"Sherlock" TV Series

[LPolaright]

Not so long ago BBC released a TV show based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels about Sherlock Holmes, but this time it was a modern creation.

I was wondering though what MBTI could we give Sherlock, Watson, Mycroft and Moriarty in this show...

I'm going to provide a theory about Sherlock:

I'm pretty sure that Sherlock uses Se a lot in this show because at one point on the first episode called "The Study In Pink" when he examined the body he told to Lestrade "Shut Up" because his thinking was distracting - thus he knows that he could be distracted very easily. Also, he knows what details should catch his attention by using his Ni a lot as-well. This would mean that Se and Ni should be close by to each other function-wise to give the best results, but which one is more dominant?
I'm assuming Se>Ni - and his Ni is fixing him. and also X - Se | Ni - X

Of-course there could be another possibility that he uses his Ne and Si more. When he locates different objects he uses his Ne to devise possibilities about why it looks that way and where could it possibly be while using his Si to dispose of wrong possibilities basing it on his experience. It could be seen quite clearly when he analyzed Watson on their first encounter, when he explained how he did so, we could see clearly that he devises the most likely possibilities. It would still mean that Ne and Si should be near each other because he uses his perception functions a lot in order to induct and deduct.
I'm assuming Ne>Si - and his Si is fixing him. and also X - Ne | Si - X

Both share the assumption he is an introvert. But is he really? He seems to gain energy from analyzing people, and thus getting energy from the outside world. But we could see in all 3 episodes that people are frustrating him as-well, their incompetence and the fact that they are expected. So perhaps he gets his energy while introspecting his thinking or feeling, meaning he is analyzing is actually where he introspects and recharges his energy.
So I'm assuming he is an introvert which seems to fit both of the above.

This sherlock has either Ti or Fi, he doesn't seem to care a lot for common knowledge or morals and he doesn't manipulate much - he just gives his ideas straight forward and if he finds a problem he would tackle it in any way possible. But, it would seem that Te would fit him because he explains himself a lot to people around him, his process of thinking is very extraverted. Also it would seem that he doesn't care for feelings but he takes them into account - ergo we can rule out Fi but not Fe. The best possible solution here is Ti-Fe because he takes into consideration the feelings of others and he seems to base his world on probability and leave some room for random unexpected things, he is very objective in his own subjective thinking. He could be Fi-Te, but I'm still assuming his Xi > Ye.

this could mean four options:

Ti - Se | Ni - Fe => ISTP
Fi - Se | Ni - Te => ISFP
Ti - Ne | Si - Fe => INTP
Fi - Ne | Si - Te => INFP

Several moments in these episodes revealed to me that Sherlock is heartless sometimes and because of that he has less friends - strong suggestion of T rather than F. Which takes us down to INTP or ISTP - his substance abuse (nicotine patches) will let us believe that he is an ISTP while his belief that he should focus his knowledge into one ultimate bigger picture (Although it doesn't really sound like an INTP) leans us down towards INTP.
Basically it's SP temperament vs NT - I'm more inclined towards NT with him because I think I can explain his SP with the fact he has sociopathic tendencies which usually results in substance abuse and continuous boredom.

Ergo my final conclusion he is an INTP - he doesn't plan ahead too much but he likes knowledge - specifically the one he is concentrated on, although we can clearly see a room with tons of interests in 221B baker st.

 

[MatthewSawyer]

I have not seen this series, and it has been a long time since I read any of the books. But I do like the movie with Robert Downey Jr, and actually just finished watching it.

From the movie, I would say the "F" function is down in the basement. He's pretty insensitive (or rather, oblivious) to people's feelings.

I also thought that he used "Se" but I do not fully understand the nuances of the "S" function.

According to the "INTP Main Characters" thread, someone posted there that Sherlock is an INTP.

Above all else, Sherlock uses logic in everything he does, and does not let his emotions or imagination hinder his logical approach. "Mould your hypothesis on facts, do not hypothesize before gather facts because then you twist the facts to fit your hypothesis." That sounds pretty INTP to me.

 

[BYOS]

I believe he would be INTP (my basis for judgment is the books and Holmes as represented by them, though I already agree that your post is a remarkably logical and accurate "categorizing" of him.)

Quickly and Broadly Summarized: Sherlock Holmes:

• I = extremely anti-social, though is affable enough when there is a need/reason to socialize.
• N = is definitely focused on the facts ("facts first, theories later"), though frequently remarks on his remarkable intuition (and Watson attests to it), and that the reason why solely fact-based Lestrade fails is because he has no imagination.
• T = It's not possible any other way, obviously. He is very frequently remarked upon as cold, analytical, and a machine, but in one situation where Watson appeared to be in danger, he shows an amount of emotion that he has apparently never shown, at least in his time with Watson. (Watson remarks that for one time in his relationship with Holmes, he saw a glimpse of a great heart in addition to his great mind.)
• P = "The tobacco is in the Persian slipper."

