sherlock series 3

[Banquet_Bear]

@MaxTheVool

So you’re saying that Magnusson, who is a brilliant and careful strategist who maintains his power purely through extortion and blackmail, whose entire life is based on making people hate him, does NOT take precautions to keep people from just randomly killing him? He sometimes PRETENDS to, but it’s purely as part of his dominance posturing?

…I’m saying what I said. Quit with the “are you saying” nonsense, I’ve told you that before. How hard is it to read and understand my words?

I did have another reply typed up, that actually answered your question, but will there ever be a way of answering any of your questions to your satisfaction?

The answer is clearly no. You aren’t interested in our answers: you just want to convince everyone that you are right, and we are wrong. Remember when you quoted me saying this?

…how exactly do you want me to phrase “you are over thinking a thirty second scene in a TV show” so that you would understand it?

You are (obsessively) over thinking a thirty second scene in a TV show. I know that if I tried to answer your question again you will just bombard me with more questions, so I won’t waste my time. Did the scene take you out of the programme? I’m sorry that it did: and I’m being genuine about that. But what exactly are you trying to accomplish by arguing with me?

[MaxTheVool]

@Banquet_Bear

…I’m saying what I said. Quit with the “are you saying” nonsense, I’ve told you that before. How hard is it to read and understand my words?

Oh FFS, it’s a common and harmless rhetorical device, not some dishonest strawmanning.

You are (obsessively) over thinking a thirty second scene in a TV show. I know that if I tried to answer your question again you will just bombard me with more questions, so I won’t waste my time.

Dude, whatever, have you ever actually POSTED on the internet? You know what it consists of? People arguing about the details of things. Doesn’t mean that they’re obsessive or that they have no life, just that people like arguing about things.
And the reason I keep saying “are you saying…” is not that I’m some dishonest debater, it’s that I’m trying to actually figure out what your position is. I asked you several pages ago what you actually thought happened in the case of the mayfly, you didn’t respond. I’ll ask you again: does Magnusson take precautions concerning his own physical safety? Should he? Why or why not? Do you think the show would have been better or worse or neither if the final scene had transpired as I suggested (Magnusson clearly DID take precautions, Sherlock killed him anyhow with his Sherlock-y brilliance)?

[Banquet_Bear]

@MaxTheVool

Oh FFS, it’s a common and harmless rhetorical device, not some dishonest strawmanning.

…its lame. I said the words I said: not what you restated. There is no need to restate what I said.

Dude, whatever, have you ever actually POSTED on the internet? You know what it consists of? People arguing about the details of things. Doesn’t mean that they’re obsessive or that they have no life, just that people like arguing about things.

Yes dude, I have posted on the internet.

And the reason I keep saying “are you saying…” is not that I’m some dishonest debater, it’s that I’m trying to actually figure out what your position is. I asked you several pages ago what you actually thought happened in the case of the mayfly, you didn’t respond. I’ll ask you again: does Magnusson take precautions concerning his own physical safety? Should he? Why or why not? Do you think the show would have been better or worse or neither if the final scene had transpired as I suggested (Magnusson clearly DID take precautions, Sherlock killed him anyhow with his Sherlock-y brilliance)?

How can you not understand what my position is?

I did respond to your question on the mayfly. I said what happened on screen happened. You don’t accept what happened on screen as being realistic: I can’t do anything about that.

Does Magnusson take precautions with his personal safety? Of course he does.

Do I think the final scene would have been better the way you suggested? No I don’t.

[MaxTheVool]

@Banquet_Bear

Does Magnusson take precautions with his personal safety? Of course he does.

OK, I’ll take a step back and start over and explain what I found unsatisfying. The episode has both told us and shown us that Magnusson is brilliant, a worthy adversary for Sherlock. He has his own mind palace. He’s a brilliant strategist and manipulator. He has his blackmail scheme that he has built up over years, and he has presumably used it to entrap and control dozens if not hundreds of powerful individuals from around the world, most of whom got to be powerful by not being fools themselves.

So, he’s going to have a showdown against Sherlock, and one of them is going to come out on top. And Sherlock, who is our hero, is of course insanely brilliant himself. So, this is gonna be good, right? Two titans pitted head to head. I’m eager to see who flinches first, what moves and countermoves occur, and what super brilliant plan one of them finally comes up with to take down the other.

