We aren't all jerkfaces, but maybe we all have an inner jerkface longing to be free. I know I do! I just have to muffle it most of the time. I think Cumberbatch's Holmes is okay, but a little can go a long way.

If you read the Arthur Conan Doyle stories in order of when they were written, you'll notice that the character changes over the years. He started out really odd, but lost a lot of his weirdness. I don't think it's possible to type him - Doyle doesn't write him consistently enough. Most of the time I'd say he's an INTJ or INTP, but sometimes he actually seems Se dominant.

 

Sherlock's Sherlock Holmes has always felt too perfect to me. No one could have that kind of flawless, consistent deductive skills. It would have been more interesting to me if he had been more human, more fallible.

 

I think that might be the appeal of Sherlock Holmes (for some at least): He's (almost) never wrong. It speaks to a certain part of the INTJ mind that wants to do things flawlessly. For me, once the wow factor of his 'genius' has worn off, he becomes fairly boring to me, because his character is basically: douchebag to everyone. I find that boring because it isn't motivated out of anything, just plain arrogance. It doesn't feel authentic.

 

(1) Sherlock Holmes always reminded me more of an INTP from the lit.

I agree about Benedict Cumberbatch version.

(2) This character seems kind of like a jerkface. Are you jerkfaces? Seems like something odd to embrace...

You sound like a school bully right now... I know you didn't mean to... But... Just saying.

 

I agree about Benedict Cumberbatch version.


You sound like a school bully right now... I know you didn't mean to... But... Just saying.

So, uh, give me your lunch money.

 

Because cheekbones.

 

That Sherlock character is an INTJ 5w6 unlike the movie where he's an INTP and INTJs aren't the only ones obsessed about him..Benedict is also an INTJ in The Imitation Game, just unhealthy.He himself seems to be an INFJ.

 

I personally can't stand him. I think he really isn't all that interesting. He just seems like a stereotypical INTJ.

 

Sherlock is premised on him being a genius, a particular kind of genius who is sensitive to minute details leading to conclusions, ie one detail in a particular location/pattern leads to a particular conclusion.

(Most INTJs are poor at the detail observation, but decently good at the pattern -> logical conclusion part)

Sherlock's brother Mycroft is an even bigger genius, but uses his genius for political means. (He might be more an INFJ)


Sherlock is relatable to me in that he gets bored. Of course, I am not the genius sherlock is, but I spent most of my 18 years of education bored. (The only time I wasn't bored was when I was reading books of my own interest.) And most jobs I held during that time. Finally have one that does not seem too boring.

He does weird stuff in his boredom like lock himself in his rooms in his tedium for months on end, and shoots up the wall. In the books he uses opium and smokes a lot.

Sherlock also prefers to be by himself. I don't actually dislike people, but a lot of the time I really prefer to be alone to being around people.

I think the biggest thing that doesn't make sense in the story itself is why he is friends with John The author had to write a 'relatable' character for the audience and it is so obvious.

 

I feel like everybody loves Benedict as Sherlock....

 

I have a theory that it's the placement of his weird little insect eyes.

Intuitive thinkers get lost trying to figure out what is the deal with his face.

 

I like the show, it's entertaining.

Benedict as Sherlock seems more to me an INTP than anything.

He also seem to be really good at both Se and Si (really alert, observant and good with his senses, also he has this memory-palace whatsoever, he basically doesn't forget anything).

He's too intellectually perfect that I just consider him an INTP (due to his behaviour) with a well-developed everything, aside from Fe.

 

I don't like Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock. The only parts where I really liked him were when he stares in astonishment at the effect his deductions have on people. It is only then that I see that he is unable to stop himself from whatever he says because he is only following his single train of thought.

At the same time I dislike this inability of his to pay attention to other facets of the case. And I also dislike that he carries his work into every aspect of his life. I dislike this single minded approach on his part. My impression is that if anybody is that single minded it would be quite easy to solve the trivial detective puzzles placed before him.

I much rather prefer Hercule Poirot or if anybody has read this - Father Brown by Gk Chesterton. Yeah, I prefer the psychology/inner working oriented detective characterizations to the concrete fact oriented detective characterizations.