Though I will say that his "brain attic" theory doesn't really fit (check me on this, I've just started with this MBTI thing). He has enormous amounts of knowledge on very specific topics, and is pretty much ignorant to everything else. And his boundless energy when there is a really intriguing case (though that's pretty much what an INTP is when they discover something new that they are fascinated with/by). Also, some J tendencies... he doesn't completely make it up along the way.

Other than that, I would be confident in checking in at 221B Baker Street (I will not accept that he retired), knocking at his door, and telling him that he is Mr. Sherlock Holmes (I owe him the "Mr." since he gets it so rarely) with a hint of INTP.

You summed the whole thing up very nicely yourself, so I hope my addition isn't redundant.

As to Mycroft, we're not familiar with his attitude, completely, but I would say—for much the same reasoning as with Holmes—an extreme caricature of an INTP, or an INTJ who has partially betrayed his J (we hear of a very timely schedule, and his disinclination to diverge from it on the rare occasion that he does, but he's extremely indolent, so that's a slim chance).

Though the concept of the Diogenes' Club alone (he's the co-founder!) seems entirely INTP, to me.

And as to Moriarty, despite Doyle not going into detail about his habits, the word frequently used to describe him is mastermind. He is the master planner (a giant spider in the center of a giant web; a giant spider that is nigh untraceable), he is the mastermind, he is the mathematician, and he is absolutely evil.

I'd say INTJ.

Watson gets sketchy for me. I'm going ESTJ. "S" because he's a by-the-book, competent Doctor, and can keep up with Holmes' logic until he goes all "Use your imagination". "E" because he's a "manly man" and is generally shown as being social, or at least liking social interaction. And everything crashes into place after that.

I do hope I'm using the right logic in going about this typing business....

 

[Pizzabeak]

Funny, I had a thought about this show 5 minutes before I managed to randomly find this thread..

It was basically, I've seen Holmes classified as INTP before, but in this show he seems to be a hell of a lot more of an "asshole" than in the stories.. So if that helps or hinders your conclusion any, I don't know. Also, although I have no analysis or anything, I believe Watson to be an ESTJ.

 

[Jah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9sUVrVS4co&feature=related

Just thought Sherlock could use the attention.

 

[Wolf18]

Watson: Everyone keeps saying Watson is an ESTP. He's more "normal" than Sherlock, but when he frustrated, he looks to spend time alone, not with other people. He's ex-mil, and killing doesn't seem to bother him too much, so ISTP or ISTJ. He's more or less open-minded and willing to give people a chance. Conclusion: ISTP
Moriarty: Brooding (I) + brilliant (N) + cold-hearted (T) + calculating (J) = INTJ
Sherlock: He finds people's minds and thought processes interesting, but seems to find the people themselves dull, and does not understand them. Also, brain attic/memory palace - he relies on his own mind for information, rather than outside sources. Introverted.
Innovative and creative, abstract thinker. Notices details, but also how they fit into the big picture (I mentioned how this is what makes him N rather than S in the Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time thread). Intuitive.
Doesn't really understand emotions - his own or those of others, and doesn't show much interest in learning to. Doesn't care what people think about him. Does have inferior Fe though, as he is prone to getting very excited about his work. Thinking.
Rather externally disorganised. Drug addict. Doesn't seem to care about being punctual or professional. Perceiver. Conclusion: INTP
The Girl from the T.V. show (not the books): Introverted - she works in a lab, and doesn't seem to have many friends. Intuitive - she seems able to read Sherlock better than anyone else, and seems pretty imaginative. She's also shockingly ordinary, so S could be argued as well. Feeling - she never gives up on Sherlock, and seems very emotional at all times. P - open minded; if she was by-the-book, she wouldn't help him. Conclusion: INFP or ISFP.
DI Lestrade: ISTP. Listens to himself before others, lacking in imagination, rather cool/collected, defies orders to get the job done.

I have way too much to say about this...

SW

 

[own8ge]

The persona Sherlock (not the actor himself) is an INFJ (imo).

 

[Chad]

The persona Sherlock (not the actor himself) is an INFJ (imo).

I wouldn't ever classify Sherlock as an "F" because the main idea of the Sherlock persona is that he doesn't have any personal emotional connection with anyone (not even his best friend my Watson).

He is also a get deducer of facts also a sing of a strong T.

I would have to say that he is most diffidently an I as well.

N or S may depend on what adaptation of you looking at.

P or J would also depend of what adaptation you are looking at.

I think that the most common interpretation of Sherlock would be ISTJ or ISTP.

However when I looked at the cognitive function he is more TI/SE than SI/TE Therefore I would have to say that he is ISTP.

