mirror of
https://github.com/wassname/scrape_r_rational.git
synced 2026-09-09 11:33:49 +08:00
121 lines
8.7 KiB
Markdown
121 lines
8.7 KiB
Markdown
## Rationalizing Sherlock [spoilers to 3.2]
|
|
|
|
* Author: u/None *
|
|
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/1uslxy/rationalizing_sherlock_spoilers_to_32/
|
|
* Score: 5
|
|
|
|
* Created: 2014-01-09T13:29:44
|
|
|
|
### Post:
|
|
|
|
*Followup to [this thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/1uoi1v/the_bbc_program_sherlock/).*
|
|
|
|
We've seen [some](http://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/1uoi1v/the_bbc_program_sherlock/cek5wd4) [pretty](http://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/1uoi1v/the_bbc_program_sherlock/cekcgxj) [valid](http://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/1uoi1v/the_bbc_program_sherlock/cekond4) [objections](http://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/1uoi1v/the_bbc_program_sherlock/cek8cox) to the rational status of the BBC program *Sherlock*. So I'm going to make a rationalfic for it. Or work on one, anyway. It shouldn't be that hard, as it's mostly there already, but it'll involve a reworking of the plot, anyway.
|
|
|
|
So. Disregarding [TV Tropes Sherlock Headscratchers page](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Headscratchers/Sherlock) which I'll be consulting, what are some particularly egregious plot elements or anything that *you* think need correction? And what would you look for in a good Sherlock rational!fic?
|
|
|
|
### Comments:
|
|
|
|
> **u/jaiwithani** [+4] *Insufficient data for a meaningful answer* (4 days later)
|
|
>
|
|
> The [sitty-thing](http://25.media.tumblr.com/039459e4f585ba610d0ed1aa41531e93/tumblr_myyv2yWULP1staho1o1_1280.gif) was not really egg-shaped. At best slightly oblong. This gaping flaw of geometric description completely destroyed immersion for me.
|
|
|
|
>> **u/None** [+2] (4 days later)
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Oh, entirely. I'll fix that, definitely. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
|
|
|
|
>> **u/Zephyr1011** [+1] *Potentially Unfriendly Aspiring Divinity* (4 days later)
|
|
>>
|
|
>> He was drunk. Cut him a bit of slack
|
|
|
|
> **u/GeeJo** [+8] *Custom Flair* (an hour later)
|
|
>
|
|
> Moriarty needs a *complete* rework. His canon motivation is essentially just boredom, but any rationalist on that level of thinking could come up with half a dozen different pursuits that don't require a suicide. Even if you regard all the other humans around you as pets rather than peers, his solution seems a bit extreme.
|
|
|
|
>> **u/None** [+4] (a day later)
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Intelligence does not imply values.
|
|
|
|
>> **u/None** [+2] (13 hours later)
|
|
>>
|
|
>> So you don't like his suicide? Or getting caught in the robbery, I suppose?
|
|
|
|
>> **u/logrusmage** [+3] (a day later)
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Moriarty *isn't* a rationalist. He's a bored sociopath.
|
|
|
|
>>> **u/jaiwithani** [+5] *Insufficient data for a meaningful answer* (4 days later)
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>> He possesses informed intelligence - we're repeatedly told by trustworthy characters that Moriarty is very smart and meticulous in his planning. That should compute to rationalist.
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>> /u/eaturbrainz is right about values though - there are very smart people who don't want to be alive. The scariest blog I know of is called "The View From Hell" and is written by a suicidal rationalist. See also "anti-natalism".
|
|
|
|
>>>> **u/None** [+3] (4 days later)
|
|
>>>>
|
|
>>>> >there are very smart people who don't want to be alive. The scariest blog I know of is called "The View From Hell" and is written by a suicidal rationalist. See also "anti-natalism".
|
|
>>>>
|
|
>>>> Or, how about, since I've been summoned ;-), I *don't* see those, since I'm already much too vulnerable to this sort of thing?
|
|
|
|
>>>>> **u/jaiwithani** [+3] *Insufficient data for a meaningful answer* (4 days later)
|
|
>>>>>
|
|
>>>>> I was going to say "I discourage fellow victims of [memetic immune disorder](http://lesswrong.com/lw/18b/reason_as_memetic_immune_disorder/) from looking at these", but carriers of MID are almost pathologically compelled to look at things they're told they're better off avoiding. And of course now I've managed to get the worst of both worlds.
|
|
|
|
>>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (4 days later)
|
|
>>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>> Oh dear. I might as well go test the strength of my vaccination.
