Re: The tie between psychopathic motivation... removing free will... the devil?

[Vic]

Sherlock Holmes was in no sense a sociopath. The buzzword is just being used nowadays to "popularize" psychopathy.

I just watched all three series. The Sherlock Holmes as played by Benedict Cumberpatch is 'presented' as a sociopath. He describes himself as one. But no, I don't think it comes off. He's way too endearing. As I mentioned, psychopathy is trendy.

 

[Sol Logos]

Emotions very well may obscure logical connections, but I understand that the awareness of others and their feelings provides satisfaction, deep connections, and (importantly to someone like me) more information with which to make effective decisions.

I don't feel you understood my meaning to be honest. Emotions obscure logical thinking only when they are stuck, in other words, broken. Consider that feeling is a sense, a sense when working brings a wealth of information associated with it (like you sort of point out). If that information is not processed, if it's stuck, it's no longer pertinent to new situations so it obscures. If a car engine is broken do we say that cars in general don't work? So emotions that aren't "broken" allow us to perceive the world, ourselves and others much more clearly. To say feelings are about satisfaction implies feelings are needy and implies all feelings are broken, which is a way to color the truth - a way that actually fits your worldview about the benefits of being a psychopath.

I would like to admit that I must be wrong in my natural instinct that one person has a greater free will. Alchemist (sp) so aptly wrote that the execution of free will is the point. A psychopath naturally believes they are superior in making decisions without fear of consequence, inhibition, or social pressure.

From what I wrote above, it appears you don't think you are wrong about a psychopath being superior, you only acknowledge that you don't have access to experiences that are needy and broken from your opinion.

Consider that you call yourself broken and manufacture a stance to turn it around and justify it to say being broken is superior. In fact you mean to say others are broken and psychopaths are not, they are superior. But you base this on a false premise about emotions, as a way to obscure, then you claim this is more logical. It doesn't sound logical to me.

 

[David]

Free? Will...

Read a book called, ‘Paranormality,’ which made reference to a psychologist called Dan Wagner, from what I understand, in some people, the sense of ‘You’ as decision maker is actually a grand illusion, decisions are made and then the brain creates the conscious awareness of it, later.

It could be that a true psychopath, might be mindless and giving the impression of having more free will, and perhaps such individuals might confabulate.

Anyway... I’m not that keen on some idea that maintains a dynamic (covert/overt), that exists for itself and ensures its survival through trauma, over and over, as might be said for the individual or for humanity as a whole

‘if we always do, what we always did, we will always get, what we always got.’

Needles stupid suffering... from which everything just happens, over and over.

I don’t know you, Broken Piano, nor do I know anybody else here personally, for all I know your just a method actor getting into character, or somebody suffering from DID or both... If your not a true psychopath, I wish you well, if not... at best I wish those who come in contact with you a safe un-traumatised life.

 

[Minas Tirith]

Possibly in the mould of Sherlock who actually describes himself as a 'high-functioning' sociopath (Brilliant series. Benedict Cumberpatch is superb as the modern Sherlock Holmes) This is the very dynamic that has been discussed on the forum, and has been promoted by the likes of Kevin Dutton: Psychopathy is trendy.

It's a little off-topic here, but I don't think BP will come back anyway.

I recently watched a couple of episodes of the Cumberbatch-Holmes and had very similar thoughts. As Laura pointed out, the original Holmes was not set up as a sociopath by Conan Doyle. True, he was depicted as being cruel to Watson sometimes (f.e. he occasionally freaks out about his style of writing (Watson records all the cases) or Watsons sluggish thinking and not "getting it"), but never in the sense it is portrayed in the series.

In one episode, f.e., Holmes and Watson are caught in an Underground car that is about to explode. This happens shortly after Holmes" two year absence, having faked his death after his struggle with Moriarty. Holmes chooses the moment Watson is to propose to his fiancee in a restaurant to turn up again and of course Watson is kind of hurt that Holmes didn't tell him that he was alive before. He is kind of reluctant to be friends again, but agrees to help Holmes with this bomb in the Underground car that is threatening to destroy Westminster Abbey. Both get caught in the car with (apparently) no idea how to turn the mechanism of the bomb off. Watson thinks he is going to die in two minutes - that's the time left - apologizes to Holmes and reaffirms his friendship in a dramatic and emotional way. Turns out, Holmes has switched the bomb off already ("There is always an off-switch, Watson), but has waited for Watson to freak - making him weak, so to say, so that he would turn around and be friends again. Pretty disgusting.

