Sherlock: The Loner Genius Myth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- Sign up for Skillshare: skl.sh/thetake36 | What is Sherlock saying about our culture's myth of the Loner Genius? Watch our take on the BBC series (starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman) and find out how it challenges our assumptions about great minds. Support The Take on Patreon: / thetake
If you like this video, subscribe to our TH-cam channel for more.
Follow The Take on Instagram: / thisisthetake
Follow The Take on Twitter: / thisisthetake
Like The Take on Facebook: / thisisthetake
Visit our website: www.the-take.com/
Sign up for exclusive updates: bit.ly/2oVVB1Q
Sign up for Skillshare: skl.sh/thetake36
Support The Take on Patreon: www.patreon.com/thetake
Subscribe to keep up with our latest videos, and let us know what you want to see next!
please do the movie "Room" 2015 film by Lenny Abrahamson. would really love to hear your in depth analysis of that movie. love your videos.
Diversity is our strength.
knowledge people always get knowledge sponsors.
plus you can feel the emporor in the videos.
This is very informative. However, I feel there is an exaggerated need for diversity when it comes to western media narratives. I'm a brown guy in India. It was Hollywood that made a biopic on Srinivas Ramanujan, not our Bollywood. I find it odd that you people feel the need to apologise for being a white majority population.
It is equally toxic to smart people. I was smart in my high school, and was on path to be a scientist, but i refused to ask help, because i saw it as weakness, this really hit me when i was in masters as my grades crashed due to me not communicating, because as a person wanting to be scientist i felt i should only work alone, but after that and few years of failure, work and rebuilding and therapy, i could finally open up and now i am pursuing my PhD and i still am quiet loner, but am far more willing to open up and ask for help when possible.
I'm sorry you learned that lesson the hard way, friend. But look at it this way: at least you learned it. I strongly feel like adaptation is a woefully underacknowledged part of intelligence that should be mentioned more often. You obviously have enough of that to get where you always wanted to go. How many have still allowed themselves to follow that myth despite the evidence you saw of its hollowness?
@@johnathonhaney8291 True, i was able to grow since i crashed and burned when i was young, but i know some people still my age or older who still hold it and are refusing to let their full potential shine. Just like we evolved genius to survive, so did we evolve empathy. both go hand in hand.
What are you getting your PhD in if I may ask?
@@alphaeussherlockjr.4390 When I read the above question to the OP, I initially began to wonder whether anyone reading this (whether a "Sherlock" or not) would be capable of accurately deducting that information from the posts alone. I then hypothesized that if this challenge were to be taken up, then the most accurate deduction would be more likely to emerge through the teamwork of several commenters than from a lone detective's fixation (however extensive).
"BUT WHY?!", someone Might ask. Well... If you happen to be that "someone", here's a spontaneous COMMENT ESSAY with A Take of my own:
Well, in my view, it's not only because every individual has their blindspots (knowledge gaps, selective focus, etc..). But also due to that hyperfunctional "critical mass" quality which characterizes collaborative or cross-fusional intelligence at its best. What I mean is the extra complexity and efficiency generated when varied forms of focalization, perceptivity, interpretivity, expertise, and judgement begin to cross-check and build (or extrapolate) on (or from) each other in civil, balanced, and open-minded ways. For instance, when we are dealing with an "investigation", then collaboratively-cohered conclusions can not only neutralize respective blindspots, but even transcend "sum of parts" altogether in their accuracy or range.
Unfortunately, however, this process can also be dramatically subverted, where various blindspots and (un-interrogated, biased/self-invested, narrow, misinformed, etc...) interpretations are not cross-neutralized, but instead cross-empowered. This can happen through either agreement or opposition of uncritical perspectives and judgements. Among other ways this dynamic manifests, I view it as one of the more lamentable bases of highly partisan online discourse. One way in which this dynamic contrasts with more functional forms of fusion may have to do with the way productive discourse and collaboration tends to be conducted predominantly through instrumentalized acts or/and descriptive expressions (such as by pointing out or bringing in information). The more dysfunctional forms, conversely, tend to be heavy on valuations. And whereas in the productive forms of collaborative problem solving, the dominant metrics for valuation tend to be limited in most cases to "relevance" or "accuracy", elsewhere all sorts of compulsive valuations are brought in from other contexts and usurp the "center stage", often fragmenting, complicating, or obscuring relevant exchanges (what everyone was there to do in the first place). These extra valuations and characterizations (often reductive, based in extrapolating leaps and categorical conjectures) may seem subjectively crucial to individual participants or subgroups. However, they tend to not only fail in contributing to whatever may be construed as shared aims, but even to the group-foundational and supportive aims - such as trust formation, communication building, conflict resolution, and so on - which also demand balanced and civil discourse open to complexity.
Anyhow, I'm getting a bit carried away with these musings... All in all, whatever their specific manifestations may be, the broad impact of such emergences can appear both profoundly mystifying and "all too human" as one gets the sense of their momentously proliferating impacts and capacities, as well as their transhistorical centrality. And indeed, one can see these processes at work everywhere while looking most domains of history: whether scientific history, political histories, or even the history of Pop music. It is taken for granted among many fans and casual listeners alike that what "The Beatles" produced is irreducible to any "sum" or even synthesis of talents/visions". Lastly, I'll bring this public meditation "home" to a domain also discussed by the video (another public meditation): namely, the histories of early tech. Much can be said about that. But I will simply parrot the video and ask whether the real scope and complexity of the industry's rapid development is explicable in terms of that ever-beloved (but especially today) and ever-tired (ditto) myth of "the obsessive genius iconoclast"?
@@alekseycalvin534 you really think anybody will read that bullshit.
"The tragedy of genius is that it requires an audience." Might by why he needs someone.
I'm sure that's what he tells himself. I'm equally sure that he really needs someone because he's often much lonelier than he'd ever admit.
He has John. The fact that they both are emotionally crippled bastards who can't talk things out to save their lives is another matter lmao. (Or a result of Moffit-Gatiss gang's resolve to not let us see Sherlock happy in the later seasons idk)
@@johnathonhaney8291 johnathon you tryna make me cry is that it
Be my Watson find my comment.
@@oof-rr5nf Nah, just doing with Sherlock's psychology what he does with physical evidence and coming to the logical conclusion based upon it.
Lots of respect for Watson. He’s the only person who calls Sherlock out when he needs to be
🛑Charles Darwin:
"Nature evolutionises species"
So
⚠️⚠️⚠️
Sherlock and the tech guys were in right path UNTIL THEY SEE SOME EXCEPTIONAL circumstances that needs human compassion rather than Logic and genius...