And, although I have quibbles with various details of the episode, for the most part it delivered. Sherlock fakes (?) a drug addiction to give Magnusson leverage? Crafty move. But Magnusson sees through it! Crafty move. Then Sherlock deduces something that no one else could, which is that Magnusson has electronic glasses. Crafty move! But Magnusson was faking that all along! Crafty move. So Sherlock arranges a situation in which Magnusson will take him inside his house, giving Sherlock access to the Appledore vault. Crafty move! But it turns out that Appledore never existed in the first place, and Magnusson had all the blackmail info in his own mind palace. Super Crafty Move! [sub](There is a legitimate debate about whether that last bit actually makes sense or not, but it at least has the general form of a Super Craft Move)[/sub]. So, what level 18 ultimate UberCrafty SuperStrategy will Sherlock use to top that, how can he possibly defeat Magnusson who is now clearly holding every last card, who is so crafty that he has covered every contingency, out-thought and out-anticipated Sherlock at every turn, spent a lifetime perfecting the application of leverage through blackmail? What is Sherlock’s masterwork of planning?

Oh, right, it’s the most obvious plan that anyone could EVER COME UP WITH, the VERY FIRST THING ANYONE WOULD EVER THINK OF, and Magnusson, after this episode of insane craftiness, wasn’t prepared for it because, umm, reasons.
I agree that the “Sherlock is forced to actually kill a guy” side of the final move is an interesting one. But to me at least it’s horribly undercut by the “wait, Magnusson didn’t think of THAT happening? What a moron. All that supposed brilliance and THAT is what got him in the end?” stupidity of it.
Does that make sense? I mean, obviously you and I have very different tastes and preferences, which is fine, to each is own. But what I can’t figure out is whether:
(a) my analysis above is missing some key point, but one that was at least hinted at in the show, or
(b) there’s a very satisfying explanation which the writers know and had established, but they’re leaving it up to the viewer to figure out what it is
or
(c) you agree with me about the facts of what happened, but it just bothers you only one billionth as much as it bothers me

[Banquet_Bear]

@MaxTheVool

OK, I’ll take a step back and start over and explain what I found unsatisfying. The episode has both told us and shown us that Magnusson is brilliant, a worthy adversary for Sherlock. He has his own mind palace. He’s a brilliant strategist and manipulator. He has his blackmail scheme that he has built up over years, and he has presumably used it to entrap and control dozens if not hundreds of powerful individuals from around the world, most of whom got to be powerful by not being fools themselves.

So, he’s going to have a showdown against Sherlock, and one of them is going to come out on top. And Sherlock, who is our hero, is of course insanely brilliant himself. So, this is gonna be good, right? Two titans pitted head to head. I’m eager to see who flinches first, what moves and countermoves occur, and what super brilliant plan one of them finally comes up with to take down the other.

And, although I have quibbles with various details of the episode, for the most part it delivered. Sherlock fakes (?) a drug addiction to give Magnusson leverage? Crafty move. But Magnusson sees through it! Crafty move. Then Sherlock deduces something that no one else could, which is that Magnusson has electronic glasses. Crafty move! But Magnusson was faking that all along! Crafty move. So Sherlock arranges a situation in which Magnusson will take him inside his house, giving Sherlock access to the Appledore vault. Crafty move! But it turns out that Appledore never existed in the first place, and Magnusson had all the blackmail info in his own mind palace. Super Crafty Move! [sub](There is a legitimate debate about whether that last bit actually makes sense or not, but it at least has the general form of a Super Craft Move)[/sub]. So, what level 18 ultimate UberCrafty SuperStrategy will Sherlock use to top that, how can he possibly defeat Magnusson who is now clearly holding every last card, who is so crafty that he has covered every contingency, out-thought and out-anticipated Sherlock at every turn, spent a lifetime perfecting the application of leverage through blackmail? What is Sherlock’s masterwork of planning?

Oh, right, it’s the most obvious plan that anyone could EVER COME UP WITH, the VERY FIRST THING ANYONE WOULD EVER THINK OF, and Magnusson, after this episode of insane craftiness, wasn’t prepared for it because, umm, reasons.
I agree that the “Sherlock is forced to actually kill a guy” side of the final move is an interesting one. But to me at least it’s horribly undercut by the “wait, Magnusson didn’t think of THAT happening? What a moron. All that supposed brilliance and THAT is what got him in the end?” stupidity of it.
Does that make sense? I mean, obviously you and I have very different tastes and preferences, which is fine, to each is own. But what I can’t figure out is whether:
(a) my analysis above is missing some key point, but one that was at least hinted at in the show, or
(b) there’s a very satisfying explanation which the writers know and had established, but they’re leaving it up to the viewer to figure out what it is
or
(c) you agree with me about the facts of what happened, but it just bothers you only one billionth as much as it bothers me

…Magnuson is an arrogant prick. Sherlock is the worlds greatest detective. Magnuson was revling in having defeated the worlds greatest detective and foolishly let his guard down.

