Skip to main content

The comparison and analysis of Sherlock Holmes and Patrick Jane

 I've already did an entry on this in the past but it way too shallow. I wasn;t able to relly reflect on the structute of both characters I mentioned. These 2 characters are way different from each other, but have a surprising lot in common.

Introducing: Sherlock Holmes

Since he appeared out of thin air in the study of scarlet, he has been a pioneer of deduction in pop culture with over 200 actors having portrayed him. When someone asks a normie to name a deductionist They will either ask what deduction is, or say Sherlock Holmes. Holmes is a keen observer of such small details, and a really quick thinker. A lot of videos on youtube on the topic of deduction are titled something like: "How to think like Sherlock Holmes" and not "How to deduce". This is  understandable, because everyone knows Sherlock Holmes, but very few know about deduction except the tax meaning. What I'm trying to say is that Sherlock, the deerhunter hat and the pipe, is deduction in the normal people's eyes.


Sherlock Holmes' deductions are very sharp and detail oriented. I believe this is dubbed as "Sherlockian deduction". Deduces like a machine, IS a machine. Doesn't feel emotion, thus can't understand the concept and how it drives people. He mainly focuses on the physicality and attire side of deductions. He has sociopathic tendencies and is a cocaine addict, because genius has a price just like in "The Queen's gambit".


Introducing: Patrick Jane

Now, I've talked about this gentleman in many of my entries, he's my face and my role model. I adore him, without a question. 
The most interesting side of Jane is his morality. His morality and philosophy is wery grey and is frequently touched on in the series. "I don't care about the law, I care about justice." attitude is very intriguing. It's very vigilant. Everyone has a sense of justice, a feeling of right and wrong. Just like the trolley problem. The thing is that justice more often than not, collides with The LAW. 

The thing with Patrick is, that he can't be sociopathic, because he knows how to act with people, how they work and think, hell he is a master of knowing and studying people. That leaves us with psychopathic. I believe that word has gained a very overused and negative meaning. I don't think the mental illness in itself is bad. I only think the people that killed because of it are menaces. 

Patrick is a master of cold-reading and people and can use people like puppets. His observation skills are most impressive and often using just plain logical reasoning to solve soething or gain information. He uses this plain logical reasoning very effectively and the most. He is a master of body language and microexpressions ( thus the cold-reading skills) he doesn't have the weakpoint of people and feeling stopping him and we can see that he's very good at noticing and using smaller clues. He keeps up a very good facade, like a true mentalist would so we can't exactly pinpoint where he was just being slick, and where he was actually making brilliant deductions.






Conclusion/ Comparison

Both Sherlock and Jane are perfect on their respactive fields and both have a mental illness contributing to high intelligence. Both of them are  keen observers and can notice clues that often slip when looking at with the human eye. Sherlock has the downside of not knowing people in his deductions, whilst patrick knows them perfectly.  I think this is the main thing differentiatig the two deductionists. The other things are minor. Sherlock knows science, whilst Patrick knows people.
I made this graph to emphacise my point.



I will always try to be like patrick with a little of Sherlock. I suggest you find the best that fits you.



Hope this was a delighting little entry after the weeks of scilence. I'm honestly running out of ideas for the blog, but I'm taking strides to get back on track with blogging. Hopefully it'll turn out fine.

Happy Deducing!



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Essay on Patrick Jane (spoilers)

 Introduction. Patrick Jane is the main protagonist in the 2000's American TV show "The Mentalist" portrayed by Simon Baker. Patrick Jane is the main   protagonist on the show, and with a surprisingly the least morals  on the team of protagonists. We'll get to these later. Patrick Jane works in the California Bureau of Investigation (CBI), but later works for the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). Both as a consultant. Before that, he was a professional mentalist that faked psychic powers to get money out of people. Powers and abilities. Patrick Jane possesses a powerful mental prowess. He is a master of tactics and people, especially knowing them. His observational skills are absolutely exceptional. I myself, am a deductionist/mentalist, so I know about how this works. His observational skills are at the level of the legendary deductionist Sherlock Holmes. I'd even bother to say that Patrick Jane was a better Sherlock Holmes than the Benedict Cumberbatch inc
Post a Comment
Read more

Intuition & deduction

 Intuition. It's a thing that, if trained generally helps you with getting to know people. Also, looking through them. I'm currently working on the latter. Intuition is nothing that is like deduction, more like guessing. Very good guessing. In the show The Mentalist the protagonist, Patrick Jane uses his power of guesswork?  He uses what is called intuition and a fair bit of deduction. We'll get to that later. Now intuition is something that is quite trainable. I'm on the road of training it. Intuition is something that works subconsciously. You look at a person and it just happens. People often confuse intuition and deduction with presumption, and that is often thought of as "being racist". This slides into the social dilemma of deduction, that I'm probabli going to do an entry on.  How intuition works It basically works like this: You look at a person that is wearing very vibrant coloured clothes. A natural reaction in your brain is "This person mus
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent experiences

 A few days ago I saw a person that looked interesting to me, and because everyone on the internet was saying to me that I should practice, I started deducing and I didn`t get so much. I found out from attire that he must have been doing something sporty. He had his left hand in his pocket so he left his right, dominant hand to do something else. Lastly, he had some mud on his socks. That meant that he came there with a bike. NOT that it was an older sock because it rained that day. Also, I`ve been watching a lot of youtube on this topic. I also read an essay too from a young woman around my age. One of those youtube videos taught me how to observe a person. Starting from the shoes, going up to the knees then up to the jacket and it`s shoulders, back to the hands and lastly, the face. Then you simply run over the whole person again, from the data you gathered, create three or so theories and from those 1 greater picture of the person. I practice almost everyday but in passing deduction
Post a Comment
Read more