 

[Jennywocky]

For the BBC Sherlock, I'm not sure on this ESTJ or ISTP typing for Watson. The problem is that he's actually pretty warm and represents the "human" side of things, both in his positioning as well as his conscious commentary.

That's not a natural ESTJ concern (usually they focus on serving people through organization and process, rather than direct warmth and considering the "human needs" directly), and ISTPs aren't really typically going to consider the human element first either... they're more apt to be skeptical and look at people as "stupid" for not being more independent or resourceful. Can you imagine an ESTJ or ISTP giving Holmes those little "humanistic" speeches that he has become known for? No, not really. That wouldn't be their typical angle, and especially not standing for someone's feelings as the predominate issue just because Holmes has recently acted like a cad. Watson is VERY aware of the feelings involved in things, even if sometimes he blunders (like when he got dumped by his girlfriend for choosing Holmes on NYE).

That's something more typical of a male F type, as their more natural approach. And F types are quite competent and reasoned in their areas of expertise, they don't have to be a "T" in order to be scientific.

 

[Chad]

I agree that Watson could be an F. Sometimes he does show little to no remorse for his actions like when he killed the cabby serial killer. However, I am sure that he was able to ration that this killing was necessary and good. Like many medical doctors types he is very knowledgeable but he does have a far batter grasp of human nature than most T types. Therefore I would agree that he is an F. Shurlock on the other hand is not an F. He has not human connection at all and Watson is basically his conscience due to the fact that Shurlock is highly functional Socialopath. (I miss spelling this I can't seem to get it close enough for the spell check to understand it sorry)

 

[own8ge]

I wouldn't ever classify Sherlock as an "F" because the main idea of the Sherlock persona is that he doesn't have any personal emotional connection with anyone (not even his best friend my Watson).

He is also a get deducer of facts also a sing of a strong T.

I would have to say that he is most diffidently an I as well.

N or S may depend on what adaptation of you looking at.

P or J would also depend of what adaptation you are looking at.

I think that the most common interpretation of Sherlock would be ISTJ or ISTP.

However when I looked at the cognitive function he is more TI/SE than SI/TE Therefore I would have to say that he is ISTP.

My opinion stands: INFJ. Want me to explain it? Because when I do, you might feel intimidated by my vast and accurate worldview.

 

[Chad]

My opinion stands: INFJ. Want me to explain it? Because when I do, you might feel intimidated by my vast and accurate worldview.

I am not intimidated by people with opposing worldviews.
On the contrary I am intrigued but what lead you to believe that Sherlock homes is a feeler. You could be right and maybe I just can't see this. This is completely possible. I have been wrong before and I sure i will be wrong again. If you wish to prove me wrong I am up for the challenge.

 

[own8ge]

This ought to be an easy victory, Muhahaha.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsUoADE06H0
Let's analyze this for a moment shall we?

00:00 - Ni eye squint. Whilst asking the directive question: "Who is on forensics?".

"Anderson won't work with me", is an external concrete perceptive statement: Se, that has derived from Ni- The concept of the unknown. (He is stating it Directive Pi->Pe). Furthermore, Anderson is a person. And Sherlock seems to care -NFJ.

Anderson won't work with me was a subjective statement (It was a statement for the self), which is Je (Which puts subjective stuff out in the open because this can get feedback and whatnot). (Anderson won't work with me, is emotive. -FJ). The fact that he is even saying it means he is an FJ.

Whilst he is saying it, he is reaching into Ni. Because Anderson won't work with him, he now has to explore the unknown (Ni). (He needs to do this because he want's to move the environment to his desired requirements). -NJ (And because his requirements are Human related he is an NFJ)

I Hope this is enough to convince you.

 

[Jennywocky]

I agree that Watson could be an F. Sometimes he does show little to no remorse for his actions like when he killed the cabby serial killer. However, I am sure that he was able to ration that this killing was necessary and good.

Exactly. he's trained as a soldier, and he was saving the life of his friend.

Like many medical doctors types he is very knowledgeable but he does have a far batter grasp of human nature than most T types. Therefore I would agree that he is an F. Shurlock on the other hand is not an F. He has not human connection at all and Watson is basically his conscience due to the fact that Shurlock is highly functional Socialopath. (I miss spelling this I can't seem to get it close enough for the spell check to understand it sorry)

I don't think Holmes is an F either, although I can see INFJ is the most plausible if we were forced to accept he is an F. I think he carries himself with the kind of self-possession and intensity I see in male INFJs... but that's not the only type that does that.

Still, I see no evidence of Fe in Holmes, and it's supposed to be his secondary? he has NO sense or concern about social values. None whatsoever. he dismisses them. Lisbeth in the Swedish version of Dragon Tattoo is an INFJ female at the antisocial end of things, and we can see how Fe plays out in the antagonistic form. Holmes is not really like either end of the spectrum.

