routinely examined during an investigation and if a person was not able to recognise the consequences of his actions because of some mental disorder (which is obviously not a case with "oppositional defiant disorder"), they are usually not sent into prison but to an institution. Isn´t it a bit unjust to adult "deliquents" that they get prison term while somebody just a bit younger (who commited same actions) is treated as a medical patient? Isn´t it true that almost every criminal has some underlining issues for his behaviour? And if those young people are really past remedy because their brains have undergone such changes, wouldn´t it be better to give them warning in the form of real criminal punishment rather than treating them as if they were just ill?

I guess there is no clear answer to all of that but those are my misgivings.

As to psychiatric treatments in various countries, I think it is largely dependent on politics in those countries. In US, where pharmaceutical corporations tend to be very strong (and as Raven Morgan Leigh mentioned above, there is also some mistrust towards people who do not conform to certains patterns of behaviour), people are stuffed full of medications even if it´s not so neccessary in many cases. I must say, I prefer the way you do things in UK.

belis · May 16, 2014 11:57 am

nakahara wrote:
What puzzled me about "oppositional defiant disorder" was the reason of why it was recognised as a diagnosis in the first place. Most penal systems have a special treatment of the young and underage deliquents anyway (for example, they get shorter prison terms or less harsh punishments than adults), the mental state of such criminals is routinely examined during an investigation and if a person was not able to recognise the consequences of his actions because of some mental disorder (which is obviously not a case with "oppositional defiant disorder"), they are usually not sent into prison but to an institution. Isn´t it a bit unjust to adult "deliquents" that they get prison term while somebody just a bit younger (who commited same actions) is treated as a medical patient? Isn´t it true that almost every criminal has some underlining issues for his behaviour? And if those young people are really past remedy because their brains have undergone such changes, wouldn´t it be better to give them warning in the form of real criminal punishment rather than treating them as if they were just ill?

What we hope to achieve is catch those kids a bit earlier. Before they comit that first very serious offence that would land them in prison. It is not always either or as well. We work closely with the justice system and probation services. We also do in reach work in prisons and youth offenders institutions. Having a diagnosis allows access to therapy and other support. It does not automaticaly excuse the behaviour and eliminate the punishement element.

What I find intresting is why some people who had horrible childhoods manage OK and others develop ODD and other personality disorders. What are the protective factors that we could try and capitalise on.

nakahara · May 16, 2014 12:04 pm

belis wrote:
nakahara wrote:
What puzzled me about "oppositional defiant disorder" was the reason of why it was recognised as a diagnosis in the first place. Most penal systems have a special treatment of the young and underage deliquents anyway (for example, they get shorter prison terms or less harsh punishments than adults), the mental state of such criminals is routinely examined during an investigation and if a person was not able to recognise the consequences of his actions because of some mental disorder (which is obviously not a case with "oppositional defiant disorder"), they are usually not sent into prison but to an institution. Isn´t it a bit unjust to adult "deliquents" that they get prison term while somebody just a bit younger (who commited same actions) is treated as a medical patient? Isn´t it true that almost every criminal has some underlining issues for his behaviour? And if those young people are really past remedy because their brains have undergone such changes, wouldn´t it be better to give them warning in the form of real criminal punishment rather than treating them as if they were just ill?
What we hope to achieve is catch those kids a bit earlier. Before they comit that first very serious offence that would land them in prison. It is not always either or as well. We work closely with the justice system and probation services. We also do in reach work in prisons and youth offenders institutions. Having a diagnosis allows access to therapy and other support. It does not automaticaly excuse the behaviour and eliminate the punishement element.

What I find intresting is why some people who had horrible childhoods manage OK and others develop ODD and other personality disorders. What are the protective factors that we could try and capitalise on.

Yes, I understand. It´s probably better to save at least some of them than to have them all being swallowed by the criminal system (there´s usually no way back from that).

As with everything concerning human mind we probably never be able to get definitive answers, but it´s certainly worth trying.

maryagrawatson · May 16, 2014 7:10 pm

I definitely see Sherlock as having Asperger's, but being a sociopath? Not even remotely. I think that he sometimes displays the traits of a sociopath, but he's just acting. If people think he's a sociopath, then he can get away with behaving badly. But that façade starts to crack when John comes into his life and he slowly starts to forge deeper and deeper attachments to the people in his life.

(I love the scene in TSOT where Greg and Molly are discussing the telegrams and Molly makes the call to Mrs. Hudson. It really shows how Sherlock, despite himself, has grown a network of people who really care about him.)

Sherlock is able to turn off the emotional switch in an emotional situation in order to get the job done. This is not a bad thing. There are plenty of people who care involved in the cases. The victims don't need another emotionally distraught person. They need someone who can get the case solved.

