The most famous detective in literary history, and no stranger to the small and large screens, made his re-emergence, this time not from Reichenbach Falls, but onto the big screen in the hands of the consummate London East End thug culture movie specialist Guy Ritchie. I’m referring to Sherlock Holmes, of course, and his trusted partner (not to say “sidekick”) Dr. John Watson. In his new incarnation Holmes, revealed in Robert Downey, Jr.’s pitch perfect performance, still solves mysteries, but now he boxes for money, uses a revolver, and is outwitted by an American woman with whom he is much smitten. Not your grandfather’s Holmes, indeed!
But no matter how much Holmes’ details change for the modern viewer, his core remains the same. And this is the great mystery which personality type has solved. For the mystery of Sherlock Holmes type we finally have an answer. . .
Let us consider, as Holmes invariably would instruct us to do, the evidence. It is easy to point to Sherlock’s solitary nature, his keen powers of observation, his unwavering intellect, and his indifference to time and task (as well as his personal appearance and his housekeeping) and pronounce him an ISTP. And, in fact, in this case, we have it solved.
And yet, let us look deeper. Type, after all, is not merely four letters defining the man (though he be a literal ‘man of letters’), but a system of being with four letters the code for uncovering a person’s core self and the way the world occurs to them. When we do look deeper we see that what Holmes is best known for is his gift of observation of the most minute details. From a smear of mud on the hem of someone’s pants Holmes can conclude where they have been and what they have been doing (disposing of dead bodies in unseemly parts of London, for example). This may lead them to conclude that his dominant type is extraverted Sensing. However, observing him more closely we see that his keen sense of physical reality runs in service of his mental powers of analysis and categorization. In the movie Holmes spends hours observing the flight patterns of moths as they are affected by his violin playing. It is the system that if fascinating to him, not merely observation.
Embodying ISTP preferences Holmes is a man of action and idleness is difficult for him. During a two week stretch when he has no cases he calls out to Watson that his brain cannot stand to be idle but must have work, any kind of work to do. He even prefers to release some steam in a boxing match rather than sit around and stew after a falling out with Watson and Mary (Watson’s fiance). Yet, even in the boxing arena we see that his observation is in service to his powerful Thinking, puzzle-solving brain. Holmes analyzes the weak points of his much larger opponent and then takes action immediately to render his opponent supine and his victory is assured.
Conversely, Watson is a complement to Holmes as an ESFP. Although not as keen as Holmes, Watson, if only because he is a doctor, is closely observant and perceptive. He connects with people and lets his values be his guide, for example, introducing his fiance to Holmes in order to connect the two most important people in his life. He too is a man of the moment as we see him time and again get caught up in an adventure with Holmes or when just passing men playing dice in an alley. His reaction to gambling — clearly a weakness of his — is a good contrast to that of Holmes. Watson gambles for the money and for the social interaction; and he apparently loses so much that Holmes must hold on to his winnings for Watson’s own good. However, when Holmes wagers — as he does in the boxing ring — it is for the physical problem solving in a tense and painful setting. The money Holmes wins is for the benefit of Watson and the ring he wants to buy his fiance.
Together Watson and Holmes are great complements to one another and make the most of their differences.
Go see the new Holmes on the big screen and I would love to hear your thoughts on the solution to the riddle of the Great Detective.
Filed under: HR | Tagged: movies, personality type | 1 Comment »
BreCakes 