Interestingly Cumberbatch-Holmes describes himself as a "high-functioning sociopath" in EVERY single episode, as if it should be really hammered into the viewer what they are dealing with. And that somebody can be brilliant, cute and a sociopath at the same time and this is something to be admired.

M.T.

 

[Mal7]

Although most well known today as the creator of Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Conan Doyle let the character Sherlock Holmes die in an 1893 story so that he could focus on other things. But he did later return to writing more Sherlock Holmes stories, with a come-back explanation that Holmes had only faked his death.

"The Final Problem" was intended to be exactly what its name says. Conan Doyle meant to stop writing about his famous detective after this short story; he felt the Sherlock Holmes stories were distracting him from more serious literary efforts and that "killing" Holmes off was the only way of getting his career back on track. "I must save my mind for better things," he wrote to his mother, "even if it means I must bury my pocketbook with him."

- _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Problem

 

[Minas Tirith]

Although most well known today as the creator of Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Conan Doyle let the character Sherlock Holmes die in an 1893 story so that he could focus on other things. But he did later return to writing more Sherlock Holmes stories, with a come-back explanation that Holmes had only faked his death.

"The Final Problem" was intended to be exactly what its name says. Conan Doyle meant to stop writing about his famous detective after this short story; he felt the Sherlock Holmes stories were distracting him from more serious literary efforts and that "killing" Holmes off was the only way of getting his career back on track. "I must save my mind for better things," he wrote to his mother, "even if it means I must bury my pocketbook with him."

- _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Problem

Yeah, if I remember correctly, on his return Watson is angry as well, but Holmes never uses above methods to bring the friendship back on track.

M.T.

 

[H-KQGE]

Possibly in the mould of Sherlock who actually describes himself as a 'high-functioning' sociopath (Brilliant series. Benedict Cumberpatch is superb as the modern Sherlock Holmes) This is the very dynamic that has been discussed on the forum, and has been promoted by the likes of Kevin Dutton: Psychopathy is trendy.

It's a little off-topic here, but I don't think BP will come back anyway.

I recently watched a couple of episodes of the Cumberbatch-Holmes and had very similar thoughts. As Laura pointed out, the original Holmes was not set up as a sociopath by Conan Doyle. True, he was depicted as being cruel to Watson sometimes (f.e. he occasionally freaks out about his style of writing (Watson records all the cases) or Watsons sluggish thinking and not "getting it"), but never in the sense it is portrayed in the series.

In one episode, f.e., Holmes and Watson are caught in an Underground car that is about to explode. This happens shortly after Holmes" two year absence, having faked his death after his struggle with Moriarty. Holmes chooses the moment Watson is to propose to his fiancee in a restaurant to turn up again and of course Watson is kind of hurt that Holmes didn't tell him that he was alive before. He is kind of reluctant to be friends again, but agrees to help Holmes with this bomb in the Underground car that is threatening to destroy Westminster Abbey. Both get caught in the car with (apparently) no idea how to turn the mechanism of the bomb off. Watson thinks he is going to die in two minutes - that's the time left - apologizes to Holmes and reaffirms his friendship in a dramatic and emotional way. Turns out, Holmes has switched the bomb off already ("There is always an off-switch, Watson), but has waited for Watson to freak - making him weak, so to say, so that he would turn around and be friends again. Pretty disgusting.

Interestingly Cumberbatch-Holmes describes himself as a "high-functioning sociopath" in EVERY single episode, as if it should be really hammered into the viewer what they are dealing with. And that somebody can be brilliant, cute and a sociopath at the same time and this is something to be admired.

M.T.

My God, I was really getting pi**ed off with the series 2 shenanigans, but this last one Why is the good doctor Watson being portrayed so badly? Yeah the spellbinding effects of sociopaths (more confusing & irritating if it's a sociopath) & some psychopaths is one thing, but the audience (well some of us at least) can see Watson can sense what's going on, he is intelligent & has training from his medical-military years; he just acts little better than the "clients" that Cumberbatch-Holmes rides roughshod over. That episode just got to me (I don't recall the beginning, was that the wedding reception Holmes speech storytelling one?) & yet again Watson puts up with the obvious cruelty, this time he was laughed at for good measure.