Sherlock, despite being able to shutter his emotions and appearing to be lacking in empathy for the most part, those crack sometimes and shows us he is affected. He even says as much in HLV after describing Magnussen as being a shark. Also, let's not forget how angry he was at the death of the old lady in TGG, and that it was him, not John, who comforted Sarah at the end of TBB.

I work peripherally in the law enforcement field and I believe you need both types of people to close a case, those who get emotionally involved and provide the wave of energy to get this solved NOW and those who can intellectually distance themselves from the subject matter. It would be interesting if other posters who work in law enforcement either as investigators or support staff could chime in to say if they've experienced this or not.

(I tend to be the latter, ie. more like Sherlock. It's the only way I can get through cases that show the worse things humans can do to each other. I was working on a homicide case a couple of weeks ago where I made the mistake of getting emotionally involved and had difficulty completing my assignment. Never again. I actually printed out he 'caring is not an advantage' quote from SIB and put it by my computer as a reminder to stay detached from what I'm doing.)

I think the entire third season is a case against 'Sherlock the sociopath'. From the minute he jump off the roof of Bart's, Sherlock's motivation has been his friends, not The Work.

Mary

Last edited by maryagrawatson (May 16, 2014 7:10 pm)

nakahara · May 17, 2014 8:29 am

Agree with you on this - Sherlock is definitely not a sociopath/psychopath.
He wouldn´t be able to conveniently switch his sociopathy off for the sake of John, Mrs. Hudson or Molly and to be protective of them while being psychopatic in relations with other people. This whole "highly functioning sociopath" thing is just an act.

maryagrawatson · May 17, 2014 1:36 pm

nakahara wrote:
Agree with you on this - Sherlock is definitely not a sociopath/psychopath.
He wouldn´t be able to conveniently switch his sociopathy off for the sake of John, Mrs. Hudson or Molly and to be protective of them while being psychopatic in relations with other people. This whole "highly functioning sociopath" thing is just an act.

Glad to see someone else who agrees with this.

Some will argue that there is no difference between a psychopath and a sociopath, but I actually think the show shows very well that they are not the same thing.

Moriarity is a psychopath. Many years ago, I remember sitting across the table from a killler who had murder a random family by burning them to death in their sleep and was eventually found not guilty by reason of insanity. It's the eyes that are the clue... I'll never forget those eyes. Andrew Scott does an amazing job of reproducing the psychopathic gaze.

Magnussen is a sociopath. We all know that one bully who is worse than the rest who crushes everyone who stands in his way. I've met dozens of Magnussens.

Sherlock is a different case. He responds to being bullied by bullying, most certainly, and he doesn't care if hurts people because they hurt him. I think he has trust issues and assumes that everyone he meets is going to hurt him.

But as more and more people who come into his life prove to be on his side, no matter what a jerk he is, he learns to modulate his behaviour, even be contrite for hurting those who have his best interest at heart. He has a long way to go still (poor Mrs. Hudson), but he has demonstrated over and over that he has a conscience.

I think that it's because he's not a sociopath that he was able to make the decision to kill Magnussen. Otherwise, his thought pattern would have been more like, "Ha, screw them. I'm not going to jail or on a death mission in Eastern Europe" for anybody.

Mary

TiggyDoolittle · May 17, 2014 3:43 pm

maryagrawatson wrote:
nakahara wrote:
Agree with you on this - Sherlock is definitely not a sociopath/psychopath.
He wouldn´t be able to conveniently switch his sociopathy off for the sake of John, Mrs. Hudson or Molly and to be protective of them while being psychopatic in relations with other people. This whole "highly functioning sociopath" thing is just an act.
Glad to see someone else who agrees with this.

Some will argue that there is no difference between a psychopath and a sociopath, but I actually think the show shows very well that they are not the same thing.

Moriarity is a psychopath. Many years ago, I remember sitting across the table from a killler who had murder a random family by burning them to death in their sleep and was eventually found not guilty by reason of insanity. It's the eyes that are the clue... I'll never forget those eyes. Andrew Scott does an amazing job of reproducing the psychopathic gaze.

Magnussen is a sociopath. We all know that one bully who is worse than the rest who crushes everyone who stands in his way. I've met dozens of Magnussens.

Sherlock is a different case. He responds to being bullied by bullying, most certainly, and he doesn't care if hurts people because they hurt him. I think he has trust issues and assumes that everyone he meets is going to hurt him.