I can buy him being an Ni primary with a Je secondary.

 

[own8ge]

@Jennywocky
Interesting, but flawed.

INFJs naturally dismiss social values, instead they construct their own by using Ti. This is due to the fact they are Ni dominant (thus all other functions their role is to serve Ni). Ni is the concept of the unknown, it is natural law as we know it. As Ni is dominant and a worldview function, the other functions, including Fe, is to develop their worldview function Ni. And due it is the concept of the unknown, known social values etc are dismissed by nature and overruled by Ti. (Because Fe > Ti, this can be done with GREAT confidence due to their awareness. Note that Fe doesn't have to reflect others their values, but instead their own of which are constructed by Ti discernment.)

(No wonder Ni is associated with independence of mind)

Furthermore, 2nd and 3rd functions are rather equally active. -In the INFJ Ni-Fe (The directive side) is always directed by Ti discernment and often so Ti is better developed than Fe. This doesn't mean it is further developed, as our Ti judges our Ni-Fe, Fe by default is greater, but Fe can be dedicated in an non-usage fiction. This also can cause a suppressive relationship between the two, many INFJs suppress their Fe so immensely that they would feel more like an INTP.

ALSO... Fe is emotive aware, of the self, but also of others. This is what makes an INFJ capable of drawing Ni (concept of the unknown) conclusions that relate to humans (Fe). Sherlock can think like others think. This is Ni-Fe.

T = Concrete Judgement, F = Liquid Judgment. T is incapable of reaching beyond their own logic whilst F can shape shift and judge indefinite. To think like others, indefinite judgment is required. This is F, not T.

Merely associating F with feeling, and T with thinking = Ignorance.
A heavy sacrifice many INFJs make, is to abandon the usage of Fe. This is due that they may choose to not actively use Fe at all as it can cause misery rather than harmony... That what Fe is all about (creating external human harmony). -->So Fe will actually choose to be 'inactive' to be more successful. I'm an INFJ myself and I've been there.

 

[Chad]

F generally means that your are driven to act based of your moral or value judgment. Things that are far less concrete that logical.

T generally means that your are driven to act based off of Logical (systematic) thinking.

This doesn't mean that someone who is F can not think logically and some one that T can't think things in value measurements. All that it means is the natural state functions this way.

Holmes is very natural and child like an many manors he is not straggling to make logical conclusions this things are concrete and like second nature to him.

You can say that he is an FE that uses his TI effectively but this wouldn't be his natural state and you would still suspect that his FE would come out form time to time.

What I am saying is that Shurlock Holmes has virtually no access to his Felling side. This almost guarantees that he is either INTP or ISTP my conclusion for this is that he is ISTP and his TI is dormant. SE and his observational side (key for observational details) supports his his TI as does his NI side or is internal Intuition. His Fe side is close to not existent.

Holmes don't think like another people he is not a profiler. He deduces logical events based off the evidence (that he has a key eye for) shows him.

 

[own8ge]

@Chad
Interesting thought, but I disagree.
First off, lets make this clear: Intelligence has nothing to do with being T or F.
Furthermore, if the third function discerns the polar side it is momentum (So if the INFJ's Ti judges Ni-Fe, it is pleasant/momentum) and thus it is a natural state.

You are saying Sherlock has no access to his F. You are absolutely wrong!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XsUoADE06H0
0:20 - He gets all excited. This is F!

To care, is F. And Sherlock cares A LOT, it is his persona to care. (he cares about how he is perceived by others, he cares about his status, he cares about his success, he cares about intelligence, he cares about solving things, etc.). He does not merely care about these things, to care and put on with it actually gives him momentum which is definitely F. What he cares about is external, thus Fe.

----
And besides, His whole concepts and plans (faking suicide etc.) are made up by the concept of the unknown (Sherlock predicts the future etc.) and are VERY people-based (Fe).

The only thing Sherlock COULD be, is an INFJ. Accept it.

 

[Chad]

Interesting thought, but I disagree.
First off, lets make this clear: Intelligence has nothing to do with being T or F.

No need to clear this up no one is saying that.

Furthermore, if the third function discerns the polar side it is momentum (So if the INFJ's Ti judges Ni-Fe, it is pleasant/momentum) and thus it is a natural state.

So you say it not proof.

You are saying Sherlock has no access to his F. You are absolutely wrong!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XsUoADE06H0
0:20 - He gets all excited. This is F!

I am not saying that he has not accesses of Fe just very little. I am an INTP and I still have access to Fe. I am not heartless even though I may appear to be at times.

To care, is F. And Sherlock cares A LOT, it is his persona to care. (he cares about how he is perceived by others, he cares about his status, he cares about his success, he cares about intelligence, he cares about solving things, etc.). He does not merely care about these things, to care and put on with it actually gives him momentum which is definitely F. What he cares about is external, thus Fe.