The most annoying thing about the loner genius myth is that in reality, self proclaimed geniuses often behave like a-holes.
"haha yea I watch rick and morty. Do you think you can really achieve my intellect levels , you small brained individual."
@@xxalienxx9541 LeL
And often they've convinced themselves they are geniuses because they're not around enough people to be humbled
kashmira raghu almost every example in this video is an example of an autistic person.
@@briandooley1516 That kind of pisses me off as well. In the media characters who are on the autism spectrum or at least highly hinted at to be on the spectrum are often portrayed as people who severely lack empathy or just don't care about others. I know people who have autism and it can be a struggle to connect with others but they still work REALLY hard to do so through kindness, and by trying to be aware of their areas that need improvement.
Really, that was the implied point of the original Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stories if you look at it. Holmes himself even acknowledged that point with this famous quote about Watson: "I am lost without my Boswell." Speaking as a ghostwriter who is frequently isolated himself, the loneliness of being too lost in your own head can be soul-crushing if it goes on too long. Like it or not, we ALL need other people to keep us grounded.
🛑Charles Darwin:
"Nature evolutionises species"
So
⚠️⚠️⚠️
Sherlock and the tech guys were in right path UNTIL THEY SEE SOME EXCEPTIONAL circumstances that needs human compassion rather than Logic and genius...
"This is family."
Sherlock: "That's WHY HE STAYS." Beautiful. Now, that's love.
Being a genius should not equate to being lonely. This presentation is an example that someone can be as smart as he/she can be, and can still have loving, fulfilling relationships.
srami004, thank you.
For someone that claims to be "high - functional sociopath" and genius. Sherlock is also quite a DORK through the series. His favorite phrase is "The game is on!", paint a happy face with yellow sprite, likes quoting Star Strek, thinks high collar coats make him look cool, ask his partner to hold his hand during a run chase, plays a surgery game, plays violin, likes to make dramatic entrances, make random tweets and mooping on a sofa when he is bored.
You say "he thinks high collar coats make him look cool" when in fact they do make him look cool!
I do agree he is an adorable dork.
"High functioning sociopath" is a lie he tells both himself and others. ACTUAL sociopaths have no capacity for empathy period. And that's definitely not true in Sherlock's case. To me, it's a defense mechanism, a way to keep the world away so it never hurts him.
@@johnathonhaney8291 That's why I said he is claiming to be one, it's kinda obvious when you're constantly hearing it through the first episodes.
@@mariapazgonzalezlesme Yeah, the way he bonds with Watson alone puts the lie to it almost immediately.
@Christian Morgan No, no and no again. Listen to an actual mental healthcare professional before speaking of things you know not. I certainly did. Any "meaningful relationship" a sociopath is going to be one-sided at best.
I think it’s also important to point out that navigating and even lead a team towards effective and purposeful productivity requires intelligence. Understanding someone else and tailoring one‘s response accordingly towards a goal, or better, spending time to reflect on oneself and others, isolating what behavior or mindset might have harmful effects, changing both in ourselves and influencing others to do so as well requires intelligence. Sherlock didn’t only become a better person, he became smarter.
This was a personally really difficult lesson to learn. I definitely bought into the genius loner during my Biochemistry years, and it took a masters in innovation, entrepreneurship and management to not only realize that this would not work in that context, but also realize that I could be a much better scientist if I let go of that ego-stroking myth. As a black woman and as someone with a bit of a social anxiety problem I think this myth was a poor and immature way to make myself feel better and overcompensate to prove I belonged, but I learned my lesson. There’s still so much I don’t know but I look forward to work on my weaknesses.
To me, a true sign of genuine intelligence is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. One of the most pernicious offshoots of the loner genius myth is the notion that their Plan A always works as designed. As I'm certain your own experience has proven, that almost never happens out in the real world. It's another reason why you need a good team with you. Based on your post, sounds like you're adapting exactly as you need to, ma'am.
That's inspiring- and not only for scientists!
In the BBC series John Watson was elevated to a more important level than in the original stories. And yes, the series also focuses on him. The writers clearly had fun drawing inspiration from the original stories and adapting the character of Sherlock Holmes in an unconventional way. But their decision to make John more than an outside observer and delve into his character was good. Beneath that impartial, mild and kind manner, he was driven by a need to be involved in dangerous situations, and since he was not the sort of person who would be that introspective, it required Sherlock to dragged him out of his dull existence.
For Sherlock, he could have no better friend than John because he correctly realized that Sherlock was brilliant but also an idiot and he would more often than not run into danger to prove himself clever and right.
John was tolerant enough for his behaviour, level headed enough to keep him grounded and in touch with his surroundings and loyal enough to always believe in him.
If you’re a real genius.
You write complicated theorems and equations on windows or mirrors.
lmaooooo
Hollywood tropes are so hilarious
😂
obviously
Or you’re a cannibal who enjoys liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti.
@@RobertJBarnes Hannibal Lecter wants to know your location.
I love how a masterpiece like Sherlock can actually change the way you think and guides you to a deeper meaning, not just entertain you
Lol finding the deeper meaning in sherlock is like looking at a puddle and being told it is a lake.
mariam bardia, that’s why it’s a masterpiece. I love it!
Sherlock has the brain to be a scientist yet elects to be a detective. What does that say abt his heart...
Do you not find it ironic that a man with this much outer knowledge has such a lack of inner knowledge to be able to figure out how much heart he has?
Be my Watson, find my comment.
yeah I think at least some people could've taken that moment (still only at the start of s3) as not really all that meaningful, Mycroft speaking in a sort of riddle which he's wont to do, especially when after John just shrugs, Mycroft finishes "Me either, but the first thing he wanted to be when we were children was a pirate!"
But it seems to me there actually is a fairly clear, simple answer (exactly as there is to the "which pill do you take" conundrum of the pilot episode). That he may not even be fully conscious of it, but deep down he WANTS to actually connect with others in a real, everyday sort of helpful way. And which isn't to make a judgement about scientists and there's not a lot of honor to be had in being one, but that's much more about the focus of the work and the THING being studied (except I suppose a "social scientist", those are a thing, right?)
He does not have an intellect to be a scientist. He is too literal and lacks creativity and imagination. You need an incredible amount of imagination to be a great scientist. He also lacks scientific curiosity. He did not know and did not care that earth revolves around the sun. By nature, scientists are incredibly curious about everything, even if the answer does not have any apparent practical uses. Sherlock has an intellect that is the exact opposite of a great scientific mind.
