An interesting post. I think that the difficulty of analyzing Sherlock comes from the shortcomings in modern psychology. I think we still have a lot to learn about the human mind. For example: A.D.D. refers to attention deficit disorder. I and my brother both have this condition. My brother took medications for it, but I did not. I felt that the condition was neither a deficit of attention, nor a disorder. My mind tends to avoid outside interruptions to its thought process. This has both positive and negative effects. On one hand it makes it difficult to switch my attention to a different subject than it is currently on. On the other hand it enables my mind to remain uninterrupted and I can achieve a deeper state of concentration than someone who does not have the condition. I consider it a potential "superpower".  Potential, because all powers have a downside. One must learn to handle it. 

I agree, Vhanja.  I think it's important that we seem to be being shown that Sherlock made himself the way he is deliberately.  At least some of what we're seeing is practiced behaviour.  I particularly agree on traits not making the disorder - Sherlock is a bit narcisstic, but that's completely different from narcissistic personality disorder. 

I still have mixed feelings about whether they're going to use a childhood incident (Redbeard) to "explain" Sherlock, as is hinted at - in a way, I kind of hope not (I think it can work well, but is overdone, and I feel that people tend to be changed/made by particular childhood environments rather than single incidents, and also ... what's wrong with the way he is, anyway?)

If you mean what I think you mean, obviously I completely disagree.
I thought the team had discounted any kind of trauma?
Though I personally think Redbeard was the trauma.
Sherlock is human and he does feel, but he he is clever enough to know that brain out smarts emotion.
But this doesn't stop it hurting and I wonder if the drug use is to mask the pain.

Last edited by besleybean (May 31, 2016 3:59 pm)

Well, my main point about this thread wasn't if he has experienced some kind of trauma or not. Having that said, I do believe the show strongly indiicates that he did. His reaction whenever he hears the name "Redbeard" seem to indicate strongly that there is something associated with that word which is very painful, so much so that he goes blank for a moment whenever it is mentioned. And linked with his reply "I'm not a child anymore, Mycorft" also seem to indicate that his happend during childhood.

But what I was trying to get across, was more the point about why I don't think Sherlock has a diagnosis even though he do share traits with several of them.

I think one of the reasons why Sherlock is "diagnosed" so often is just that people (especially those who fall outside the spectrum of what we conceive as "normal") are looking for someone to identify with. And similarities make that easier. As you have said; Sherlock has a lot of traits are common with different diagnoses (as everyone does). Because Sherlock is such an over-analysed show, one will find plenty of evidence to support many different theories, hence all the different diagnoses for the main character

Thank you, Vhanja, for giving us something to chew on while we await the next episode. 
  Sherlock would have  lived in a time where the methods of observation and deduction had not yet been developed. Therefore he would have had to either encounter them or come up with them himself. 
these methods may have been beyond the skill of any consulting detective to develop. I think it is more likely that he would have had the good fortune to encounter someone who would show him the methods, much as a doctor friend showed them to Doyle.  I believe that  someone in the medical profession is the most likely to have been the originator. While working in the medical field, I had several opportunities to use observation successfully to achieve benefits to patients in a military hospital. Therefor I am convinced that Sherlock Holmes methods are particularly effective for use in the medical field.. Just as Doyle had seen their possible use by a detective, so would a capable consulting detective of Holmes era see the advantage of using them for detective work. 

Schmiezi wrote:

I am always a bit reluctant to go deeper into analysing Sherlock's "condition" because I am convinced that the writers have not really considered psychology when writing him.

But then, we had this discussion here if you are supposed / allowed to analyse things a writer did not see in his own work or intended to include, and in the spirit of that it is interested to read what people think about it.

I agree. And what's more-- they're not writing a diagnosis-- they're writing a character who can manifest *any* trait that works for whatever situation they want, and then that trait disappears when he needs to be something else for the story.