13 KiB
The BBC program Sherlock?
-
Author: u/None *
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/1uoi1v/the_bbc_program_sherlock/
-
Score: 9
-
Created: 2014-01-08T03:04:27
Post:
Well, the writers seems to have solved the main problem that the books had, which was that they didn't give all the clues that Holmes had and therefore the audience would have no way to reach the same conclusion. And there's a new season out, for the first time in 2 years... And yet all the same, Sherlock Holmes is the textbook example of fiction that tries to be rational but isn't. So there's the question: Is Sherlock rational?
Comments:
u/GeeJo [+8] Custom Flair (2 hours later)
I don't know that I'd call the show particularly rational, but it's a fun watch nevertheless. Jonathan Creek falls into the same category for much the same reason.
u/sicutumbo [+5] (38 minutes later)
I havent seen the show in a little while, but I know Sherlock meets at least all but one of the main criteria of this sub. The only thing I dont remember well enough is if Moriarty has some utility function other than 'Be Evil'. Also, thank you for announcing that the newest season of Sherlock has started, I wasn't aware.
u/322955469 [+11] (4 hours later)
I remember thinking when I first watched the series the both Sherlocks and Moriartys utility functions could be summarized as "don't be bored". Sherlock accomplishes this by solving every mystery that catches his intrest, and Moriarty accomplishes it by fucking with Sherlock.
u/None [+3] (a day later)
That's pretty realistic, actually. Rationalist-style world
optimizationdomination is a very particular point in ideology-space. Most smart people never actually arrive to a single driving ideology/goal guiding their actions, and could easy get very bored and just decide to go through life "for the lulz".
u/None [+6] (17 hours later)
I'm going to raise another objection: Sherlock is really obnoxiously Straw Vulcan. Sherlock himself is very much the kind of person for whom the term "autist" was coined.
u/None [+2] (a day later)
Okay. So he's got Aspergers and is social inept. Sure, it could be a straw vulcan, but it also makes perfect sense. There's a reason autists are the ones who can quickly factorize gigantic numbers in their head; it's a tradeoff. Algernon's Law and all. I think it would be more unrealistic if they made him a supergenius and not with some other developmental problems.
u/None [+3] (a day later)
Actually, as of starting to watch Series 3, I'm kinda agreeing with you. His character development is really being cranked up as he spends more time with the rest of the cast, showing that what even he claimed was "high-functioning sociopathy" was actually just a shortage of peers when he was growing up.
Which he and Mycroft reference: they thought Sherlock was an idiot until they met other children.
u/Newfur [+2] Crazy like a fox. Literally. (12 days later)
Wasn't that mostly a matter of there being only Sherlock and Mycroft in a tiny society of two kids, and Mycroft was somewhat more intelligent, putt him at 1 and Sherlock firmly at 0... until they discovered everyone else was vastly less intelligent than both?
u/None [+2] (12 days later)
Yep.
u/miningzen [+1] (a day later)
Idiot mention where?
u/None [+1] (a day later)
In one of the first scenes of The Empty Hearse. I'll say no more, in case you're not caught up.
u/miningzen [+1] (2 days later)
Thanks a bundle.
u/alexanderwales [+7] Time flies like an arrow (47 minutes later)
I don't think so. Going by the checklist to the right, I'd say we hit maybe three of the five - there's occasional holding of the Idiot Ball, and the characters aren't driven into conflict by beliefs and/or values. The biggest Idiot Plot was in The Reichenbach Fall, where Moriarty's plan was frankly pretty moronic. Sherlock also spent the pilot episode deciding whether or not to eat a pill to see whether it was poisonous, even when he knew the gun was a fake, instead of just stealing the pills and then getting them analyzed. The TV Tropes page has a big headscratchers page with more.
I guess my bigger problem with it is that it's just Sherlock on the side of good and the abjectly bad guys on the other side. Sure, he uses his wits, and the show is much better about that than the books, but if we're just going by mysteries that don't have gaping plot holes I think that's a somewhat low standard.
u/logrusmage [+5] (18 hours later)
Sherlock also spent the pilot episode deciding whether or not to eat a pill to see whether it was poisonous, even when he knew the gun was a fake, instead of just stealing the pills and then getting them analyzed.
I thought the whole point was that his ego wanted him to solve the puzzle himself via observation?
u/alexanderwales [+2] Time flies like an arrow (18 hours later)
Right, but he could have made his own deduction and then, instead of testing whether he was right by swallowing the pill, could have tested whether he was right by taking the pills in for analysis.
u/logrusmage [+5] (18 hours later)
Right, but he could have made his own deduction and then, instead of testing whether he was right by swallowing the pill, could have tested whether he was right by taking the pills in for analysis.
That wouldn't be as fun for him, and as others have said he's motivated mostly by fun (or rather by avoiding boredom).
He sat down and got a decently real way to test his observational skills with real consequences. I don't think the tension was necessarily "can he figure it out?" but rather "can he resist the temptation to test his theory?"
u/None [+5] (a day later)
Honestly, I always just figured they were both poison, but perhaps the killer (we know who he is) had built up an immunity or palmed/tongued the pill or something like that.