I don't see it this. It is apparent at several stages of the show that all Sherlock cares about is not being bored. He doesn't not do his job because he care he doesn't it because it challenges it.

And besides, His whole concepts and plans (faking suicide etc.) are made up by the concept of the unknown (Sherlock predicts the future etc.) and are VERY people-based (Fe).

Sherlock is Sherlock-based he not People based.

The only thing Sherlock COULD be, is an INFJ. Accept it.

I do no such thing. Your observation are not accurate therefore you finders do not fallow.

 

[Double_V]

My opinion stands: INFJ. Want me to explain it? Because when I do, you might feel intimidated by my vast and accurate worldview.

*Leans forward on one elbow*

Please do. I've got to hear this.

There is absolutely, positively, no way Sherlock was ever an INFJ. Ever.

 

[own8ge]

@Chad
His motives are Fe based, Period.
Try to open your eyes if you can't sense that...

And besides whether he is F or T is rather irrelevant as what is for sure is that he is an INJ.
He can't be an INTJ for obvious reasons, thus he must be an INFJ.

 

[own8ge]

There is absolutely, positively, no way Sherlock was ever an INFJ. Ever.

That is the utmost form of ignorance that I have ever encountered in any Typological related discussions. (You do know that we are referring to the persona, and not the actor.. Right?)

 

[Double_V]

That is the utmost form of ignorance that I have ever encountered in any Typological related discussions. (You do know that we are referring to the persona, and not the actor.. Right?)

Sure do.

State your case.

 

[Chad]

The truth is I don't see these connections.

This could be a lack in my ability to spot these connections.

Or it could be that they are not there and you are gasping at straws to justify your observations.

Shurlock Holmes is an fictional character taken form the imagination of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Any idea we may have this character may be irrelevant. It is completely an theoretical conversation about a theoretical character.

The only way to get into Shurlock Holmes head is to understand the motives Doyle intended to present in the character. Since you can't ask Doyle because he is dead. All we can do is guess.
Your guess is just as valid as mine.

However, I think it is ignorant for you to believe that someone else is ignorant just because they disagree with you. It okay to be wrong, you don't know everything and you learn for your failures. Maybe you are right but you can learn form others opinions even if you are right.

If you want my advice. Try to be a bit more humble. Arrogance just makes you look dumb.

And Yes, I know that even though you maybe a feeler you could still be a very intelligent person.

 

[own8ge]

@Chad
Fair enough, I'll be sleeping. I might reply more in depth tomorrow.
I wonder this though: Why do people always mistake confidence for arrogance..?

 

[Chad]

Because you not just saying you are right. You are saying that others are ignorant for not seeing things your way. This is crossing the confidence/arrogance line.

 

[Proletar]

Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character. Whatever he is doing is in fact channeled by a fiction writer - and not in real time. That means he doesn't really make split second realizations, and he doesn't really use his wit to outsmart his opponents. Sherlock Holmes is not real. He is fictional.

Sherlock Holmes is Arthur Doyles perception of a witty, intelligent, observant and resourceful private (consulting) detective. He can be made to switch types whenever it suits the narrative. Really, I wouldn't be surprised if he used all eight functions as dominant at some point in the stories.


INTJcentral says he's INTJ though. Go with that.

 

[own8ge]

@Chad
No I don't.

@Proletar
INTJ, that would be foolish to think.

 

[Jennywocky]

@Jennywocky
Interesting, but flawed.

INFJs naturally dismiss social values, instead they construct their own by using Ti. This is due to the fact they are Ni dominant (thus all other functions their role is to serve Ni). Ni is the concept of the unknown, it is natural law as we know it. As Ni is dominant and a worldview function, the other functions, including Fe, is to develop their worldview function Ni. And due it is the concept of the unknown, known social values etc are dismissed by nature and overruled by Ti. (Because Fe > Ti, this can be done with GREAT confidence due to their awareness. Note that Fe doesn't have to reflect others their values, but instead their own of which are constructed by Ti discernment.)

(No wonder Ni is associated with independence of mind)

Furthermore, 2nd and 3rd functions are rather equally active. -In the INFJ Ni-Fe (The directive side) is always directed by Ti discernment and often so Ti is better developed than Fe. This doesn't mean it is further developed, as our Ti judges our Ni-Fe, Fe by default is greater, but Fe can be dedicated in an non-usage fiction. This also can cause a suppressive relationship between the two, many INFJs suppress their Fe so immensely that they would feel more like an INTP.

ALSO... Fe is emotive aware, of the self, but also of others. This is what makes an INFJ capable of drawing Ni (concept of the unknown) conclusions that relate to humans (Fe). Sherlock can think like others think. This is Ni-Fe.

Interesting, but flawed.