@@badquestion4785 he is SOME sort of intellect, maybe not that of a scientist but he has great knowledge of facts. He is curious but selectively. He might not exhibit behavior of a scientist but he is definitely an intellect.
But Sherlock's relationship with Watson and his relying on him exists in the original Doyle stories. It's only our pop culture of the last eighty or so years that perpetuated the longer myth. "Modern Sherlock' didn't invent Sherlock's secret need for friends and company, that was always in the lore. You even see it in The Great Mouse detective.
True.
I watched the great mouse detective for the first time and imo, basil just annoyed me pretty much the entire time he was on screen. Like, if Basil wasn’t such an arrogant, annoying butthead every two seconds, he might’ve been likable. Even though he annoyed me throughout most of the film, at least he got humbled in the end. Even his arch nemesis, Ratigan annoyed me. The only characters that didn’t annoy me was the young girl, her father, Ratigan’s bat sidesick, and all of the side characters. Other than that, it was pretty good.
I think Lisbeth Salander (Millenium trilogy) could be considered an exemple of not-so-stereotyped loner genius and a example of a great and complex female character.
Oh geez, I was going to comment that! My favourite INTJ.
I was trying to remember female characters that fit this, she immediately came to mind. And Bones... That's about all the women that I can think of(on fiction)
LMFAO!
Yess
Totally agree.
I've always thought that Sherlock is the character that cares and feels the most in the show - so much so that it frightens him. We see this slowly through out seasons 1 and 2 but it really comes to the forefront in season 3's His Last Vow where Sherlock sacrifices literally everything (his career, his reputation, his London, his life) to save the woman who tried to kill him, all because he wanted John to be happy. And then in season 4's The Lying Detective, he nearly kills himself trying to save John from himself (at the insistence of aforementioned woman who tried to kill him just a few months ago). Sherlock has repreatedly sacrificed so much for John Watson but I think the most important thing is that when said woman almost killed him and when he was struggling to stay alive, it was the thought of John being in danger from the woman that quite literally brings him back to life. Sherlock Holmes would die for John Watson, but he will also claw his way back to life for his best freind (and possible love of his life). Very few characters would ever do that. A lot of them say they will but are never placed in the position to prove it. Sherlock gets placed in such situations all the time, and at every point, he chooses John Watson.
And that's a faithful representation of the source material. Dr. John Watson is Sherlock's anchor to the world around him and in many ways his interpreter when it comes to their fellow humans. The best versions of Watson have serious flaws themselves but that just makes his presence around Sherlock all the more necessary.
🛑Charles Darwin:
"Nature evolutionises species"
So
⚠️⚠️⚠️
Sherlock and the tech guys were in right path UNTIL THEY SEE SOME EXCEPTIONAL circumstances that needs human compassion rather than Logic and genius...
She doesn't check every box mentioned here, but Dr. Temperance Brennan from Bones would probably fit into the "Loner Genius" archetype.
And is a woman which is against there thesis
Gosh, I totally forgot about her! You are on point. She is a great exception to the rule because the show actually is very upfront about the fact that her being an asshole is a real issue and does not expect us to be swept up in her charisma all the time. The romantic/platonic relationships on the show also develop pretty well. I never got into it (maybe because I was absolutely sick of crime procedurals by the time my family started watching it) but it seemed like a decent well-done show.
@@melissaroscher1080 What? That's not how anything works. The thesis is 'A Trope Exists and Sherlock resists an element of that trope'. Tropes aren't invalidated just because some variation exists. Read TV Tropes page on 'what is a trope', they're about a pattern.
A character existing in overlap with a trope literally can't invalidate a trope by their existence, that's because tropes are just the answer to the question "What Pattern Exists?" - tropes reflect the common patterns, just like averages.
If the average age people get married is 25, that average is not going to be invalidated just because someone gets married at 70.
Likewise, if you have 80 dude genius characters vs 5 women genius characters, then the dudes traits are going to largely define the trope, as well as suggest which type of character will be more likely represent the trope. That statement doesn't suggest something else can't exist, it just tells you what the expected trope, the norm, is for a character who fits those traits.
Brennan is interesting and great, but she doesn't go against their thesis, she supports it, by being the character archetype they're talking about and fitting the trope so closely in almost every way-- it just happens she's not the same as the archetype in 1 key way. That's not a bad thing, but she doesn't tip or change the average.
Bones is hell of problematic, actually. I'm an archaeologist because of her, I like it a lot, but there are several issues. They made her a genius, which she is, but most likely she also has a social disorder too. I wouldn't know which, I don't study that but that is transparent. They also portrait Booth as her saviour of herself and her own social awkwardness. That's not ok. Neurodivergent people don't need to be saved/controlled by neurotypicals. Also, they make Cam the leader but give her little to no power, that's messed up. Hodgins as the handicap who is hateful to everyone was awful. And there was also Zac, her assistant, who fits the lonely genius trope almost perfectly. Booth also engages in police brutality, sometimes to people who prove to be innocent, but we ignore it bc he's "the good guy".
I feel most people look at the BBC series Sherlock with too many incorrect notions. The first, most important part, from my perspective, is the protagonist is actually John Watson, not Sherlock. When Sherlock and Watson's wife discuss with John the type of person John attracts, realize the catalyst for all the adventures is Dr. Watson. All characters shown fit within parameters to who and what Watson is attracted to. Problem solving is run through Sherlock (as that is an important function), but character growth, development, ideas and ideals happen because Watson exists. If it were only Sherlock, we would have episode #1, and then Sherlock will be ostracized by "normal" society and no other episodes happen. John gives agency as an interface between genius, socio- and psycho- path, normal society, and character and plot development.
There is so much more, but damn, I am losing focus. Just go back and rewatch Sherlock, but think of John Watson as the "god" character, and everyone else as his imagination. I find this series that much better when I ran it from that point of view. Sherlock is the genius that does figure things out, but that is only one facet of about eight this series highlights, and Watson is the rest of the cuts.
Well, the novel was written from dr. Watson persperctive.
I am a simple woman: I see Sherlock Holmes, I click. I didn't even read the video title😂.
You see Benedict Cumberbatch. ;-)
Same
@@firstnamelastname4751 how dare you
i do really care about your name
Arunima Tiwari Oh... ok, I’m Sophie, Hi!
