I've read her articles, and I disagree. As far as finding reputable sources, there are many on both sides of the argument ... I'll let you search for them yourself. I know my own when I see them. She appears to be interpreting the criteria in a way to support her pre-determined conclusion, a common practice among non-autistics.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I still contend that there's a monetary conflict of interest that is corrupting her reasoning. 

I've seen that blog before and thought it was quite good.  It takes an interesting look at the diagnostic criteria and explains that it's not a clearly defined condition.  Sherlock obviously has some features, but might not qualify for a positive diagnosis if he went to be assessed, and that might not even be helpful.  She is not saying to people on the spectrum "he is not one of you" - he may well be.   I wasn't aware that she was selling "think like Sherlock" books, and to be fair to her, I don't see them promoted on the site (if they are, they're very difficult to find).  I don't agree with everything she says (not particularly on this subject as it's not something I know a lot about), but it's nice to have another perspective.

Vhanja, if you're interested in expert opinion, just read back this thread, there was a user called Belis, a while back, who is a clinical psychologist or something like that. 

I only have a BA in psychology, so not really an expert, but from what I know, I agree with Wellingtongoose. He doesn't have autism, isn't even on the spectrum. I think the underlying problem is that it has become fashionable for all sorts of people who consider themselves or someone else 'odd' to self-diagnose Asperger or autism, without much knowledge about it. Possibly, professionals also overdiagnose of insurance reasons. I think it's damaging and labelling Sherlock would add to that damage because people who recognise something of themselves in the character might worry that they have this very serious mental disorder. 

It's a while back since I commented on this thread but I also made the following argument: Benedict is a great actor, Moftiss are great writers, surely if they made an autistic character it'd look like one. Now I can add that Benedict's Alan Turing seems to look a bit on the spectrum, clearly Benedict knows how to play this. 

Moffat says he's not autistic here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ7RswJwKao  

I'm not too big on the schizoid thing either. But it's probably closer than ASD.

I'm also going submit another article for consideration: http://nymag.com/news/features/autism-spectrum-2012-11/

Autism Spectrum: Are You On It?
If so, you're in good company. From Asperger’s to “Asperger’s,” how the spectrum became quite so all-inclusive.

From page 4, 
"Men have caught on and, in a kind of inverted gaslighting, begun to describe themselves as having Asperger’s as a way of controlling their spouses. “Having Asperger’s-like syndrome does not give you Asperger’s,” says David Schnarch, a Colorado-based couples therapist. “Having a big belly does not make you pregnant. I’ve not seen a single case of what I would consider to be diagnosable Asperger’s. But I have seen any number of cases of wives accusing husbands of it, any number of cases of husbands claiming to have it.” It’s the new ADHD, he says. “The wife doesn’t want to accept that the husband knows what he’s doing when he’s doing something she doesn’t like.” Schnarch recalls a man who phoned him the day before a scheduled initial couples session and announced that he’d just been diagnosed with Asperger’s. “As soon as this happened,” Schnarch says, “I knew I had difficulty.” He contacted the referring therapist, who said he’d suspected the man had Asperger’s because he said things to his girlfriend that were so cruel he couldn’t possibly understand their impact. As far as Schnarch was concerned, it was an all-too-familiar instance of ­sadism masquerading as disability. “If you’re going to perp, the best place to perp from is the victim position.”

Because Asperger’s lives on the outskirts of normal, and because its symptoms can resemble willfully antisocial behavior, there’s now a presumption of excuse-making whenever someone invokes it to get out of a pickle. Last October, South Park aired an episode in which the people at an Asperger’s group-therapy center turn out to be faking their symptoms and not even to believe in the reality of the disorder. (Cartman, meanwhile, mishearing Asperger’s as “Ass Burgers,” tries to fake it by stuffing his underwear with hamburgers.) “You’re not autistic,” a doctor tells Hugh Laurie’s abrasive character in an episode of House. “You don’t even have Asperger’s. You wish you did; it would exempt you from the rules, give you freedom, absolve you of responsibility, let you date 17-year-olds. But, most important, it would mean that you’re not just a jerk.”


My thoughts-- I think that there's a very human tendency to want to identify with characters we love and admire, but we also want them to be like US. 

As a black woman, I can tell you how overjoyed I was when watching "Merlin" for the first time, and seeing Gwuinevere portrayed by a mixed-race woman of color, her brother who becomes a knight is black,  and there are many POC's throughout the series, extras, other knights, etc, .. It's lovely to see that, when the majority of the representations of black people tend to be negative stereotypes. 

So, I get it. 

From what I understand a lot of Aspies (respectfully trying to uses the proper terminolgy, here) see their diagnosis as an Identity, much as I see blackness as (in my case a very small part ) of my identitiy.

I could be wrong  and am quite content to be schooled on this, but I think that may be what is behind the Sherlock/Asberger's debate. 

I also think there is an element of,  as someone said earlier "cropping the heads off the poppy" going on-- and that it's societal-- the urge to "take someone down a notch" , particularly when they are exceptional and enjoy what they do and aren't particulary humble about it. We read that as arrogant, and instinctively want to bring them down to what we percieve as our level. 

Again, just thinking... 

nakahara wrote:

Very nice post, Raven. I see it in a similar manner.

Thank you, my dear! 

 

Some do get offended, yes. But be aware that people on the spectrum, Aspie or otherwise, tend to process information differently from us neurotypicals. The more subtle parts of social interaction tend to fly over their heads so they're more likely to focus on the more superficial aspects (like the 'bit not good' interactions) and miss the subtle parts, like the acting and also the writers' creative liberties. 

And/or that they genuinely recognise the features he does have, and feel kinship whether or not he would meet the diagnostic criteria. 

I suspect that the writers have steered away from giving him a diagnosis, because they don't want to be tied to making him fit to or represent a particular condition.   It's not supposed to be a study of somebody with X.  (But I'm not 100% sure on this, and they may have had something in mind). 

Last edited by Liberty (December 18, 2014 1:57 pm)

Yes, he has said that. And that Sherlock is not asexual either. Both the writers and Benedict have taken care to avoid any diagnoses or categories in which to fit him. Which is good.
But there are people who project their own conditions and orientations on the character and are disappointed of feel even cheated when hearing this. 

Yeah, there are good and strong arguments for him being neither.