I know exactly why you found it unsatisfying. You’ve told us several times why you found it unsatisfying.

But I’m puzzled as to why you can’t figure out why I was satisfied.

Do you have some sort of a satisfaction matrix that needs to be correctly filled out before you can accept that someone else enjoys a programme differently to you?

Lets take what you wrote here as an example:

(a) my analysis above is missing some key point, but one that was at least hinted at in the show, or
(b) there’s a very satisfying explanation which the writers know and had established, but they’re leaving it up to the viewer to figure out what it is
or
(c) you agree with me about the facts of what happened, but it just bothers you only one billionth as much as it bothers me

The correct answer, from my perspective, is of course (d), there was a satisfying explanation which the writers know and had established, and had shown on screen.

So if you limit yourself to the only the outcomes you consider correct, of course you are going to struggle to understand my perspective.

[StGermain]

To interrupt the ongoing dialogue between **MaxTheVool **and Banquet Bear, I just wanted to say I got my DVDs today and my Blu-ray player won’t open! It’s a conspiracy.

StG

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@MaxTheVool

So, what level 18 ultimate UberCrafty SuperStrategy will Sherlock use to top that, how can he possibly defeat Magnusson who is now clearly holding every last card, who is so crafty that he has covered every contingency, out-thought and out-anticipated Sherlock at every turn, spent a lifetime perfecting the application of leverage through blackmail? What is Sherlock’s masterwork of planning?

Oh, right, it’s the most obvious plan that anyone could EVER COME UP WITH, the VERY FIRST THING ANYONE WOULD EVER THINK OF, and Magnusson, after this episode of insane craftiness, wasn’t prepared for it because, umm, reasons.

But you were cool with how they did the showdown with Moriarty, right?

“I pulled those clever heists to fake the bait to get you on this rooftop, Sherlock!”
“That passcode wasn’t real? The finger-tapping, the apple – all red herrings?”
“Yes. HA! I outwitted you! My intellect makes me THE worthy adversary!”
“So, to recap: I’m on the side of the angels, and…”
“…and so I’ve deduced that you won’t do something really mean to me.”
“Uh-huh. Say, what’s the most obvious plan anyone ever came up with?”
“What, *the * first thing anyone would think of? Um. Threatening to be mean?”
“Yep. I hereby . . . do that. No content, you understand; it’s just, like, A Threat.”
“WOW! I’m insanely crafty, yet unprepared!”
“I’m on the side of the angels, so you wouldn’t expect A Threat To Be Mean!”
“Oh, no! Oh, NO! By GOSH! By GOLLY! Who’d have thought you’d attack me up here?”
“I haven’t attacked you.”
“No, but it was IMPLIED! Only now do I realize I’d rather die than face your wrath!”

[MaxTheVool]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

But you were cool with how they did the showdown with Moriarty, right?

“I pulled those clever heists to fake the bait to get you on this rooftop, Sherlock!”
“That passcode wasn’t real? The finger-tapping, the apple – all red herrings?”
“Yes. HA! I outwitted you! My intellect makes me THE worthy adversary!”
“So, to recap: I’m on the side of the angels, and…”
“…and so I’ve deduced that you won’t do something really mean to me.”
“Uh-huh. Say, what’s the most obvious plan anyone ever came up with?”
“What, *the * first thing anyone would think of? Um. Threatening to be mean?”
“Yep. I hereby . . . do that. No content, you understand; it’s just, like, A Threat.”
“WOW! I’m insanely crafty, yet unprepared!”
“I’m on the side of the angels, so you wouldn’t expect A Threat To Be Mean!”
“Oh, no! Oh, NO! By GOSH! By GOLLY! Who’d have thought you’d attack me up here?”
“I haven’t attacked you.”
“No, but it was IMPLIED! Only now do I realize I’d rather die than face your wrath!”