@@firstnamelastname4751 Hey. :)
Sherlock Holmes is my all time favourite character
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's legacy kind of ruins the tradition of sherlock's character.
props. Since I was old enough to even realize I could have a favorite fictional character of all time, it was Sherlock Holmes.
well, other than god :-p lol
Sorry but shrek takes the cake to the greatest character ever.
@@wall57805 Sherlock is the most adopted character of all time. Shrek is nothing but a tiny dust particle compared to Sherlock.
@@johnvogel6620 how?
Sherlock represents a man who has the healthy balance of being a loner and someone who values his family or friends but even though he ultimately follows his own path overall and follows his compass he does understand the value of relationships such as family and friends and the ability to allow himself to feel emotion
This video illustrates several of the reasons why I don't generally tell people in my life that I'm a "genius". I don't consider it something to brag about, because I didn't earn it and while it certainly is advantageous in many ways, it also causes me problems.
IQ isn't static -- you can work to increase your IQ, over time -- and it only measures one kind of intelligence. It also tells you nothing whatsoever about a person's character -- whether they're a *Good Person*.
When I tell people I'm considered a genius (tbh, though, I cringe at that word), usually in the context of expressing feelings about the problems it's caused me, they often react badly. They might suddenly see me as aloof, even though I've never behaved that way, and assume that I think it makes me better than them (I don't and it doesn't). They might assume it means that I can't maintain healthy, respectful relationships with others, even though being an outstanding friend to the people who are most important to me is something at which I constantly strive to be better.
The *Best Person* I've ever known is an intellectually disabled, middle-aged woman. I'm immensely fortunate to have earned her friendship and it pains me that she has such a low opinion of herself, because she's spent her entire life being treated as less-than, because she's "not clever". The ableism baked into the way we, as a society, view intelligence is infuriating, to me. She's by far the best mother I've ever known (and her sons will fucking FIGHT you if you try to assert otherwise, lol), an immensely loving, patient and supportive wife, and an outstanding friend. ALL of those things are far more valuable than being "clever" and she deserves to be valued accordingly.
She has so much to teach others and I've personally learned a great deal from her. People miss out on so much by dismissing her.
because saying "I'm a genius" comes with the implied "and you are not". Genius is one of those things that only sounds good out of someone else's mouth.
@@artemiss7106 To be frank even the words "You're such a genius" has some uncomfortable connotations, the most prominent of them being "You are successful because of something you have no control over." I suggest we discard the genius label at once and praise people of being methodical, articulate, well-researched, knowledgeable and such.
There will NEVER be a time when I don't cry while watching Sherlock's speech at John's wedding.
This video was so interesting, and geniuses truly fascinates me.
"And then John Watson enters the picture ..." Indeed. This tv show is not really about Sherlok Holmes, the smart detective. But more about John and Sherlock, the beautiful friendship (or more ?).
Just subscribed, your channel is so diverse and your videos are truly captivating.
I like how Sherlock dosent have an end date at the begging (when the name appears at the bottom) like they are also in denial
This is both painful and hilarious
Being a genius definitely increases your chances of being a grumpy loner. There are many reasons:
1) while most can speak in simple terms to others, they lack people that truly understand them, even more so when you skip a couple of classes and end up years younger than anyone else working in your field. Especially this gap during childhood and puberty can be devastating for learning social interactions and becoming comfortable in social interactions.
2) Smart people are excellent at analysing things, which comes with the drawback that they can spot problems everywhere. They see all the flaws of their friends, they understand how fragile our society is and most smart people see no place for a god, which also brings an even higher burden on them (no purpose in life; no reason to hope that after suffering and hard work you´ll get to see good times etc.)
3) a true genius has typically an overactive mind. Our normal minds are lazy. They try to make shortcuts everywhere and that´s how we fall for so many fallacies and become that biased. However, if you can´t slow down your mind, it needs to be occupied! Most social interactions simply won´t do, which leaves for many only their work, or art. Thus many of them work like crazy and get really cranky when something keeps them from keeping their mind busy. The latter is particularly bad when your mind then focusses on all the bad things.
4) as mentioned in 2) smart people often see things others can´t and one of them is cause and effect. When you know what triggers a reaction in another person, you´ll start doubting free will. If you´re a genius and happen to be the rare breed that also excels in social interactions, then you can manipulate the majority of people around you. That may sound like fun at first, but it increases the distance between you and others.
6) in accordance with the prior points, many geniuses suffer from depression, or bipolar disorder unless they are autistic or a psychopath
5) also, there are many extremely sharp minds, that are insanely good at specific tasks, but don´t find any recognition for it and worse, they find no way to contribute to the society while tapping into their genius. Such cases tend to end up hurting others or themselves.
Why do I feel this so much
I'll add that extremely intelligent people often find people of average intelligence and interests to be downright boring. It's no fun to hang around with people who are conversing about pointless topics that mean noting to you, and don't understand or care about a thing that you find to be interesting or important. You find youself making notes on symbolism, camera angles, use of light and colour, script and pacing, and other aspects of film theory during a really well made movie; everyone else just wants to eat popcorn and see how the story ends. At least that's why nobody would watch Sherlock with me - that and I kept solving the puzzles before the pretty boys did.
@@neuralmute It´s rare, but I´ve seen people that knew little and weren´t the brightest, but still asked the right questions. They asked about things, you´re used to but, never questioned yourself and you can´t answer it immediately either. It´s like with little kids. I once heard that a cleaning maid _solved_ a very complex problem, by asking about why something looked weird and that weirdness was exactly what the smart people had overlooked...
It makes me wonder what kills that curiosity and creativity in most of our colleagues... It usually only remains in smart people and artists.
Number 3 is very true for me.
@@edi9892 One matter is that I would guess that the maid in your story was likely undereducated and underemployed - she was likely much smarter than even she knew. As for what kills curiousity and creativity, I'm sure that how we're educated and socialised into conformity and complacency has quite a lot to do with it. When it's not cool to ask questions in class, or want to study something that interests you just for what Richard Feynman called "the joy of finding things out", people stop caring. They assume that those things are for the Lone Geniuses, not for them. And speaking from the position of advanced degrees in both psychology and visual art, I think that it's a sad, sorry shame that so many people are missing so many of the wonders that life has to offer. I think of how even at age three my eldest niece could be completely awed and enraptured by going to the ballet, and I wish more people would try to regain that capacity to appreciate the "uncool", but incredible things that we're capable of!
You think you could do a disection of the show "Hannibal" based on red dragon. It is very good and interesting and would love your take on it?