That's not how INFJs work, and they often have trouble fitting in because they don't really process like others do. They get an Ni impression of things without having to think through it, just like INTJs do -- they "see the end" first, the potential actualization, and then use their tertiary Ti (if it's developed) to backtrack and fill in the route. INFJs with developed Ti are very powerful, they are capable of articulating a rational path from one state of being to another.

I'm rather surprised you are saying that Holmes is capable of thinking like others think and believe that that is an F process. Holmes has a detached judging process; it's not values-oriented or social-oriented as its primary focused, it's been clearly explicated on the show as a logical understanding of the process of cause->effect.

You're so bogged down in how you imagine his internals work to fit your theory that you fail to observe the obvious external behavior and the most glaring inabilities of this man to engage on any kind of Fe level. In his relationships to human beings, he's essentially a bull in a china shop.

I'm an INFJ myself and I've been there.

Oh. Now I see why you're so stuck on claiming Holmes as an INFJ.

For the future, though, just because you have a point of identification with a particular person doesn't mean that they're your type. I strongly identify with aspects of Holmes personality, but I never imagined him to be INTP.

 

[Chad]

@Chad
No I don't.

@Proletar
INTJ, that would be foolish to think.

I am sorry my friend but you just been pollster-ed and since we are talking about a fictional character with many possible motivations (that are common in human nature).
I Think the best one can hope to prove in this is an conscious. If you can not prove you point of view with other members of this fictional character than you lose the debate.

No, offense meant. However, I am sure for your assumption that, other may take offense is your awesome theory proved everyone wrong, that you will take offense to being told you wrong. Confidence is good but reality has a way of taring ones confidence down.

Try again.

 

[Double_V]

Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character. Whatever he is doing is in fact channeled by a fiction writer - and not in real time. That means he doesn't really make split second realizations, and he doesn't really use his wit to outsmart his opponents. Sherlock Holmes is not real. He is fictional.

Sherlock Holmes is Arthur Doyles perception of a witty, intelligent, observant and resourceful private (consulting) detective. He can be made to switch types whenever it suits the narrative. Really, I wouldn't be surprised if he used all eight functions as dominant at some point in the stories.


INTJcentral says he's INTJ though. Go with that.

Awhile ago I'd read all of Doyles writings on Sherlock. If I recall properly Doyle's writing was about Watson writing about Sherlock. Watson writes in the beginning about running into his old aquaintance Sherlock laying quite a bit of ground work about Sherlock's study's in science, having little concern or respect for legalities, drug use, great bursts of energy followed my massive down (thinking) time while they are both rather young. Watson ends it by writing about the story of Sherlock after his demise.

I thought Doyle sold Sherlock short by ending his life, and not developing the story further. The last story about him was sort of written in a slight of hand generality that suggested lazy writing to me.

 

[Wolf18]

Awhile ago I'd read all of Doyles writings on Sherlock. If I recall properly Doyle's writing was about Watson writing about Sherlock. Watson writes in the beginning about running into his old aquaintance Sherlock laying quite a bit of ground work about Sherlock's study's in science, having little concern or respect for legalities, drug use, great bursts of energy followed my massive down (thinking) time while they are both rather young. Watson ends it by writing about the story of Sherlock after his demise.

I thought Doyle sold Sherlock short by ending his life, and not developing the story further. The last story about him was sort of written in a slight of hand generality that suggested lazy writing to me.

He Doyle did kill him off, but then brought him back, didn't he? I tried to get through some of the stories, but I found Watson incredibly annoying, so I got sick of reading them. The only character I could relate to was Sherlock, and you weren't supposed to relate to him, and he didn't seem real at all... Therefore, I haven't read any of the late stories. Does Doyle kill him off a second time?

SW

 

[Jennywocky]

I don't think Doyle killed him off a second time. He killed him off the first time in order to free himself from having to write more Holmes stories... but then he couldn't stay away / wanted to appease his readership, so it didn't take.

The BBC show is pretty brilliant. Just watched the final episode of season 2 last night, which emulates "The Final Problem" by Doyle, where Holmes dies the first time. Of course it's called The Reichenbach Fall. I have no idea at the moment at how the ending resolves as it does, although there's apparently a clue in the episode that people are missing (according to the writer or producer).

And while Holmes has been a real prick at times, it was kind of nice that the whole dilemma here about the jump was that he had no choice due to the relationships he consistently seems to scorn; apparently, at some level, he DOES care and is more human than he lets on. I won't spoiler it more, it's kind of a beautiful plot in how it puts Holmes into a seemingly no-win scenario despite his best efforts to dodge it.

 

[Hadoblado]

Is it not funny that:
The INTPs think he is an INTP
The INTJ forum thinks him an INTJ
Own8ge (an INFJ), thinks him an INFJ
????????????????????????????????????

