I saw a documentary several years ago about sociopaths. The show basically said there were two kinds of sociopaths, the wolves and the sheepdogs. The people like Jack are the sheepdogs, who are willing to do anything to protect the sheep (us), from the wolves (terrorists, etc.), even if the sheep don’t like their methods sometimes.
Horrible person? Debatable, but I’d say no, not at all.
Sociopath? Absolutely not.
Perhaps you phrased your question wrong. If you wanted a debate, you should have avoided asking if he fit a psychological term that’s pretty clearly defined as having traits that Jack doesn’t have.
Well, perhaps the question was right - Jack does seem to fit the “Sheepdog” criteria. And like I said earlier, if I wanted a stiff-necked, serious debate about it, complete with excruciatingly accurate terms, I would have gone to Great Debates with this. This was intended as a light-hearted, semi-serious debate - after all, it’s about a TV character, fer cryin’ out loud.
Again, if you want a light, fluffy headed meaningless conversation you are better off avoiding technical words. And I wouldn’t trust what someone claims to have heard about “sheepdogs” from some TV show that he could be misremembering details of as if it somehow overruled the actual definition. Either way, Jack does not fit the definition of a sociopath at all, using some show’s term of “sheepdog” or otherwise.
I’m sorry, but words mean things. If you had asked if he was schizophrenic because maybe he had more than one personality I’m sure you would have been corrected on that too. But then some people want to fight the ignorance and some people just want to embrace it warmly because it’s light and fluffy, I guess.
I think I see the problem - my intention was a lighthearted discussion of “Does Jack Bauer act like a sociopath (ie someone who commits horrible crimes with no remorse)?” My bad. I did not phrase my intention correctly.
Perhaps a better phrasing of the topic would have been, “Is Jack Bauer a wacky-ass nut-job?”
Now watch someone come up with a DSM-IV entry for “wacky-ass nut-job,” along with an explanation for why Jack clearly does not qualify.
See, there ya go. That’s what I was getting at.
But wasn’t the evil-smiting hero always a bit above the law? He has to bear the onus of using unconventional (or occasionally outright unethical) methods so that the rest of us regular joes can go on about our daily lives (and bellyache that the ends don’t justify the means snarky grin).