|
|
|
|
>>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (4 days later)
|
|
>>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>> Response: wait, you rated *this* crap as Memetic Hazard? It's just another jumped-up intellectual who can't get past his own biases towards despair, misanthropy and nihilism! Not a spark of real wisdom!
|
|
>>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>> Meta-response: wow, I *am* well-vaccinated. That would actually have worked on me not so long ago, and I would have spent the evening trying to bend my mind away from the abyss.
|
|
|
|
>>>>>>> **u/jaiwithani** [+1] *Insufficient data for a meaningful answer* (4 days later)
|
|
>>>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>>> I usually discount rebuttals consisting entirely of ad hominem.
|
|
>>>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>>> Edit: Also, I believe the author is a "her".
|
|
|
|
>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1] (4 days later)
|
|
>>>>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>>>> Sorry, it wasn't *intended* as an *ideological rebuttal*, just as a first reaction.
|
|
>>>>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>>>> For an ideological rebuttal, I would say: she (and her writing actually did come across as masculine, so I apologize for that) seems to have picked up enough wisdom to hit nihilism, but not yet [climbed out of the valley to existentialism](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Existentialism). It's the moral version of the Valley of Bad Rationality, and I find it surprising coming from a "rationalist" (has anyone ever codified that term as meaning something other than "enthusiastic LessWrong user"?), given that the Enlightenment points out we do actually have power in the world and thus *can* realize our dreams and values -- once we acknowledge to ourselves what they are!
|
|
|
|
>>>>>>>>> **u/derefr** [+3] (5 days later)
|
|
>>>>>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>>>>> > "rationalist" (has anyone ever codified that term as meaning something other than "enthusiastic LessWrong user"?)
|
|
>>>>>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>>>>> LessWrong users (enthused or otherwise) are nominal rationalists, like churchgoers are nominally spiritual, or people who work in a University's science department are nominal scientists. (Nominal, because a good lot of the folks in any community are just there for the culture, not the ideas. See [Terrorism is Not About Terror](http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror) for another example.)
|
|
>>>>>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, you can find people practicing any of those things (rationality, spiritualism, science) without even knowing that what they're doing has a name. You don't have to know what science is to make evidence-based decisions. And you don't have to know that there's a rationalism "movement" to set about debiasing yourself.
|
|
>>>>>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>>>>> Just as there are "street-fighting" martial artists who would never think to consider themselves "martial aritsts", there are "street-fighting" rationalists who would raise an eyebrow at being called such.
|
|
|
|
>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (5 days later)
|
|
>>>>>>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>>>>>> I like that definition. I *really* like that definition. It lets us distinguish well between people who read a lot of rationality lessons on the internet and people who actually pilot themselves to win at life. It also lets us distinguish well between people who rigorously apply an effective method of epistemology and people who believe things everyone on LessWrong believes.
|
|
|
|
>>>> **u/logrusmage** [+1] (4 days later)
|
|
>>>>
|
|
>>>> Hard to me rational when the utility calculator in your brain is broken as hell <_<
|
|
|
|
> **u/Suitov** [+1] *The Culture* (a month later)
|
|
>
|
|
> Rework it all. None of it's rational. Particularly tone down the grandstanding and fix Moffat's addiction to needless stakes-raising and set-pieces ([C.A. Magnusson climax](#s "helicopter assault on Milverton-expy's house")? Stupid in every sense). But keep the cuteness and banter lots of banter yes please.
|
|
>
|
|
> I feel John holds the idiot ball in places, especially in S3 when caught between Sherlock and Mary. He could be more Badass Normal; he gets damselled a bit much for my liking, considering his army training. Would suggest getting ideas from Elementary for possible alternatives for John's character development (obviously not just stealing their plot, but I do like how they branch out their Watson and set things off in interestingly different ways from the books' direction). I also feel Mycroft's intelligence is more informed than shown. The brothers banter, which is cute, but Sherlock seems to put one over on him a bit much.
|
|
>
|
|
> And cut out the misogyny and completely rework Irene Adler, please. :) She's one of my fave badass women in literature and turning her into a [sex worker](#s " who gets humbled by Sherlock and then later rescued by Sherlock") was not a thing I liked, to put it mildly. (Didn't 100% like Elementary's take either but it was definitely refreshingly different!)
|
|
|
|
> **u/None** [+0] (a day later)
|
|
>
|
|
> Just how much spare time do you have?
|
|
|
|
>> **u/None** [+3] (2 days later)
|
|
>>
|
|
>> None. I'm just really good at procrastinating. Why do you ask?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|