That said - by far, by an enormous mile, I prefer Jeremy Brett to Benedict Cumberbatch. Jeremy comes across as a gentleman who eschews being people oriented to fact oriented simply because his belief is that the psychology has nothing to do with the case. I can understand that a person ay choose that as his modus operandi if he has been successful at it. Mycroft is cast as counterfoil to that approach and in fact Conan Doyle on a couple of occasions tips his hat to that mode of operating. But I suspect Conan Doyle would have been unable to make a character out of Mycroft that readers could relate to, but someone who deduces things based on obvious but things that people don't look for is quite easily relatable. And Jeremy Brett is actually kind to Watson and values his company, is loyal to Watson and realizes that Watson brings to bear an action oriented approach that is invaluable as a companion. Cumberbatch seems to barely tolerate Watson. No, that is wrong - Cumberbatch actually doesn't even notice people exist (not that they detract from his work). Even worse. Just like House, who in the final analysis is a one dimensional human being and admits that himself.

 

Not a fan of Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes. He seems like the kind of person who says things just to get reactions out of people/to show off.

 

Jerkfaces are just people that remind feelers of their relative unintelligence.

 

I'm emotionally intelligent!

 

I like him because he's a badass murder-solving, action-taking, mind-blowing, lovable-douchebag. But I've never thought of it as having anything to do with my being an INTJ. BBC Sherlock is fun to watch, especially when he's interacting with Martin Freeman. Their chemistry is superb and the writing makes it shine.

As for the idea that Sherlock is INTJ-like, I think the truth is closer to this: Sherlock (particularly the Eggs Benedict one) is blunt in a way that many INTJs wish they could get away with, notices and remembers details in a way that many INTJs wish they could do, and takes action with the kind of bluntforce Se that INTJs dream about (especially younger ones).

If we were to stuff Cucumber Patch Sherlock into any one type (which I'm convinced is nigh impossible to do) the closest would probably be INTP or maybe ENTP, but definitely not INTJ. Come to think of it, with the kind of bursts of energy Eggs and Cucumbers gets, his version of Sherlock seems almost bipolar. When he is down, he is really really down and when he is up, he is manic.

 

I've also noticed you guys have an incessant need to characterize yourselves with Dr Gregory House.

Is this another symptom of being diagnosed with INTJ? :tongue:

 

Not an INTJ, but I do have to say the friends I have who are do this and I never noticed how much it bothered me until now. One likes House, the other Sherlock. I like Sherlock too, but only because Benedict can be pretty cute and the show and fanfiction is good most of the time. But they seriously attached themselves, which is okay for a while. I thought about the character for a bit and didn't really like him too much (even though my opinion changes a lot). He was just too mean for me, no matter how smart he seemed. Fine, be mean. Be standoffish and arrogant because you obviously know all the answers. I still like Watson.

And feelers are cool.

 

Who doesn't like him? (Obviously, a lot of people...) I've seen all the types obsess about him, altough the reasons are varied. Yeah, he's a bit of a gigantic asshole when it comes to dealing with humans but I don't think that's why people maybe aspire to be like him. Maybe people just like his deduction skills, I dunno. I just like crazy characters, from Sherlock to Doctor Who, you name it. I may not want to be like them, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy witnessing their craziness.
As for his type, I don't get why people constantly argue whether he's INTJ or INTP. He clearly displays traits of both and he's fictional character, so he can never fit one neat little box.

 

I didn't really mind BBC Sherlock. Yes, he's really arrogant and perhaps a little too perfect but there are definitely moments where he lacks empathy and it's not shown in a good light. But I don't think he's incapable of feeling, I think he just suppressed it long ago because he values intelligence more. Growing up that intelligent would disconnect you from other people. The fact he connects with John is a good thing and it is portrayed as such - season 3 Sherlock is very different from season 1.
I don't really mind him being that intelligent but what really irks me is the dumbing down of other characters. They purposefully make John really slow sometimes just to let Sherlock explain everything, while what they're talking about seems so obvious to me and so it should be obvious to other characters.

 

Example of this is the last episode of season 2 when Moriarty lets himself be caught and goes to court. Halfway through they make it a bit of a joke that Sherlock believes that John and he are on the same page about Moriarty's intentions when John apparently is not. Sherlock then explains that Moriarty let himself be caught on purpose and John acts surprised. Like, wasn't that obvious? -_- There are other instances as well.