I’ve only seen that scene once, a few years ago, and while it certainly suffered from hilariously-and-unbelievably-overcomplicated-scheme-in-which-each-protagonist-predicted-20-steps-in-advance-what-the-other-would-do-stretching-the-bounds-of-plausbility-far-past-the-stretching-point syndrome, I don’t honestly remember the part that you’re talking about. But, yes, if Moriarty was somehow stunned to think that Sherlock, when finally trapped in Moriarty’s web of lies and deceptions, would result to violence, then yes, that would be implausible and a bit of a cop out.

[MaxTheVool]

@Banquet_Bear

Magnuson was revling in having defeated the worlds greatest detective and foolishly let his guard down.

But (a) that weakens the impact of everything if it turns out that Magnusson is such a dumbass that after a lifetime of brilliant and successful criming he lets his guard so comically down when his adversary is only, I dunno, the most brilliant detective in the world, whose brother is the most brilliant spy in the world, whose partner is a former solider and whose partner’s wife is a trained assassin who almost killed him a few days earlier, and (b) it also means that Sherlock won basically due to dumb luck, unless we’re meant to think that Sherlock was somehow playing the game one level deeper all along and manipulated Magnusson into being overconfident, which I didn’t see anything in the show to support.

The way the show plays out, the way the story beats are and so forth, I feel like what it was going for was move-countermove-move-countermove and so forth in the intellectual arena, Sherlock vs Magnusson, each trying to do the best scheming, and Magnusson wins that, but then Sherlock ultimately beats him by being willing to think way outside the box and do the completely unexpected. Except that (to me at least) it’s so completely EXpected.

(And part of the problem with the “Magnusson lets his guard down” theory is that while I am not actually myself either a powerful and paranoid criminal media mogul, nor do I work on the security detail for such a person, I’m fairly sure that such a person can’t just forget to have an area secured or a person swept for weapons. Actions such as those are certainly entirely automatic on the part of his security people, and he’d have to go way out of his way to choose for them NOT to happen.)

But I’m puzzled as to why you can’t figure out why I was satisfied.

I clearly accept that… what I’ve been trying to understand is the extent to which your reaction to the show differing from mine is simply because you were looking for something different and judging it differently than I, or whether because your understanding of what happened on screen and the motivations therein and so forth were actually different than mine.
(And just to restate this one last time, I genuinely enjoy Sherlock as a show. I’m so irritated by what I see as certain big gaping plot holes because so much of the show is so fantastic, which makes it all the more frustrating when certain story points are, to me, held together with spit and bailing wire.)

[Stanislaus]

@MaxTheVool

I’ve only seen that scene once, a few years ago, and while it certainly suffered from hilariously-and-unbelievably-overcomplicated-scheme-in-which-each-protagonist-predicted-20-steps-in-advance-what-the-other-would-do-stretching-the-bounds-of-plausbility-far-past-the-stretching-point syndrome, I don’t honestly remember the part that you’re talking about. But, yes, if Moriarty was somehow stunned to think that Sherlock, when finally trapped in Moriarty’s web of lies and deceptions, would result to violence, then yes, that would be implausible and a bit of a cop out.

It was actually very similar to the Magnusson denouement:

"Here’s a towering intellectual genius who is actually a match - and maybe more than a match - for Sherlock. Observe how at every turn he is one step ahead of Sherlock. Observe how, at the final showdown, he holds all the cards and Sherlock is left boxed into a corner.

Now observe how our villain does something ludicrously out of character which immediately lets Sherlock win."

When Moriarty was on the roof with Sherlock, he was becoming depressed because with Sherlock beaten there was no point in living any more - no more challenges, no more games to make life interesting. So when Sherlock steps down off the roof with a gleam in his eye and announces he’s not beaten but will keep playing, that Moriarty has seriously underestimated him, what else should Moriarty do but kill himself? Why, it makes total sense and is in no way a cop-out.

At this point it would be tedious to reiterate the details of why Magnusson’s demise is similar, but to me there’s a definite pattern here.

[Stanislaus]

@Voyager

Holmes - and not just in this episode - is shown as intensely loyal to Watson and thus to Mary, patriotic, and a high functioning sociopath. Magnusson is not only a threat to Mary but also a threat to England - remember he bragged about using the methods he has developed in England to more or less take over the world. A non-sociopath might find another way to deal with the problem, but Holmes doing what he did comes directly from his character. You can’t say anything about what the writers would do, since they are not sociopaths.

This is really interesting, because it throws up afairly major question about Holmes’ mental status.