But as more and more people who come into his life prove to be on his side, no matter what a jerk he is, he learns to modulate his behaviour, even be contrite for hurting those who have his best interest at heart. He has a long way to go still (poor Mrs. Hudson), but he has demonstrated over and over that he has a conscience.

I think that it's because he's not a sociopath that he was able to make the decision to kill Magnussen. Otherwise, his thought pattern would have been more like, "Ha, screw them. I'm not going to jail or on a death mission in Eastern Europe" for anybody.

Mary

Totally off topic *sorry* but I love your sig. Its totally how I feel most mornings haha. Even to the point I want to grab cartain people by the head & go SQEEEEZEPOP

maryagrawatson · May 17, 2014 4:54 pm

TiggyDoolittle wrote:
Totally off topic *sorry* but I love your sig. Its totally how I feel most mornings haha. Even to the point I want to grab cartain people by the head & go SQEEEEZEPOP

Thanks. It was during a very late night of rewatching TEH that a friend of mine paused at the shaving scene, looked at each other and, said "He looks so much like Kahn here! ... waitaminute!" And then we came up with this theory of how between Serbia and going back to London, Sherlock had one last undercover assignment in the future and that somehow Admiral Marcus was involved with Moriarty and the Serbia fiasco.

Mary

zeratul · May 27, 2014 3:41 pm

Smoggy_London_Air wrote:
I've always had trouble visualizing things in stories, or I always thought I had trouble. I figured that was just a problem that everybody had, not being able to see things perfectly in their head, but I looked it up, and surprise! It's a symptom.

Sorry this quote is quite old, but I am going through the whole thread... (not yet finished)
A symptom of aspies? I also wonder for a while now, if I may have a slight form of it... and among others I also cannot see stuff as an actual picture in my head... I can "walk" through places I know in my head but I don't really see it... it is more like I describe it to myself and see only one detail at one time... when I try to "move my head" in my imagination, the other thing fades...

Aurora wrote:
Thanks for this very interesting thread.

I just wanted to throw in another option: "neurotypical" people with INTJ personality types are also often mistaken for having Aspergers/Autism. Many characteristics used to diagnose these "conditions" are shared by INTJs. Particularly getting lost in their own worlds and interests and not needing interaction with others as much as other personality types. For a long time I wondered if I might have Aspergers - always feeling "different", not connecting easily with others, being a nerd - but looking into it I found I'm just a classic INTJ. I do test very high in Aspergers tests (32 on the online one), but I'm missing some of the most important symptoms such as difficulty looking at faces, obsessive interests, noise sensitivity. Sherlock seems to be missing these too. To be honest, to me Sherlock seems pretty normal - far more so than many people I meet.

Interestingly, INTJ girls have a tendency (most unwisely) to fall for INTx boys. I've found this to be very true in myself. All the men I've been attracted to have been INTxs (and as they are so rare, there have been very few... ). As I'm rather very keen on Sherlock but not in the least interested in Benedict Cumberbatch, I'm very inclined to think he's one too.

Thanks for that, didn't know it.
Found a german site... http://charaktertest.net/ ISTP could fit me...

maryagrawatson · May 27, 2014 4:05 pm

zeratul wrote:
A symptom of aspies? I also wonder for a while now, if I may have a slight form of it... and among others I also cannot see stuff as an actual picture in my head... I can "walk" through places I know in my head but I don't really see it... it is more like I describe it to myself and see only one detail at one time... when I try to "move my head" in my imagination, the other thing fades...

That's interesting because I'm definitely an aspie and I have no trouble visualising at all! I actually have a 'mind palace' (actually a bungalow), a term I didn't know about until I started watching Sherlock, and thought it was just another weird aspie thing that I do. I just close my eyes and go there and walk through the rooms filled with filing cabinets to find information I want, kind of like Magnussen does, but the filing cabinets are full of pictures and scenes, not so much written information. I also have absolutely no problem imaginging a scene in a book, how characters look, etc. It's rather fascinating to find out this isn't a typical aspie experience.

Mary

zeratul · May 27, 2014 8:04 pm

Yeah, that's what I thought. I mean that many Apsies are good at visualizing.

Maybe I got Smoggy_London_Air wrong? Because it just says "a sympthom".

Well I also tried about mind palaces, used the house of my grandma... But I really need to actively put stuff there. Only did it for numbers which I need to remember shortly... With objects instead of them...
Generally I am good at remembering things, also passwords, numbers and so on... and for stuff to memorize like for exams (oh long time ago) it always has to go through writing it down...

Need to go on with the rest of the thread...

stevenlewis · June 30, 2014 12:40 pm

Very interesting article. I think the most accurate depiction of a sociopath was Angelina Jolie's character in Girl, Interupted. They understand the impact try have on others, they just don't care. Whereas with ASD, they genuinely don't understand. Very important distinction.