Love the videos!
Will and Hannibal dynamic!
Gosh please cover the tv show!!!!! I love it so much. It is not a faithful adaptation by any means, but it is such a good show.
Yes please! We really need videos on Hannibal tv series. One of the most underrated shows of all time.
@@grimmortal Prateek? What up, Indian fam (I assume)!?
@@oof-rr5nf 100% haha.. Haven't come across such top video essays on tv shows since Wisecrack. How's it going?
Am I the only one who thinks Sheldon Cooper is not a genius, but only a sociapath with an eidetic memory?
Probably not but you'd still be wrong.
@@johnathonhaney8291 Ok. And why do you think that is?
What has Sheldon ever done that was intelligent and not just acting intelligent or showing of his huge knowledge?
@@Wastydest The way he clings to the same people over the long run...his fellow nerds, his mom and anyone else he lets into his orbit. Sociopaths have ZERO empathy, full stop. That means they have no ability to bond whatsoever. Sheldon wants to impress the world, sure. He is frequently rude, peevish and has thoroughly inadequate social skills, agreed. But the few people he lets into his inner circle, he treasures. No sociopath could pull that off.
@@Dycehart He is not autistic. The writers even said so.
@@johnathonhaney8291 No sociopath is 100% sociopathic.
Watching this video, I remember something that I have had in my mind few years ago that to perform well in any activity you must devoid yourself from your surroundings and sometimes you should be antisocial so that others can only see you as a genius which I have injected into me watching this type of tv shows and movies. Later when I went to college, I saw many friends who are really smart and way more socially active than me. That's when I realised that this isn't true just the way you have said in the video
Glad that you learned!
The take on House would be awesome. Still waiting on the take of scandal. Good video!
Omg yess
🛑Charles Darwin:
"Nature evolutionises species"
So
⚠️⚠️⚠️
Sherlock and the tech guys were in right path UNTIL THEY SEE SOME EXCEPTIONAL circumstances that needs human compassion rather than Logic and genius...
This was the same case in house! He keeps pretending as if he doesn’t care about anything at all, but we see his soft side with cuddy and his softest side with Wilson. Wilson does something to house that makes him feel a comfort and feel like he doesn’t have to put up a face that’s inhuman. The series ends with him and Wilson to show that above everything, his job his love life or his ‘I don’t care’ nature he chooses Wilson i.e, he chooses emotion
I feel confident in my understanding of the point they were trying to make with Euros, but at least in the actual "The Final Problem" episode, the machinations of how the plot plays out seem to have moments that directly contradict it. Most especially the switcheroo that the "little girl in an uncontrolled airplane" isn't real, it's a metaphor for the very core of Euros' problem. Except as I understand to be the case with most severe mental illness (it would seem fair to call it that, no?) they're incapable of being AWARE of their actual problem. But for Euros to pull off everything in the episode as she does, she obviously is abundantly aware of it. In the beginning she's physically there at the Sherrinford island operating whatever controls to go back and forth interacting with our 3, and masquerading as the girl on the plane. Then once they're all knocked out, she has to get them to each of their next traps and herself into the upstairs of the ancestral home. She then must very knowingly put herself into that sort of trance in which Sherlock finds her when he's finally "solving" it all. It just seems rather disingenuous to me, and why, as much as I can't stand to say it (& I swear I don't mean for this to go into an involved battle about the merits of series 4), I have a lot of problems with what they did in that episode and throughout series 4.
another great portrayal of genius is maura isles from rizzoli and isles. maura is easily the smartest person in any room, even when her abilities extend beyond her field of knowledge. yet, her parnership and friendship with jane makes her better at her job and a more round human being, being able to apreciate all the aspects of life beyond work. at the end of the day, the two badass solve murders and celebrate in the pub
Why I watch The Take by Screen Prism's video -
Excellent Interpretation - 10%
Amazing Voice of Susanah - 20%
To watch some amazing scenes of my favourite shows - 70%
11:15 what you say about James Damore is not correct, he did not say what you paraphrase.
The spin doctor at work. Diversity is our strength.
You could hear the anger in her voice
I think he kinda did. Lol. It's okay though.
@@Cunnysmythe definitely
@Shirley Timple Straight to Trump, huh.
I'll have to remember never to describe a woman as being angry again; I had no idea it meant I was somehow commenting on her menstrual cycle
Thank you SO MUCH for covering this trope! I'm writing a detective series, and you've perfectly articulated my thoughts on the Loner Genius trope.
Tech and Science attract geniuses because they both give them something to do. Tech and Science are both expansive, they both provide limitless challenges. The thing about a genius mind is that You Can't Turn It Off. The only other option is insanity. If you can't keep your mind busy you WILL seek out distractions like Sex, Drugs, or Alcohol... if you're lucky. Others seek out more destructive distractions.
And even with the Tech and Science, they might STILL fall into those distractions because their brain refuses to turn off. It's why having a good support network is SO critical.
Are you implying there's nothing to do in fields that aren't tech or science? 😂 Personally I believe they go this way because society rewards them for doing so and conditions them to.
What about art? It also provides limitless challenges. I mean, anything can be art these days, so I think there's plenty possibilities to keep them occupied.
Reichi Kirisaki
Art in the modern day has no meaning
Failing to recognize that other people might have empathy is not logical, it is precisely illogical. This is the problem with portrayals of logic in shows like Star Trek and Sherlock. If she were acting logically, then she would recognize that her own subjective experience in the world cannot be extrapolated out to the general population. That is a leap in logic. If she were acting logical, she would observe Sherlock's behavior over time, induce character traits by recognizing patterns in behavior, and then predict accordingly. She should have recognized the pattern suggesting empathy in Sherlock, and she would have been able to predict his response.
Logic and emotion are a false dichotomy. You can reason about emotions, and you can be emotional while reasoning.
Your comparison of the loner genius stereotype to Damore makes no sense. Damore merely made the point that tech involves working with things and ideas, rather than people. Working out how to build a circuit board requires no social skills. Recognizing this does not mean logic and empathy are cut off from one another. It just means some problems don't involve empathy, even if others do.
Also, the shoehorning of the white male aspect of the stereotype at the end is funny. It had nothing to do with the rest of the content. You did nothing to justify the diversity claim.
🛑Charles Darwin:
"Nature evolutionises species"
So
⚠️⚠️⚠️
Sherlock and the tech guys were in right path UNTIL THEY SEE SOME EXCEPTIONAL circumstances that needs human compassion rather than Logic and genius...