If he were, as he claims so often, a high functioning sociopath he simply would not be capable of intense loyalty to Watson or anyone else. Even patriotism would be beyond him. Sociopathy - which is no different from psychopathy, it’s just an older label for the same condition - would mean that Holmes sees *all *people as objects to be manipulated. In fact he only puts *most *people in this category but obviously cares deeply for Watson, Mrs Hudson (witness the violence he inflicts on the goon who hurts her), Redbeard (apparently) and probably Mycroft as well though he hides it well. He’s even shown sensitivity - empathy - to Molly’s feelings on a few occasions.

He’s emotionally stunted to the point where it’s very difficult for him to form relationships, but he’s not actually a sociopath. Whether the writers know this, and Holmes’ claim to sociopathy is some sort of defence mechanism or self-delusion, or whether they genuinely believe they’ve created a sociopathic character isn’t clear, but I would guess the former.

[Broomstick]

Very few people have “pure” mental disorders. I see no reason a sociopath, especially a “high functioning” one, couldn’t have exceptions to the usual rule of seeing other human beings as utilitarian objects to be manipulated. Or perhaps he has favorites among all those “objects to be manipulated”. People are messy that way.

As far as showing empathy - Sherlock is aware he is socially stunted and clueless, that’s why he looks to Watson to gauge when he’s screwing that up. It’s almost like Watson is his therapy dog or whatever, and it’s an example of him using Watson as an “object to be manipulated” even if he also quite fond of Watson. We see that from “Study in Pink” when Sherlock states that a woman wouldn’t be upset over a miscarriage that happened years before and Watson (rather gently) corrects him on that notion. Sherlock knows that social skills would make his life easier, but is he showing more social skills/empathy because he’s actually achieving empathy or because he’s working out the social system and getting better at giving the proper signals and reading them?

[Stanislaus]

@Broomstick

Very few people have “pure” mental disorders. I see no reason a sociopath, especially a “high functioning” one, couldn’t have exceptions to the usual rule of seeing other human beings as utilitarian objects to be manipulated. Or perhaps he has favorites among all those “objects to be manipulated”. People are messy that way.

As far as showing empathy - Sherlock is aware he is socially stunted and clueless, that’s why he looks to Watson to gauge when he’s screwing that up. It’s almost like Watson is his therapy dog or whatever, and it’s an example of him using Watson as an “object to be manipulated” even if he also quite fond of Watson. We see that from “Study in Pink” when Sherlock states that a woman wouldn’t be upset over a miscarriage that happened years before and Watson (rather gently) corrects him on that notion. Sherlock knows that social skills would make his life easier, but is he showing more social skills/empathy because he’s actually achieving empathy or because he’s working out the social system and getting better at giving the proper signals and reading them?

I agree he’s very bad at showing empathy and appalling at using empathy to understand in advance the consequences of his actions. But when he hurts John or Molly he immediately a) understands that he has done and b) displays genuine remorse.

This inability to predict others’ emotional reactions also makes him less likely to be a sociopath - they are superficially charming and manipulative, well able to predict people’s reactions and use them for their own purposes. If Holmes was capable of that, he wouldn’t have such trouble forming even professional relationships.

He also goes to enormous, self-sacrificial efforts to protect his friends; trashing his reputation in his battle with Moriarty, committing murder in front of witnesses to beat Magnusson. He fully expected to pay horrific consequences for the latter and got on the plane to almost-certain death without a struggle. Putting others first is completely outside the bounds of sociopathy - especially to that extent. (In fact, a sociopathic response to Magnusson’s scheme - “so let John and Mary suffer, it’s not worth giving up my autonomy” - would have rendered the plot pointless.

I’m happy with this - I wouldn’t want to watch a show about a genuine sociopath because there would be literally no human interest. And like I say, I’m pretty sure the writers know what they’re doing when they have him repeat this mantra but act against it.

[MrDibble]

@Banquet_Bear

…the purpose of the first search was not to “search.”

It was, as Mr Dribble put it, to “mark his territory.”

Thanks for the backup.

It would have been better if you got my name right though.

[Broomstick]

@Stanislaus

I agree he’s very bad at showing empathy and appalling at using empathy to understand in advance the consequences of his actions. But when he hurts John or Molly he immediately a) understands that he has done and b) displays genuine remorse.

I think he understands that he has hurt someone he cares about, but I don’t think he always understand the how and why of that hurt. He cues off their reaction, then has to figure out what he did wrong or even ask what he did wrong.

