I recently listened to a podcast about the psychology of believing in conspiracy theories. (The psychology can probably be applied to religion and other beliefs as well.) The host spoke with academic psychologist and author Rob Brotherton about it, and I found it very interesting. The conspiracy theories they discussed were generally the big ones (JFK assassination, 9/11 attacks, Watergate, the Illuminati, alien reptilian humanoids...) and they had The X Files theme music playing in parts, so it was kind of humorous as well. Anyway, I was thinking about how it applies to tjlc (the Johnlock conspiracy), but it's a bit OT, so I'll only post more if other people on this thread are interested
(Or I could post the podcast link if anyone wants to listen to it themselves)

This thread is about Johnlock in all adaptations and Canon. We have brought tons of factual arguments based on the films, books, etc, and this is what the thread is for. Therefore I think a discussion about conspiracy theories might be detrimental to the argumentation since there is the danger of reducing people who are convinced that there will be a romantic relationship between Sherlock and John to conspiracy theorists. Therefore I think it is not on topic. 

Fair enough Susi, I can see why you feel that way. I do agree it's OT and perhaps detrimental to the debate (as much as calling non-Johnlockers "heteronormative" perhaps?). But let me just say that plenty of conspiracy theories turn out to be true (Watergate, MK-Ultra, the Manhattan Project, the Mafia...) and The Johnlock Conspiracy is hardly a bad thing to believe in. It's a positive thing to believe in and obviously a completely different kind of "conspiracy" than some crackpot theory about Area 51. Personally, I wouldn't even call tjlc a conspiracy, because of the negative connotations, but that's what it's been christened on tumblr. I'm just interested in the reasons why people believe or don't believe in tjlc. I can't even decide if I believe in it or not, which is why I found the podcast about the psychology of believing in conspiracy theories so fascinating. It's not about being judgemental or painting theorists in a negative light, it's about how all our brains are wired to recognise patterns and join the dots to weave complex stories. It's a natural part of human intelligence. Perhaps I will post more about it in the Other thread.

Thank you, tonnaree. I fully agree with you. 

 

Not upset at all. And it is an interesting topic. I have watched some documentaries about 9/11 and such myself. I just think it is a topic of its own and does not belong in here. 

This thread is for debate on if Johnlock exists or not with everyone providing what they see as evidence of their opinion.   In my opinion, TJLC is just a humorous way to label what can be seen as evidence that Johnlock exists.

I think the point about us being wired to see patterns is a good one.    I think that's very true.  We've all got to do that - if we didn't, we wouldn't understand it, but if we do, we run the risk of making patterns that don't exist!  And of course, I'm not saying this is something that Johnlockers do and non-Johnlockers don't, not at all!  It fits with what I said earlier about it being impossible for us to view pieces in isolation, that they have to form part of a coherent whole ... and once you start seeing the whole, the rest will tend to slot in to fit with it.   It's difficult to be completely objective. 

But the 3 patches podcase posted a while back gave me food for thought too.  There were people talking who didn't seem to asking "What are we being told?", but "What does this mean to me?": a different way of looking at things. It's not objective, but after all, isn't part of the point how the show affects us, what it makes us feel, etc., regardless of what was intended? 

And I think that there's bound to be subjectivity, even when we're trying to be obejctive.  I think there's a certain amount of creation goes on in our minds when we're building that coherent whole.  Instead of asking "What are the writers telling us that this character is feeling?", there's a bit of "What do I feel that this character, the way I imagine him, would feel in this situation?", and then the words can take on a different meaning. 

I think it's even more interesting that the writers seem to think they've shown us one thing and we see something else.
HLV being the classic: they think John is pleased about Sherlock having Janine as a girlfriend, whereas I think most of us just seem him in a state of virtual disbelief!

They say on the commentary they re-filmed it, because it looked like John was jealous...so obviously they didn't want to go for that impression.
I think John is in love with Mary, so he wouldn't be jealous anyway.

Yes, that's a really interesting one.  When I first saw it John just seemed to be gobsmacked at the very concept of Sherlock having a girlfriend.   Then I read a meta linked to here that said the cinematography as showing jealousy, and of course, seeing it through a friendship filter, I saw him being jealous as a friend (which kind of makes sense - Janine seemed to have virtually moved in and taken on John's role).   But it wasn't something I saw so much as accepting what I'd read. 

Then I heard the commentary and the writers explaining that John definitely wasn't jealous, but was pleased for Sherlock, and that felt much better.  I think John genuinely does want the best for Sherlock.   I personally don't want Sherlock to have a lover, but if he was my friend, then I probably would just want him to be happy!  (If your best, closest friend, who never dated, got a lover, would you be jealous that their attentions had shifted from you, or would you be pleased they'd met somebody nice? There might be a bit of both, but hopefully you'd lean towards the latter, especially if you had a partner yourself).    And as for what I want to see, well, I really like that view of John being happy for Sherlock (and it helped make ujp for a couple of less caring moments in S3).

And Vhanja, I didn't even think that he'd be jealous of Janine!   But good point - I suppose he could have looked put out that gorgeous Janine went for Sherlock rather than him, and that's what they refilmed. 

Last edited by Liberty (February 16, 2016 5:29 pm)