Ylse · July 31, 2014 10:45 pm

I've read many of these interesting posts, and I agree with those who don't think that Sherlock has Asperger. First I don't think that John would joke about it in The Hound Of Baskerville if he thought that Sherlock was really sick.Of course, John is not a psychiatrist and he could just have said that without knowing, because Sherlock seems to have difficulties to understand emotions.
But Sherlock is able to see that he hurt Molly in the Christmas scene (I know it has already been pointed at). And could he guess that easily that Mary, that he just met, doesn't like John's moustache ? It's not just a physical detail that he would have noticed. It means some strong psychological insight.
I rather think that his rude attitude and the lack of empathy he shows sometimes come from his education. As it appears in his conversation with Mycroft in The Empty Hease, for some reason we don't know, he has been raised by his older brother, who has spent most of his childhood isoldated, as he didn't meet other children before Sherlock was old enough to meet some too. More than a half of Mycroft's sentences to Sherlock are either sarcasms or criticisms. Mycroft is a self confessed loner, for whom all humanity is made up of "goldfishes", as he has no equal in cleverness. He doesn't really care for anyone, except, in a very personal and controlling way, for his brother.
How couldn't Sherlock reproduce the ways he had grown up with ? But contrary to Mycroft, who apparently found a way to interact with the "goldfishes" with ease, but without getting attached to anyone, Sherlock completely lacks of social skills but can get attached to people, even if they don't have is IQ, to the point he can give up his life for them. I think that both of the brothers are the way they are mainly because they are genius, and because of their unusual childhood.

BHavers · August 27, 2014 5:43 pm

First, thanks for the link, an interesting post !

I don't think that Sherlock is neither sociopath nor autist.
He claims being a sociopath, but that may be a provocation, and / or an answer to common reactions about him ("freak", "psychopath").

But he doesn't seem an autist neither. Remember that when Doyle created his character, autism did exist, of course, but was probably bad known, even for a doctor. And it's a disease, too.

It seems to me that Sherlock's behaviour clearly come from his childhood : Mycroft and him were both very isolated : they say that they both thougt that Sherlock was an idiot, until they met other children. Means that they met other children being several years old ?
But the process seems more achieved in Mycroft -"caring is not an advantage". Sherlock shows emotions and empathy several times.

That's actually a kind of pothole : the parents appear completely normal. How can these normal people have missed so much the education of their sons, making them such asocial men ?

Vhanja · December 14, 2014 12:42 am

I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies in advance if this has already been mentioned and dicussed:

Before I found this board, I came across an aboslutely brilliant blog. It's written by a woman who is an educated doctor in the UK, with a great interest in psychology. She has written a bunch of incredibly interesting articles on Sherlock, from a medical and psychological point of view. She dicusses Sherlock in length when it comes to if he is a psycopath or an Asberger (and she concludes he is none of those things).

Love this site, and greatly recommend it:
http://wellingtongoose.tumblr.com/

KassieHolmes · December 14, 2014 12:56 am

Vhanja wrote:
I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies in advance if this has already been mentioned and dicussed:

Before I found this board, I came across an aboslutely brilliant blog. It's written by a woman who is an educated doctor in the UK, with a great interest in psychology. She has written a bunch of incredibly interesting articles on Sherlock, from a medical and psychological point of view. She dicusses Sherlock in length when it comes to if he is a psycopath or an Asberger (and she concludes he is none of those things).

Love this site, and greatly recommend it:
<board spam prevention guidelines required me to remove the link, sorry>

====

I suggest you read her articles again. Besides the fact that her arguments don't make sense (just my opinion), consider that:
- she claims to quote several other doctors but never gives their names, and
- she has multiple books on the market claiming to teach people to think like Sherlock Holmes; therefore,
- recognizing his neurodiversity would have an adverse effect on her book sales.

Even if her position made sense to me, she carries no credibility due to those factors. In addition, autistics and Aspies tend to be able to spot our own ... and I felt a kinship to Sherlock the moment I saw him.

Come back with a credible source and I'd be happy to consider it ... but after all, he is a fictional character with multiple writers so no diagnosis can ever be completely accurate.

Kassie

Vhanja · December 14, 2014 1:10 am

I don't see the problem myself.

- She has written several articles on her own, outside of the one with the other doctors. In those articles, she goes through the criteria one by one.
- There is no issue with his method of thinking and arguing against him being Asberger's or being a "psycopath."

If anyone else who is educated and well known with the diagnosis criteria will go through them and come to a different conclusion, I would love to read it. Until then, I agree with her conclusion.