His remorse is genuine, even when he’s baffled.

This inability to predict others’ emotional reactions also makes him less likely to be a sociopath - they are superficially charming and manipulative, well able to predict people’s reactions and use them for their own purposes.

I am open to the notion he’s been misdiagnosed.

I’m happy with this - I wouldn’t want to watch a show about a genuine sociopath because there would be literally no human interest.

Agreed.

And like I say, I’m pretty sure the writers know what they’re doing when they have him repeat this mantra but act against it.

Especially since in another series they had a sociopathic character much more true to the diagnosis, willing to sacrifice the entire universe for her goals, screw everyone else their feelings don’t matter as much as hers. And River Song/Melody Pond wasn’t as interesting a character as Sherlock.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Stanislaus

…He’s emotionally stunted to the point where it’s very difficult for him to form relationships, but he’s not actually a sociopath. Whether the writers know this, and Holmes’ claim to sociopathy is some sort of defence mechanism or self-delusion, or whether they genuinely believe they’ve created a sociopathic character isn’t clear, but I would guess the former.

Stephen Moffat on Sherlock’s insults during his Best Man speech:

He always is [bullshitting]. He doesn’t think that at all. He doesn’t think any of those things, but he wants to think that he does, just as he wants to think he’s a high-functioning sociopath. He’s not a sociopath, nor is he high-functioning. He’d really like to be a sociopath. But he’s so fucking not…

[Stanislaus]

Ah, thank you.

And of course that speech was the definitive “not actually a sociopath” moment.

[teela_brown]

May I use this thread to relate a little story that inwardly tickles me, but I can’t share with anyone IRL? There’s a small backstory.

One of my bosses is pretty much a douche. He’s competitive, manipulative and condescending. He used to be a lot worse, but I think he once took classes in “How to get along with your underlings by pretending to connect with them at their level” or some such shit. Several months ago he noticed my 221B Baker Street computer wallpaper, and asked about the show. He and his wife genuinely like BBC programming, so I loaned them my DVDs of series 1 and 2. You could see him preening himself at this exchange, because he thought he had scored major management/underling relationship points.

Well, he and his wife watched and liked series 1. Then they started watching series 2, but the boss started to cool off on the show while his wife continues to love it. He tries to pretend that he continues to like the show in order to maintain his “common man” touch with me, but I know him well and can tell by his white knuckles and tightened lips that it has become an unwelcome subject. I know what’s up with that; his wife has become a rabid fan and my hyper-competitive boss does not welcome her mooning at Benedict Cumberbatch in his own home.

TLDR version: I sent a poison pill home with my annoying boss in the form of Sherlock DVDs, and remotely converted his wife to a drooling Cumberbitch. Take that, dickhead!

[Voyager]

@Bridget_Burke

Stephen Moffat on Sherlock’s insults during his Best Man speech:

I was going to say just what the link says - Sherlock’s sociopathy is only self-diagnosed. I don’t remember any evidence that it has been analyzed by anyone else.
Nonetheless, what I get out of the show is that he predicts the reactions of others rationally, not emotionally. He doesn’t truly understand why people do what they do, but he can predict through deduction what they will do.

I haven’t been to many big weddings recently, but I thought that mild insults at the groom was perfectly okay in a best man speech - as long as you wind it up with good words, just like Sherlock does. He probably goes to extremes though.

(So, who will be the first to write fanfic on “The Mystery of the Elephant in the Room?”)

[StGermain]

@Voyager

I was going to say just what the link says - Sherlock’s sociopathy is only self-diagnosed. I don’t remember any evidence that it has been analyzed by anyone else.
Nonetheless, what I get out of the show is that he predicts the reactions of others rationally, not emotionally. He doesn’t truly understand why people do what they do, but he can predict through deduction what they will do.

I haven’t been to many big weddings recently, but I thought that mild insults at the groom was perfectly okay in a best man speech - as long as you wind it up with good words, just like Sherlock does. He probably goes to extremes though.

(So, who will be the first to write fanfic on “The Mystery of the Elephant in the Room?”)

Voyager - It wasn’t just the insults to John (which didn’t appear on the surface to be joking in nature), but to the bridesmaids (Brides choose ugly bridesmaids to make themselves look more attractive) and the vicar (“If there was a God, and not just an excuse to find employment for the family idiot”). He knew what he was doing, but he didn’t mean them as jokes.

StG