Then there was the utterly ludicrous episode with the blackmail fella with the special glasses & the "mental palace", or whatever. And Steven Moffat actually wrote it so that the "loveable high-functioning sociopath" was angry at the blackmailer calling him evil or some such thing. This is the guy that rebooted "Doctor Who" a few years back (also littered with pathological nonsense with various characters, more so than the early incarnations), & what d'ya know, Watson's wife is a... I'll leave it for those who are interested & haven't seen it. At least the most realistic part of the writing is that so many people disregard their instinct/intuition about him, & just allow themselves to be taken for a (rough) ride. And then they'll complain about him not being a "good friend/boyfriend" or some rubbish. Then THEY will try to "do better" to be HIS friend, never mind the blatant abuse & manipulation.

It's like sir Arthur Conan Doyle's work was read, not understood, stripped to its bones & the problem solving aspect was kept, with the "bells & whistles" being the psychopathological mindscape thrown in (cuz sociopaths & psychopaths are cool for the young 'uns in this fast-paced digital age) as an afterthought. Honestly, the more popular this show becomes, & the more awards it receives, the more countries buy it, & the more I dislike it.

 

[Minas Tirith]

Why is the good doctor Watson being portrayed so badly? Yeah the spellbinding effects of sociopaths (more confusing & irritating if it's a sociopath) & some psychopaths is one thing, but the audience (well some of us at least) can see Watson can sense what's going on, he is intelligent & has training from his medical-military years; he just acts little better than the "clients" that Cumberbatch-Holmes rides roughshod over.

Good point. I was seeing it from the perspective that the message was: If you are like Watson (caring and a little naive) you get run over and ridiculed, so don't ever try - like the guy with the glasses flicked in his face and Watson didn't stir. The guy with the glasses is a Danish actor (and played a Danish character) and described the British as weak - interesting when you think of Scandinavia as a "Nordic" country.

Another thought (sorry for all this editing): In many dramatizations Watson is depicted as kind of "dumb", mostly to show off Holmes' genius. He's the everyman, us, who can't see what Holmes sees ... In the Cumberbatch series this is taken to a new level, though ...

In the "wive" episode Watson also cries out a couple of times that he feels surrounded by psychopaths and is reassured by Holmes that this is a kind of normal state of the world and he should get used to it. So it's like: Either you are like us (the psychopaths) or if you are not, don't complain about it...

That episode just got to me (I don't recall the beginning, was that the wedding reception Holmes speech storytelling one?) & yet again Watson puts up with the obvious cruelty, this time he was laughed at for good measure.

No, the wedding was the one with the general that got killed through his belt.

M.T.

 

[H-KQGE]

Why is the good doctor Watson being portrayed so badly? Yeah the spellbinding effects of sociopaths (more confusing & irritating if it's a sociopath) & some psychopaths is one thing, but the audience (well some of us at least) can see Watson can sense what's going on, he is intelligent & has training from his medical-military years; he just acts little better than the "clients" that Cumberbatch-Holmes rides roughshod over.

Good point. I was seeing it from the perspective that the message was: If you are like Watson (caring and a little naive) you get run over and ridiculed, so don't ever try - like the guy with the glasses flicked in his face and Watson didn't stir. The guy with the glasses is a Danish actor (and played a Danish character) and described the British as weak - interesting when you think of Scandinavia as a "Nordic" country.

Another thought (sorry for all this editing): In many dramatizations Watson is depicted as kind of "dumb", mostly to show off Holmes' genius. He's the everyman, us, who can't see what Holmes sees ... In the Cumberbatch series this is taken to a new level, though ...

In the "wive" episode Watson also cries out a couple of times that he feels surrounded by psychopaths and is reassured by Holmes that this is a kind of normal state of the world and he should get used to it. So it's like: Either you are like us (the psychopaths) or if you are not, don't complain about it...

That episode just got to me (I don't recall the beginning, was that the wedding reception Holmes speech storytelling one?) & yet again Watson puts up with the obvious cruelty, this time he was laughed at for good measure.

No, the wedding was the one with the general that got killed through his belt.

M.T.

Well, you're right, I see it from the same perspective too. If you are caring & naive (various levels in both departments) you're likely to get "run over & ridiculed" if there's a lack of knowledge or/& awareness, but that shouldn't stop oneself from learning. I completely forgot about that face-flicking part! Plus, I was actually rooting for that guy to knock Holmes down a couple of pegs (not that I was rooting for his predatory behaviour on the rich, powerful & all else you understand) as Holmes got to me that much. Damn.