I mean, come on: two pills, one poisoned, figure it out, pure mindgame? It's a Princess Bride Gambit.
u/None [+11] (a day later)
The best hypothesis I've seen is that both pills were blood thinners. So it would kill the person, and heal the cabbie. Just another motivation for him to play the game.
u/None [+4] (a day later)
Oh, that is good.
u/logrusmage [+1] (a day later)
It does seem rather Vezzini...
u/alexanderwales [+4] Time flies like an arrow (20 hours later)
That actually makes a lot of sense, thanks.
u/tvcgrid [+2] (4 days later)
If I was Sherlock, I wouldn't be solving murders. It seems that he could do so much more by focusing on gaining a lot of wealth and then systematically attacking global problems. Or perhaps focusing on existential-risk issues. Or perhaps minimizing global conflicts. Or making original scientific discoveries. I mean, he can infiltrate criminal networks, speak many languages, learn things lightning fast, and solve very complex real world puzzles. But to use it on crime fighting, as an adjunct to regular old law enforcement?
It doesn't seem like he's doing as much good as he could, if he thought a bit more creatively.
u/mheiseynox [+3] (5 days later)
Wealth, solve complex global problems and conflicts... You mean basically he should become Mycroft?
u/derefr [+2] (7 days later)
Or Moriarty. "Consulting criminal" sounds like a plausible guess for "profession most likely to make you X-risk-affecting amounts of money"; I could see Moriarty as simply an extreme case of a consequentialist (do lots of little evils leading up to one big good), who likes to play with the people nominally on the side of good by implying he has no higher purpose, all the while knowing he'll "earn out" every good thing they've ever done in the end.
u/tvcgrid [+1] (6 days later)
Not necessarily. I mean, if he evaluates the net impact he could have on the world, I doubt saving on the order on tens or even a few hundred lives compares to saving thousands or millions through some other enterprise.
Is simple crime fighting worthwhile for someone as competent as Sherlock? I argue no. He could save millions but he chooses to save a few hundred-ish.
u/None [+4] (7 hours later)
Let's go over the sidebar:
The characters are not stupid. No one holds the Idiot Ball (or at least not the main heroes or main villains).
Half true. There is some idiot-ball holding by both the main characters and the villains, but it's pretty minor and some of it could be explained away.
The characters solve problems through the intelligent application of their knowledge and resources.
Check. This is pretty much how all problems are solved.
The story is like a puzzle; readers can reach the same solution as the characters by using the information provided earlier in the story.
Not fully there. I guess, theoretically this is true, but either you'd need to be a savant yourself, watch at half speed or rewatch the episode before reaching the conclusion. Some of the clues are blink and you miss it, while others are more obvious.
There's also the aspect of Sherlock's memory. His "mind palace" is the entire city of London, so you can pull pretty much every type of knowledge out of his mind and get away with it.
Factions are defined and driven into conflict by their beliefs and values, not just by being "good" or "evil".
Yes and no. Some characters clearly are, but Moriarty was pretty much just evil "for the evulz".
The rules of the fictional world are sane and consistent.
Yup. We know about everyone's abilities and for the most part the story is set in the "real world."
On to the bonus points:
The main character uses (or tries to use) rationalist and scientific methods to demystify seemingly mysterious phenomena.
Sherlock definitely does this. He might not be a rationalist all-star, but his methodology for solving problems is very influenced by rationality and the scientific method. (He does the "boring " parts, like research, but the show generally doesn't show this.)
The story teaches sound lessons about rationalist techniques, which can be applied to readers' lives.
For the most part: nope.
The story hints at or embraces transhumanist ideals.
Not as far as I know.
The story deals with the dangers and potential of powerful new technology.
Not really. Although technology is sometimes used as a McGuffin.
u/None [+9] (11 hours later)
Yes and no. Some characters clearly are, but Moriarty was pretty much just evil "for the evulz".
As 322955469 pointed out, I think both Sherlock and Moriarty are motivated by boredom, not "good" or "evil".
Not fully there. I guess, theoretically this is true, but either you'd need to be a savant yourself, watch at half speed or rewatch the episode before reaching the conclusion. Some of the clues are blink and you miss it, while others are more obvious.
I think that more often than not, the blink-and-you'll-miss-it clues aren't as important as the obvious ones (or not important at all, like in Season 3).
Not really. Although technology is sometimes used as a McGuffin.
I loved that in The Reichenbach Fall Season 2 finale spoilers.
u/None [+9] (a day later)
I loved how in The Empty Hearse Sherlock .
"Terrorists can get into big trouble without off switches."
u/VorpalAuroch [+1] Life before Death (2 hours later)
I don't see this as any better than the original stories, for precisely the same reasons.
u/None [+3] (11 hours later)
I think they actually have done a pretty good job of making the obvious clues the important ones, so that one doesn't need to be some sort of savant to solve the mystery. But maybe that's only in hindsight?