PLEASE look into Hannibal! It has so much symbolism and theme - y’all would love it!
James Damore never said women weren't fit to work in tech. He merely gave an explanation for why there weren't more women in tech.
And I'm sure that had nothing to do with the feminist movement only being fifty years old, societal discouragement of women in the workplace in America and elsewhere and institutionalized soft bigotry that continues to discourage women so inclined towards a field to come forward. To paraphrase an ex-employee of Stanley Kubrick, as a tech boy, Damore may well have been a genius. As a sociologist, he was an imbecile.
@@johnathonhaney8291 Do you disagree with the claim that there are on average personality differences between men and women?
@@MCMasters4ever I disagree that they have anything to do with the gender disparity in the tech field. The problem with Damore's premise is that it ignores too many other factors in play to be taken seriously by anybody except direct beneficiaries of the status quo. It's sloppy pseudoscience that puts a friendly face on a cultural myth and contrary to what some people would like for you to believe, it's not the first time science has been twisted to fit the results of the status quo.
@@johnathonhaney8291 Do you really suggest that they have *nothing* to do with it? Because that's basically Damore's premise, that they *do* have some factor that has nothing to do with hiring bias.
1. Unless you truly believe that personality traits don't differ on average by sex or
2.that personality doesn't affect job choice
it appears to me that you're the one ignoring too many factors, saying it's just because of oppression and bias of Google.
Which one is it?
@@johnathonhaney8291 Exactly, very well put.
I've worked in tech for nearly a decade, self taught. From what I've seen, the actual work of programming is not the issue (it's a kind of literacy). Saying women can't program is like saying they can't read or write. It's ridiculous. It's simply a matter of exposure.
A much bigger problem that's very easy to spot is tech bro culture and people being hired to fit that culture. There are women i know who have left tech because of it. There are many women i know who keep their programming a hobby or freelance because of it. The culture that pervades the tech industry raises men up while pushing many women away. Then assholes use pseudoscientific drivel to explain it away as a biological inevitability rather than grapple with reality.
I love Sherlock so much. Please do more vids about the show.
I just came from one of my favorite Review Channels "the closer look" and was absolutely heartbroken to find out what he was criticizing about the last episode of season two and the "downfall" from that moment on.
Yes, when I watched Sherlock for the first time I also didn't like what BBC did there. But now that I've researched it, I discovered it was better than I had it in memory.
Now that I found your video today I'm very delighted to have found out what it was, that made it better and more "okay" to have an actual character development. I love your hypothesis bc it reflects critically on our society - how we think of "smart person's" and what we SHOULD think about them. Great video. Thanks a lot for your efforts!
That's not a loner genius myth, that's called having a character arc. As you've proven with Eurus.
She's a loner genius, too. Some of them never get the arc to begin with. It can go both ways.
I'm so happy you've done Sherlock analysis
Halt and Catch Fire was really good at showing the genius of female programmers.
Love Sherlock, btw
I loved that show! I think it's such a bummer people hardly watched it. And kudos to AMC for keeping it alive for four seasons (I suspect the success of the walking dead allowed them to keep on with the smaller, not that successful by a mile shows). I would love to see a video of Halt and Catch Fire on this channel
Hey, don't take away one of the few places anti-social behaviour is considered acceptable! Society worships social extroverts while regarding solitary folks as suspect and useless. It's tough out here when you thrive on working alone. Just the term "team work" makes us break out in a sweat. Great vid.
Don't think that's what they're doing, fellow introvert, more like separating the "genius" from the "loner". That combo is fast becoming a popular myth with a lot of angry insecure white boys who are a LOT more social than you and me. So, in a certain sense, THEY'RE the ones trying to take that away from us by claiming that they or their heroes are "misunderstood".
Anti-social behavior shouldn't be acceptable, ever!
Doesn't matter if you're introvert or extrovert
@@william41017 'Anti-social' in North America just means 'not especially socialite'. It's not like ASBO or rude behaviour. I'm assuming this is an across-the-pond miscommunication, but I might be wrong of course.
I think it just so happens that they’re anti social. Plus, don’t you think there’s some kind of elitism / snobby attitude that’s starting to uprise in introverts? People start to act like they’re better and smarter than extroverts, hating them and underestimating their intelligence. Just an observation from a fellow introvert.
@@-_--_-8614 There's something to that theory, I admit. It parallels ugly developments I've seen pop up (or just now noticed...I'll admit to being no Sherlock) in nerd culture, where such inflated egos and unwarranted superiority/inferiority complexs are taking virulent form. It leaves me to wonder if this is a product of the zeitgeist shifting time we live in or just a recurring symptom of the human condition.
about time you talked about BBC's Sherlock😄
I started to watch Sherlock this week so this vid came at the perfect time
I'm beyond disappointed on your take on the James D'amore case. He is a brave man who refused to be institutionally bullied into the hive mind. His paper merely tries to explain a phenomenon by a different, more scientific lense. It is true that there are substantial differences between men and women. He didn't say women couldn't work in tech, he said that ratio of women-men in technology might be explained for the aforementioned differences instead of being just a result of sexist discrimination. Please, I BEG YOU, anyone reading this comment take media reports with a grain of salt. Don't read magazines and instead get informed both by the original source and the current scientific research. I'm a woman who loves tech, but as many others, I'm more inclined to pursue another type of career. Not saying there's no such thing as workplace discrimination (James never said that either) but it's definitely not all there is to it.
when people use words like "hive mind" you know their arguments are weak if not baseless.
James Damore wasn't fired for saying any of those things mentioned in your video. He was fired by Intersectional Identitarian ideologues for quoting scientific studies that came to those conclusions and for daring to suggest two pages of ways to be more inclusive to women without pandering to the victim narratives that the ideologues live by.
...by cherrypicking scientific studies...*
What I'm not crying over Sherlock and Watson's beautiful friendship that's just ridiculous
best series i have ever watched
poor you
You must be brainwashed to think that garbage was good.
@@johnvogel6620 It was not the best show but it was certainly not the garbage.
This may be your best and most important video yet. Thank you.
I must admit I never liked theses kind of characters. Lacking empathy is never interesting to me no matter how genius you are!
MVS_Maïa, true. What makes them interesting to me though is their humanity, and how it shows.