I haven't read the books so I'm basing this view completely on the TV series. I did read that one of the writers wanted Sherlock to be a mastermind in everything, even social skills but it was Benedict Cumberbatch who suggested that dealing with people be a weakness to Sherlock, to make him more human. In the show, it appears he can interact with others well but he's distanced himself so much that he can't understand normal motivations anymore. He only deals in a criminal world whereas his brother, Mycroft, deals with people every day so he doesn't seem as arrogant or cold as Sherlock. Therefore, I think his arrogance is explained in such a way that it doesn't bother me. I can see why people don't really like his character but to me, the fact he believes himself to be always right adds to his character. He sees the cases as a game. When he is wrong, it brings danger to the people he cares for so his arrogance isn't shown to be a good thing.

 

I think lit has him a bit more INTJ; however, BC (and really Robert Downey Jr too) play him like an INTP. There is way too much frantic energy for an INTJ. INTJs come up with brilliant plans and ideas; however, they typically aren't "on the fly" kind of people and tend to work at a much slower pace. Those two versions appear slightly less planned and much more test it out and see than you typically see from an INTJ. However, we are talking about fictional characters and fictional characters tend to not follow exact MTBi types but rather take aspects of a couple (sometimes conflicting types). In really life, Benedict seems like an INFJ and Robert Downey Jr appears to be one of my brethren (ENTP) so I am sure pieces of their types make their way into the character.

Regardless, the writing and the chemistry between Sherlock and Watson are awesome, so what's not to like with his depiction.

 

That version of Sherlock behaves as a really smart ISTJ. He pays a lot of attention to details through sharp sensory perception. On the other hand, Andrew Scott portrays Jim Moriarty in a very INTJ-like style.

 

I'm married to an ISTJ and he is definitely not an ISTJ. I could possibly accept an ISTP but not a ISTJ. Leading Si is an interesting thing to see in real life. Essentially, data that does not directly affect them does not even make it into minds at all. The Si is like a pre-sort function that filters before storage. Sherlock definitely absorbs all data in his mind and then sorts importance accordingly once it's in there. I am seeing Ne-Ti data absorption with Si working to sort in the way he processes thing (INTP) personally.

Also, I know a lot of Sensors and all of them are really aware of themselves within their environment at all times. They tend not to get lost in their mind. The iNtuitives (which I obviously know personally) tend to not focus on their physical being within their environment, which makes many of us get neglectful of ourselves either physically (not dress to impress, let unimportant tasks go) or ignore our body signals (forget to eat because we are too focused on a problem we are solving or let a physical ailment go without get checked). I see Sherlock do that a lot.

 

I'm not intj but i like him as Sherlock Holmes too, more than i like Robert downy jr's.

The role fits his face and actions in general. He looks cold yet caring. Manipulative yet sensitive. The definition of walking contradiction. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Meh, I've seen the Cumberbatch ones. He's pretty good, I guess. I prefer that kind of crappy US TV show with the execrable Lucy Liu and the former Mr. Angelina Jolie Johnny Lee Miller, I think it's spelled.

I always thought the Cumberbatch was a fangirling gone wild thing, although I know men who like the series as well.

Actually, as an INTJ, I only identify with Hercule Poirot among the detectives -- no, never read the books, just I always thought since the 1990s watching the David Suchet BBC things, "yes, that's correct, I agree," to Poirot's actions and behavior. I don't know what type Auguste Dupin from Poe was, but I prefer those few stories to the Holmes stuff as well.

 

I think Cumberbatch's Sherlock is probably the worst interpretation to be portrayed and can't for the life of me understand why anybody likes him or sees him as a good character, regardless of type. He's like a tumblr-vomit, head-canon interpretation of Sherlock, that is so consistently caricature-like that he is one of the major blights on the show (among may others).

 

If you're complaining about Sherlock Holmes with Cumberbatch, try Elementary, the American version. It's a good representation of how bad (and mostly superficial) American tv shows are. Not that there aren't any exceptions but let's be honest, most tv shows are garbage. They spoon feed you all the info, there is no surprises, no twists! If a tv show can't surprise me (or surprises me in the most badly written way), I just can't be bothered.

 

I don't like either.