Also, every version of Watson that I've seen has him depicted in exactly that way. There's a spoof one with Michael Caine, I think. That might be a parody-remake of a version with an older British actor from the seventies, I think his name was Niven or something like that. Although the Caine one is where Holmes is the buffoon-like one, with Watson allowing him to take the credit. How true in life that is! Anyway, the point being that Watson is seen as a bumbling oaf, almost destroying evidence (crucial to Holmes' "seeing" ability - well covered by Laura in "The Wave" - but not to the "rank & file" of the local constabulary, thus everyone else) & asking silly questions. That never did sit well with me.

Incredibly, this Cumberbatch Watson thing can be seen (to me) as symbolically saying that, as you point out, "we're all around you, join us or suck it up!" & at the end of the series they all tell him that he has pathological types in his midst, & that he needs that stimulus in his life, otherwise his life is overly mundane. And I'm sure Holmes said this to him more than once a while back. So forget popularizing psychopathy through books,(who the hell reads anymore?) you can just take a clever fictional protagonist from way-back-when, place 'em in modern times & give 'em the "razzle-dazzle" treatment via the big/small screen & then slap a pathological gloss as part of their fundamental character, which of course was never there to begin with. Simple. I'm still smarting from that wife thing though.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Interestingly Cumberbatch-Holmes describes himself as a "high-functioning sociopath" in EVERY single episode, as if it should be really hammered into the viewer what they are dealing with. And that somebody can be brilliant, cute and a sociopath at the same time and this is something to be admired.

M.T.

The writer of the show has said in interviews that Cumberbatch's Sherlock is NOT a sociopath. Here's part of the interview re: the wedding speech:

And then, the backhanded compliment to John, which Moffat says he paraphrased from Doyle’s “The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier”:

If I burden myself with a little help mate during my adventures, this is not out of sentiment of caprice. It is that he has many fine qualities of his own that he has overlooked in his obsession with me. Indeed, any reputation I have for mental acuity and sharpness comes, in truth, from the extraordinary contrast John so selflessly provides.

As Moffat puts it, that’s merely Sherlock “bullshitting.” “He always is. He doesn’t think that at all. He doesn’t think any of those things, but he wants to think that he does, just as he wants to think he’s a high-functioning sociopath,” says Moffat. “He’s not a sociopath, nor is he high-functioning. He’d really like to be a sociopath. But he’s so ****ing not. The wonderful drama of Sherlock Holmes is that he’s aspiring to this extraordinary standard. He is at root an absolutely ordinary man with a very, very big brain. He’s repressed his emotions, his passions, his desires, in order to make his brain work better — in itself, a very emotional decision, and it does suggest that he must be very emotional if he thinks emotions get in the way. I just think Sherlock Holmes must be bursting!”

_http://www.vulture.com/2014/01/steven-moffat-sherlock-holmes-best-man-speech-interview.html

 

[Mountain Crown]

Thanks for posting that, AI. I really like the show but the sociopath business has been bugging me.

 

[Minas Tirith]

Thanks for posting the interview, AI. I can only say he's not doing a great job to bring this message over to the viewer ...

M.T.

 

[H-KQGE]

Thanks for posting the interview, AI. I can only say he's not doing a great job to bring this message over to the viewer ...

M.T.

I thought the same. But I've seen one or two interviews with Moffat & the quote that AI posted is indicative of his most notable works. I bet most viewers don't, & won't see him as "an ordinary man with a big brain that's learned to suppress his emotions as they get in the way". I'm not buying what he's selling. FWIW.

 

[Gimpy]

Thanks for posting the interview, AI. I can only say he's not doing a great job to bring this message over to the viewer ...

M.T.

Moffat is a writers' writer....he writes the way he does to show other writers how they can have fun and do complex stories. He's enjoyable that way. (At least to me he is.)

He does take for granted that the watcher is paying attention. I like that too. Its one of the reasons I like watching the show, you really have to listen close. It is television, and parts of the writing, like the sociopath bit, will be over emphasized.

Just my two cents. ;D

 

[Vic]

Scott & Bailey is another UK series that mentions psychopathy more than we were previously used to. The two female detectives highlight the contrast between emotional versus intellectually dominant people. Bailey flies off the handle whereas Scott can be beautifully ice cold when interviewing suspects. The characters are played brilliantly imo. The 'baddies' are often referenced in terms of psychopathy, and there are a few examples of classic sociopaths and psychopaths - not just as villains, throughout the series. FWIW.

All series/episodes are free on youtube. Here's S1E1 _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yllFSXiolCc

Edit: inserted link