@@tiffanypersaud3518 I don't like how all fictional geniuses are always considered that way because they know science, math, technology and how to be a detective. There are more ways to be a genius than being booksmart, and I wish more shows and films would explore that
I love that it rejects the stereotype. The show that broke my heart that tried to reject it then unfortunately subverted itself inna finale I STILL cannot bring myself to watch was House M.D.
As an autistic/ADHD female, I 'd like to clarify that basically shutting down the useless social-lies-and-manipulation-bullshit portion of your brain will actually free up *loads* for endless fun mental computing and analysis. And yes, 99% of people are trivial and slow AF and intolerable to be around LOL. Just watching this show makes me feel more comfortable than spending real life time with most people. A few people in my life are the exception. This show is comforting to my brain. Fast pace is good
Cool. Don't you love how people use fictional characters to try to prove some point?
I do like the idea from Good Will Hunting of being a Genius Janitor.
That way you solve tough problems and also show the world the common emptiness of status.
You guys are more than amazing! God bless you and your efforts!
We can always count on the TH-cam comment section to reveal all the hidden geniuses of the internet
So true! I feel like I'm living through a second Age of Enlightenment when I read them
The Snark is strong in this one!
After you brought up the idea of Sherlock ignoring technology (I thought of how he hated John's blog) & being a human computer, I remembered how Moriarty used his phone to break into The Tower of London; Bank of England and Pentoville Prison, and how he uses the internet as his weapon. Sort of seems to be a inverse mirroring of the two.
Please don't legitimize season 4, we don't talk about season 4.
AMEN!
I think that episode 2 was extremely good and episode 3 a decent conclusion of the saga
Hey, for me their positive spin made the thought of the end more bearable. I can now see what they were going for. They just did a reeeally bad job at it.
Why was something wrong with it? I think it was extremely good.
Season 4 is incredible.
A lot of these geniuses show signs that they are on the autism spectrum. This normalization of the loner genius can be toxic to autistic people because they relate to the characters and they see the loneliness being glorified. Autistic people tend to have difficulty interacting with people. It can be exhausting, and it's easy to give up. Some autistic people can start to define themselves by their loner tendencies and that is dangerous because no matter what, we are social animals.
It's interesting the way people these days vilify Thomas Edison for taking credit for other people's work (as opposed to Tesla, who worked alone), instead of praising Edison for being an effective team leader.
11:19 James Damore did NOT say women were unsuited or incapable to work in tech, he said women choose not to work in tech because their interests tend to be are elsewhere.
And he's full of shit because all he knows is the bubble he lives in. The resemblance between this and old arguments on African Americans being unintelligent is anything but a coincidence.
Johnathon Haney
That’s a false equivalency. Women and Men having different average interests can be chalked up to an observation of Data. Intelligence is almost completely up to the individual. For real man, this white knight shit your doing doesn’t seem to be doing you any favors.
Great video! This was pretty much exactly what I loved about the show.
I don't think the "Loner/Anti-Social Genius" is necessarily a myth... think of people like Isaac Newton. On the other hand other great geniuses such as Leonardo da Vinci were far more gregarious.
The mistake some people make is to try and affix "genius" to a single particular archetype. But like with every other character trait it can occur and manifest in a lot of different ways.
That said like any unusual trait it comes with a high risk of social/emotional isolation due to a lack of commonality with peers, and it'd be foolish to deny that many highly intelligent people struggle with that in some way or the other.
But that only makes me appreciate the show more, to see someone climb out of that.
The Aspie Archetype, no one did better than Sherlock's writers.
Agreed!
As a possible Aspie myself (I've never been formally diagnosed but that is the prevailing suspicion), I admit to some ambivalence about the term. The actual Dr. Asperger apparently used to feed the extermination camps of the Nazis with many of his patients who were deemed "mentally defective". Not something I want to be associated with...
That said, yes, Sherlock is definitely more that than the "high-functioning sociopath" lie he tells people.
@@johnathonhaney8291 you definitely are though.
@@johnathonhaney8291I was diagnosed with Asperger's before the term had any controversy, I love being an Aspie, that term means a lot to me, so I'm keeping it, it's mine, haha
@@bzporto Hey, just saying what's good for me. Works for you, I've no right to gainsay you.
Funny how that most if not all are men....how about some women like Lisbeth salander
Or my favourite fictional detective, Miss Jane Marple!
Funny how women made this video yet didn’t include her
@@snakesandsticks Would you ever consider making it yourself? I agree that it's an important subject that needs highlighting. Oh and should you ever need a good reference on forgotten women throughout history, including scientific pioneers, might I recommend Rejected Princesses, both the website and book collections?
@@johnathonhaney8291 Rejected Princesses is wonderful stuff - I've been following them from the start, and am so glad to see how they've thrived! The reason we don't know about so many of these powerful and capable women is that the history books were written by men - men who felt terribly threatened by the idea of women holding power.
@@neuralmute Indeed...I was actually lucky enough to find Rejected Princesses through Pinterest. It makes a nice counter-narrative to so much of the BS.
Its just wonderful to see, how something lives beyond
Thank you, Arthur Conan Doyle
I would love it if you guys could do an analysis of House M.D. that would be awesome!
This was a great video as usual 👌
Great breakdown as always ladies! Keep it up!
Why you guys haven’t started looking into Evangelion actually surprises me.
That’s a lie about James Damore. He wrote a paper on why there’s less women in tech fields. He never spoke in absolutes. He’s not a misogynist. This is a flat out lie. It’s also a fact that people with a lack of interest in people tend to have some antisocial behavior.
I would hope you would at least have to courage to correct that awful destruction of character. At least edit that out of the video.
Exactly!
Video: Let's not promote damaging myths!
Also Video: (Commits literal slander)
He's a soft bigot who reiterated a myth that no longer is accepted. For being that tone-deaf and, yes, stupid, I have no pity for him.
@@johnathonhaney8291 why are you ao enraged i keep seeing you so angry in all these coment feeds
@@doctorstrange5773 **Shrug** Some things just piss me off and I'm not very shy on saying it out loud. I have a particular problem with liars.
Completely agreed. I'm tired of controversial subjects being brushed under the rug by casually stating one side as fact.
Finally!!!!!!! A BBC Sherlock featurette!!!!!
Great analysis! Would love to see a video on Moriarty
🛑Charles Darwin:
"Nature evolutionises species"
So
⚠️⚠️⚠️
Sherlock and the tech guys were in right path UNTIL THEY SEE SOME EXCEPTIONAL circumstances that needs human compassion rather than Logic and genius...
