What Type is BBC's Sherlock?

[charlatan]

In case this helps -- Memory isn't something I'd generally assign to any specific function, as I'd think of memory just as reproducing past cognitive processing. If that processing was of a F or T nature, then so will the memory be.

I mean, say you recall the Pythagorean theorem -- that would still be pure logic.

If you recall where you were/the sensory surroundings, that can be S.

 

[pzl2lxie81mc]

Sherlock memorizes things like timetables, seating charts, newspaper articles, etc. He also memorizes crime scenes. Some might say that’s Si, but I think it’s Ti. One, he only memorizes certain things. It’s not photographic memory where he remembers everything. Two, he’s logical in his use of his memory, ie. at this time from this station there only two flights that fly to x country. Si would be more, I remember that time I was waiting for a flight to x country and there was only one other flight there that same day.

 

[jkxx]

Watching with interest as he's a favorite character in a favorite show. Though I felt I can't type him because he almost seems to be several personalities at once (in a way like Poirot but obviously with a very different flavor.)

 

[Ginny]

Clearly, you and I disagree on the typing of Sherlock. I pointed out a few things that are central in defining Sherlock as a character.
Perhaps you should just leave that there and appreciate that I’m actually replying to your post.

First of all, any certainty I might have had on the type went out the window with every post I received. You pointed out very few things, but with little to no explanation, which is something I value at least just as high the opinion itself. Espcially with a new perspective, as it is crucial for understanding, which is what I said I wanted to do. And as agreement presupposes a solidly set opinion, I can only say that you are wrong about that.

Who says I'm not appreciative? Because I'm asking you to give some sufficient evidence? What is so wrong with asking when something differs from the explanations I have heard so far? Especially when it is another perspective concerning the dynamics of cognitive functions? Doesn't it show openness towards new information? Why are you twisting what I write into what you seem to want to believe I mean?

It seems to me like you just don't want to answer any queries, so the only conclusion I can draw with this is that there is no point in asking how you get to your perspective in a rational fashion.

 

[Ginny]

Watching with interest as he's a favorite character in a favorite show. Though I felt I can't type him because he almost seems to be several personalities at once (in a way like Poirot but obviously with a very different flavor.)

I don't know Poirot all that well (I think I only watched a movie), but this is like something @Wyote posted this morning.

I'm still a space coyote but I'm other things too. Jung said there's a whole city of people in the mind. Still me, always.

 

[Wyote]

The thing about fiction is that characters do things that are "out of character" more frequently than an actual person would because it's our own idealistic fantasies being injected into the character. That's a big reason for difficulty in typing fictional characters. Nobody like Sherlock actually exists in reality. Yeah there are people with shared traits and skills but they aren't doing what he's doing because it's fantasy.

People generally have a dominant ruler in their personal "city mind." If you don't, something is broken.

 

[Ginny]

The thing about fiction is that characters do things that are "out of character" more frequently than an actual person would because it's our own idealistic fantasies being injected into the character. That's a big reason for difficulty in typing fictional characters. Nobody like Sherlock actually exists in reality. Yeah there are people with shared traits and skills but they aren't doing what he's doing because it's fantasy.

People generally have a dominant ruler in their personal "city mind." If you don't, something is broken.

It's like an empty house. You can dream anything into it.

 

[Wyote]

Also you're all going to be trying to type Dracula soon instead of Sherlock, so best to do your research now :thumbsup:

 

[Ginny]

Also you're all going to be trying to type Dracula soon instead of Sherlock, so best to do your research now :thumbsup:

Does the musical count too?

It's just that the movie and book are so boring...

 

[Wyote]

It's like an empty house. You can dream anything into it.

I guess most people dream poop

 

[Wyote]

Does the musical count too?

It's just that the movie and book are so boring...

I'm referring to Moffat and Gatiss work

 

[Ginny]

I guess most people dream poop

Only once, but it had to do with a horror movie I'm trying my hardest to forget for its premise in content *shiver*

 

[Ginny]

I'm referring to Moffat and Gatiss work

Hmm... we'll see. I'd have to like it first to want to engage in that activity. But then again, they'll probably insert a likeable twist, kida like the series from a few years ago... *torn*

 

[Wyote]

Only once, but it had to do with a horror movie I'm trying my hardest to forget for its premise in content *shiver*

You can never unsee Birdemic

 

[Ginny]

You can never unsee Birdemic

Good thing I never saw it then

 

[hush]

Only once, but it had to do with a horror movie I'm trying my hardest to forget for its premise in content *shiver*

I hope you're not referring to Human Centipede...

If you were, I apologize for making you think of it again. D:

Let's NOT try to type anyone from that... nor its sequels...

 

[jkxx]

@Ginny,

I don't know Poirot all that well (I think I only watched a movie), but this is like something @Wyote posted this morning.

Yes, I saw a post to that effect as well. Poirot is indeed easier to complex into a single type (Suchet's interpretation being my favorite) because he looks like an Ni type and never strays too far from that dynamic's definition. The series is really good though and I heartily recommend it. As for Sherlock, he struck me as a more complex character I could not place hence the fascination with him as the show's myth arc kept developing.

 

[charlatan]

Yeah Suchet's Poirot interpretation is the one I was thinking of. Seems to be portrayed as Ni.

Always felt it's a lot different from BBC sherlock. Much less raw sensory focus (vs bbc literally pieces everything from tons of scraps of sense data that few others even notice).

 

[pzl2lxie81mc]

I posted here because your initial post complained that no one was responding. Then I replied to your request for an explanation with an explanation. You then say you you don’t know why I responded. Really, I don’t know why you solicited opinions if you didn’t want to hear them.

We got to that part months ago. It's not my fault that you chose to answer, but you can't expect me not to debate about it when I get a surprising answer in order to understand it.

If my explanation isn’t enough or my answer doesn’t suit you, that’s on you. I don’t find you at all open to understanding what I wrote. It seems to me you just want to argue that I’m wrong.

 

[pzl2lxie81mc]

the only conclusion I can draw with this is that there is no point in asking how you get to your perspective in a rational fashion.

This is petty.