This is akin to an ink-blot test. A fictional character (with no actual cognitive behaviour demonstrated*) is seen as whatever the fuck type people want to see him as, with what seems to be a massive bias for what they believe to be their own type.

This thread represents so much of what is wrong with the study of personality.

 

[Coolydudey]

The amount of detail Sherlock uses to come to his conclusions IN THE BBC adaptation easily classifies him as ISTP, a very smart one at that. But on the whole, intp.

 

[Jennywocky]

Is it not funny that:
The INTPs think he is an INTP
The INTJ forum thinks him an INTJ
Own8ge (an INFJ), thinks him an INFJ
????????????????????????????????????

This is akin to an ink-blot test. A fictional character (with no actual cognitive behaviour demonstrated*) is seen as whatever the fuck type people want to see him as, with what seems to be a massive bias for what they believe to be their own type.

This thread represents so much of what is wrong with the study of personality.

Yes. Elementary, my dear Watson. Not that he's not one of those types, but some of the reads reflect the reader more than the readee.

 

[scorpiomover]

Is it not funny that:
The INTPs think he is an INTP
The INTJ forum thinks him an INTJ
Own8ge (an INFJ), thinks him an INFJ
????????????????????????????????????

This is akin to an ink-blot test. A fictional character (with no actual cognitive behaviour demonstrated*) is seen as whatever the fuck type people want to see him as, with what seems to be a massive bias for what they believe to be their own type.

This thread represents so much of what is wrong with the study of personality.

I've seen the same with Jung. INTPs say that Jung was an INTP. INTJs say he was an INTJ. INFJs say he was an INFJ. ISTPs say Jung was an ISTP.

I also know of an INTJ who really wants to be good at martial arts, talk to girls and go out with them, who sees Bruce Lee as being really good at both, and keeps arguing that Bruce Lee is an INTJ.

I think this says a lot about people. Everyone wants to believe their heroes, the people whose qualities they desire, and wish to emulate, are "one of us", of their own type. It's rather like the fact that Jesus is black in Africa, brown in South America and white in Europe.

 

[Wolf18]

I've seen the same with Jung. INTPs say that Jung was an INTP. INTJs say he was an INTJ. INFJs say he was an INFJ. ISTPs say Jung was an ISTP.

I also know of an INTJ who really wants to be good at martial arts, talk to girls and go out with them, who sees Bruce Lee as being really good at both, and keeps arguing that Bruce Lee is an INTJ.

I think this says a lot about people. Everyone wants to believe their heroes, the people whose qualities they desire, and wish to emulate, are "one of us", of their own type. It's rather like the fact that Jesus is black in Africa, brown in South America and white in Europe.

True. But didn't Jung type himself? The rest is open to debate, but as long as people have good evidence for whatever type they think whomever is, I think that's fine. That's the whole idea of debate.

SW

 

[Double_V]

He Doyle did kill him off, but then brought him back, didn't he? I tried to get through some of the stories, but I found Watson incredibly annoying, so I got sick of reading them. The only character I could relate to was Sherlock, and you weren't supposed to relate to him, and he didn't seem real at all... Therefore, I haven't read any of the late stories. Does Doyle kill him off a second time?

SW

No, not a second time. And in reality technically not a first time. He sets him up in a sort of preposterous story line and Sherlock has supposedly died by fighting Moriaty (sp?) and their falling into a ravine is implied, but not seen. Sort of why I said it was rather lazy righing imo.

Watson tells the story after the fact. Which is convenient as Watson is always so baffled and unknowing of facts. Makes it easy to have a sloppy plot line. Sherlock desereved better.

 

[Wolf18]

No, not a second time. And in reality technically not a first time. He sets him up in a sort of preposterous story line and Sherlock has supposedly died by fighting Moriaty (sp?) and their falling into a ravine is implied, but not seen. Sort of why I said it was rather lazy righing imo.

Watson tells the story after the fact. Which is convenient as Watson is always so baffled and unknowing of facts. Makes it easy to have a sloppy plot line. Sherlock desereved better.

I didn't think he did. I did read The Final Problem, but I did not read past that, hence the question. I do like the TV show (BBC) and Robert Downey Jr adaptations, but I still don't like Watson, which makes the books frustrating. Sherlock did deserve better, and I think BBC and RDJ delivered.

SW

 

[Double_V]

I didn't think he did. I did read The Final Problem, but I did not read past that, hence the question. I do like the TV show (BBC) and Robert Downey Jr adaptations, but I still don't like Watson, which makes the books frustrating. Sherlock did deserve better, and I think BBC and RDJ delivered.

SW

I happen to own a copy of everything Doyle wrote on Sherlock. I pulled it last night and tried to (re)read The Final Problem, roughly 20 pages but haven't finished. I noticed The Hounds of the Baskervilles is actually the last story in the book so I assume Doyle wrote it last, after he'd already finished of Holmes in The Final Problem?