You should look at the series 'The Librariand' on TNT. It's comprised of a cast of geniuses working together to both save the world and be better people. It does a lot to make geniuses look less like robots
I'm starting to love this channel more and more
For real! For instance, I cannot stand more than a few clips of Breaking Bad (no judgment against the show or people who love it...it's just not for me). Yet I adore the in-depth analyses that this channel has run on the series to the point of repeat viewings.
Do not question. Diversity is our strength.
Thank you. I have noticed more and more believe analytic folks, creative folks, and INTJ folks are somehow deficient in morals, mental health, and then deny such assumptions are from pop culture and pop psychology.
I really liked the video until you misrepresented Damore's memo. It felt disingenuous since there's plenty of better examples of that mindset. Damore did not try to say that women shouldn't be in tech because they're too emotional. He said more men are better suited for programming because they're more interested in things than people. Which is true. Genius certainly doesn't exclude women, but it statistically tends to manifest in areas beyond math and programming.
This is the truth. It was fine until they brought in the spin. Diversity is our strength.
" men are... more interested in things than people" is not true. A man who is alone or lonely bc he is socially awkward or outcast is not 'more interested in things', he's just short on social options.
MadAboutSaffron Red What she probably means is men’s interests are more thing oriented. Not exactly that men are more interested in things.
Please can you make a video on Michael Scofield, he’s a genius in his own right but in a different way. Like other ‘typical’ geniuses he uses logical thought and can plan ahead in inexplicable ways. But his main difference to these people, is that he understands emotions incredibly well and uses other people, some that he doesn’t particular like, in order to create a team because he knows it’s going to get what he needs done quicker. He completely rewrites what it means to be a genius because he is a genius logically and emotionally, which makes him so much more likeable because he seems like a ‘normal’ human being in the surface with a genius mindset. Another point to make as well is he isn’t arrogant with it. In fact he plays it down as much as possible due to how humble he is and the fact that it could ruin his escape. He has such a unique dynamic it would make for such an interesting video. All the best
Intellectually superior, eye for detail, speaks at rapid rate? You show Good Will Hunting... but the wrong guy.
Of course Robin Williams was a genius.
I recently started watching Sherlock with my sisters and I like it. I like the Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Jr. more though. This one is still nice however. As I was watching it I found I could relate to Sherlock in his desire to demonstrate and prove his intelligence(at least it seems he likes to even though he acts callous and dismissive of his observers.I think deep in him he wants to prove himself to others, not just to satisfy his sense of knowledge.) , even though I am not as bold as he is nor do I demonstrate it in the way he does. I find it better through writing than speaking since I am very bad at communicating or talking to people a lot of times. I actually like the beginning seasons more, not just because they seem better than the later ones, but also because Sherlock distances himself and is more dismissive of his friends. He becomes more aware of his friend's feelings and empathizes with them more in the later seasons. I think it's because I know that you need to acknowledge and foster the relationships and friendships you have even though you want to be alone and think you can do it all yourself. I see Sherlock and how he grows that way and I am almost disappointed by it because I inwardly know that telling myself to cut myself off from everyone and that it's so stupid and a waste of time to get wrapped up emotionally with other people's problems or relationships won't benefit me in the long run. That's what the series is telling me about myself. People aren't perfect (I am far from perfect, nor am I that smart) and so I have to, like Sherlock, cope with and/or accept people into my life, flaws and all.
bloody brilliant
If you are under the age of 12, yes, otherwise 3/10 brilliancy.
Two unskippable ads, one skippable ad AND an in-video promotion?! That’s a bit excessive, don’t you think?
I'm not sure your use of anti social is appropriate all the time, as a word to describe Sherlock. More asocial.
Sherlock does reject social etiquettes willingly in that regard he is antisocial, but asocial, he is, most of the time, he doesn't have friends (at first) he has a preference to be alone because he's suspicious of people, most of whom he knows to be selfish and unworthy of trust, but people grow on him just as he on them, like Batman at times.
Andrianarinivo this ^. Most people misuse ‘antisocial’
@@JW-dh3nc
Right, Sherlock isn't really antisocial, he is just unsociable because he doesn't really know how to deal with people.
Please do video essays about House. I'd kill for this content!
By far my fav yt channel!
Finally... HIM!
Thank you.
Great video, a much needed one for our present society..
I want to point out that House is also not a traditional loner genius. He has a team and often he needs his team/Wilson to help solve his cases. And at the end, he gave up what made him a genius to take care of Wilson.
I think thinking of the trope in this way misses the point some. It is generally excepted in all of these films that their ant-social behavior is a flaw, not a requirement for their gift, and as is typical this flaw is a method of humanizing the character allowing people to relate to them, rather than them just being god like beings. This is seems like a very rational flaw related to this gift to me. Them being different makes it hard for them to relate, something that many people can feel, once again making them relatable.
Them mostly being all white males, is annoying. I am not sure if it simply because of how society views men or women or both that have lead to this. I wonder is because we struggle to picture a women who is not good with emotional empathy or because it is easy to picture a man, or is simply because of the author views their ideas better expressed through a male protagonist? (these are just my top hypothesis, obviously we could speculate way more.)
This was a nice breakdown. Would you guys consider going near Hannibal (2013-15) and dissecting the character of Will Graham? In many ways, they are smilar but Graham's character is a more realistic interpretation of a loner genius.
You should be ashamed for how you betray James Demoor’s name. You should apology
So glad you finally did this!❤️
Probably your best video.
I would like to see how the "Loner Genius Myth" relates to the show "Elementary".
Love to see another series
I like your eassy about me, quite flattering ofcourse and yes I have learned empathy makes me a better detective and I love Mrs. Hudson!
I always liked your videos. Keep up the good work.
Sherlock is the most non Batman, Batman on tv.
Also love the Sherlock show. From season 1-4.
Now I have a new series to catch. Thanks Ladies! Silicon Valley might be a good show to break down. I like the way you used that transition too.
The show didn't break the myth- Holmes in the original books was kind, courteous and considerate (albeit very aware of his genius)
He was also snide, cold, arrogant and downright rude when the mood struck him the wrong way...oh, and a cocaine addict who favored a seven percent solution that Watson weaned him away from. You do your idol no favors by handwaving his flaws. FYI, I've had the complete stories of Sherlock Holmes since I was 10.
Wonderful, well done.
FYI, he's not my *ahem* idol. I prefer Poirot.
@@Pur9leRain Ahh, okay, then. Sorry about the "idol" crack but I've been dealing with a lot of idiots in this comment section. And there is much to admire about Poirot.