I noticed I'd done something rare when reading, I'd dog eared the second half of the book and remembered why I'd done it. It was a cheap copy and a book of no value (I collect books) and midway through I'd begun to wonder Holmes MBTI type. Too bad I didn't do the first half of the book! I remember thinking he was definately an NT, possibly and I - but I wasn't convinced of it.

Also recall thinking he was an Sx/Sp on the enneagram variant which would account for his tight ties with few people (to the extent that Doyle and Watson let us know).
I'm going to have read it all over again.

 

[Chad]

Doyle's kills off Holmes in the Final Problem then brings him back because he was in demand. Doyle said he was Tiered of making Sherlock Holmes stories and he tried unsuccessfully to break out into other genres. I honestly have never seen any of Doyle's other books but there were not received as will as Shurlock Holmes. Technically Holmes didn't die it was faked just like what happened in Show even though in the book he didn't fall off a building.

I really want to know how he faked the fall in the show. I am not sure if the next season has started or not but I am watching it on netflix and they are behind I am sure.

 

[Double_V]

Okay, so in the USA what station is everybody watching this series on? Altho I have just about every channel I rarely watch TV... and only know about 3 stations so haven't seen this show but am now kind of interested.

 

[Chad]

Its on BBC America I don't have this channel I watch it on Netflix.

 

[Double_V]

"By 1893, Doyle had resolved to kill Holmes—"even if I buried my bank account with him," he wrote in his autobiography. He set the scene at Reichenbach Falls, an Alpine cascade in Switzerland. Doyle's editors despaired, but the author felt only relief: "I have been much blamed for doing that gentleman to death, but I hold that it was not murder, but justifiable homicide in self-defense, since, if I had not killed him, he would certainly have killed me."
Finishing off Holmes had the paradoxical effect of breathing life into the franchise. Had Doyle kept churning out mysteries throughout the 1890s, their quality inevitably would have declined—a common fate of series from Doyle's day to now, on both the page and the tube. Instead he observed the showbiz dictum: Always leave 'em wanting more.
His subsequent writings failed to recapture the magic—until he decided to bring back Holmes. The detective made his reappearance in a 1902 novel, "The Hound of the Baskervilles." Doyle emphasized that the story took place before Holmes had met his grim fate. The next year, however, the author relented. In "The Adventure of the Empty House," he proclaimed that the reports of Holmes's death had been greatly exaggerated. The detective had faked it, and the stories—56 in total, plus four novels—continued. Doyle wrote the last one in 1926 and died in 1930."

 

[Double_V]

Its on BBC America I don't have this channel I watch it on Netflix.

Ah! I forget I have that. I can do it that way, thx!

 

[Chad]

So, Yes like I said he killed off Holmes so that he could write other stuff. Until none of his other work sold so he decided to bring Holmes back and said that his death was faked.

 

[Double_V]

So, Yes like I said he killed off Holmes so that he could write other stuff. Until none of his other work sold so he decided to bring Holmes back and said that his death was faked.

Right. I thought Doyles own words were interesting. He wanted him (Holmes) dead, until he wanted a paycheck more.

Now I wonder what Doyles MBTI type was? For a narcissist it would be hard to take if a character you created was more famous and more desired than your self, the tail wagging the dog.

 

[Jennywocky]

I really want to know how he faked the fall in the show. I am not sure if the next season has started or not but I am watching it on netflix and they are behind I am sure.

Not in this case, I think they just recently finally started production for Season 3. From my understanding, they filmed part of the reveal for the new season (how he survived the fall) when they were concluding the filming of that season cliffhanger, but they have to film all of season 3 at this point, or at least edit it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/sherlock-season-3-delayed_n_2193265.html

http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/she...ting-underway-new-helmers-for-bbcs-hit-drama/

Basically both Freeman and cumberbatch are too popular and have been working on movies in the last year (notably, The Hobbit and Star Trek).

The good news is that I think everyone has already signed up for Season 4. Since the seasons are so short, I think they have expressed hopes of this going on for years.

 

[Chad]

Sweet. So its not going to be a yearly thing then. I think there was a year or two between the first and second season too. I could be wrong about this I honestly just started watching it on Netflix and I seen all the way threw season 2.

 

[Jennywocky]

Sweet. So its not going to be a yearly thing then. I think there was a year or two between the first and second season too. I could be wrong about this I honestly just started watching it on Netflix and I seen all the way threw season 2.

Yeah, I think there was a year between the first and second seasons.

Anyone in the US is used to a typical annual season run for a period of months, then reruns until next year. I don't actually mind the Sherlock BBC approach since the episodes are almost movie-length and they're just so excellent (compared to all the CSI crap and other TV that is pretty much scripted-by-numbers and with low-paid amateur acting from much of the cast); it's just a bummer to have to wait so long for my fix.