Deduction: Part 1.
The Deduction Guide;
“The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes.“
– Arthur Conan Doyle.
Deduction and Induction?
Deduction is a process of reasoning that with a known truth that is then applied to a specific case.
Induction is using observations and evidence to infer a specific conclusion.
With regards to reading people start small, like determining the ‘handedness’ of a stranger. Once you can do that at a glance, under a second, move on to bigger answers to bigger questions. (We all know that handedness is 90/10 right to left. So by pure odds alone you should get it right 90% of the time. So, ignore right handed people and try to identify Lefties)
[I was trying to be informed by this book but it quickly got my back up]
The Deduction Guide is a book written by someone who clearly wants to be a detective, deductionist, consulting detective etc etc, but what I’ve read so far is mostly reformed quotes from Sherlock Holmes sources such as Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock (BBC TV show), and the two Sherlock Holmes movies. On top of all this common sense and and other renderings taken for other sources… Nothing of note or value so far (chapters 1 – 3). Because of this, and of course this is just my opinion, I conclude that Louise Blackwood isn’t a professional deductionist, rather someone like me who wants to be one… yet seems content with regurgitating lessons from a fictional character on her television set. The first paragraph of her book is;
“In order to begin making deductions about your surroundings, you must first realise that the science of deduction is in fact a science of two parts.”
At no point in the first twenty pages does she refer to the science she mentions in that first paragraph. It’s almost like she has been told that deduction is a science, but has so far failed to understand how in fact is is a science, Pseudo-science or otherwise.
This is the problem with self published books, they answer to no one. And a book that professes a scientific method, should has peer review, this book does not. I could read Sherlock Holmes, watch Sherlock, and Elementary, and the two Guy Richie movies and then, based on what actors reading lines on a script have said, write this book. Add a little common sense and some real world references and there to go, a book.
It must seem forward to write such things about a book i haven’t finished reading yet, and I will finish it if not to make sure the factless continues to the end… Would I recommend this book to someone who wants to learn the art/science of deduction… No I would not. Unless that person was a child who needed humouring.
“Without knowledge, deduction is improbable, if not impossible.”
So what do you need to learn?
To see something and I understand what it means, is to understand it. If you see something you do not understand, research (use you smartphone and google it), learn, learn, learn. If you want to investigate murders, understanding crime scenes and methods of murder will be invaluable… Just being about to see things won’t be enough. Seeing is great and all, but if you don’t understand what it is you’re seeing, then it is useless. This is where experience is key. So just studying deduction isn’t enough, criminology and criminal psychology can help. But ultimately the more you know/understand about the subject of your deductions the better your deductions will be.
It is not enough to know/induce someone is lying. The important thing is to know why they are lying. This will allow you to ask the right questions to not only prove the lie, but also to understand why the lie was told in the first place. And then discover the truth, because if you are not after the truth, why are you here?
The Mind Palace; simply a place to store information in your head. Using a memory of a place that you know would be best as you already know the layout and don’t have to invent and remember a knew one. Your own home would be a good start. You know the layout and it’s contents. Now, you just associate objects within that image with information. These objects exists, you know them so you are fine, but if you find that you want something new, that doesn’t exist in your home/mind palace, then make it memorable. If you need to extend your palace then do so but in a way that retains the style/architecture of your pre-existing mind palace. Create a new door and an “extension”.
I’m writing all this out because it’s a good way for me to remember things. Right now I’m trying to study more of my criminology hobby. Yes hobby, I do this for fun…
Now there is a lot of information that I’m going to have to retain and so a mind palace would be helpful if I can get the thing to work. How am I going to go about building this… I’m going to use my house. My bedroom for personal information, and the other rooms for, whatever… These studies and any other information that I feel I need to retain, (This is not just a study in criminology, it’s a study in crime and how that for perpetrated), I’m going to store in the loft (attic), in some kind of conventional filing system. The loft will be easy to change or grow over time, I don’t need to think about his it looks because it’ll just be a longer/bigger version of itself, I just need to remember what’s in it, things that I will be placing there.
So Louise Blackwood doesn’t really going into the finer points of how to go about storing information in your mind palace. She tells you what it is, and that you can use one to retain information by creating one, but doesn’t touch on the finer points of how to actually do it. Do I read something and than close my eyes and, in my mind, store that data. Do I imagine myself storing it. Do I just say it to myself? After reading the four and a quarter pages (pages are 3.5 – 6 inches), It’s like a pocket guide sized book. So those four and a quarter pages are more like A Page for your stranded paperback. For something that is supposed to be an important part of this vocation, the retention of information to solve problems, you’d think there would be more to talk about.
Okay so now this book has hit on body language and there a few parts which I love so I’ll write them down then discuss them.
1, “In general a look to the right (eyes) suggests a lie, fabrication, creativity, guessing. Left, truth and memory.”
This is such horse shit as someone can break eye contact simply to remember something it doesn’t, and has never meant that someone is lying. In fact liars will hold eye contact to see if you believe their lies. I’ve noticed in myself that if I’m taking a guess I tend to shift my gaze upward not to the right. And shifting left means Truth is simply idiotic, someone will just be relaxed as they have no need to be anything else, they might hold you gaze but unlike a liar remain at ease, a liar will seem urgent in some way, anxious. If they hold you gaze, seem anxious and are rubbing a part of their body (comforter), they are most likely lying.
2, “If a person exhales cigarette smoke in an upward direction, they may be feeling confident or pleased. A downward direction implies secrets or negative feelings.”
Nonsense. And like the first these were typed into a computer and published into a pocket guide with no references as to where the author got this information, she says it and we’re supposed to believe it? People get into a habit for blowing smoke in a particular way, up down left right. Look more at the context of the body language.
62 pages in and the author has referred to one book on body language and the BBC television show Sherlock.
If i were to write a book on Deduction, sure I’d refer to Sherlock Holmes, given that he is the house hold name, the one that most people should think of when thinking about deduction. It’s where most of us were first interdicted to the word… But I wouldn’t use fiction as a means for placing facts or science… Introduce the character of Sherlock as something people understand then introduce them to the Conan Doyle inspiration for creating Sherlock Holmes, the original deductionist, Joseph Bell, a surgeon at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. Then by using the familiar, TV shows and movies and book, infer from that material and then research the FACTS/SCIENCE and give that information to your readers. Of course Sherlock induced that piece of information, it’s because that is how the writers wrote it. Everyone else was supposed to miss it because it was written that Sherlock would discover it while making everyone else seem idiotic for missing it “Do you always think this slow. What must it be like inside your tiny brains?”
Forgive my abrasiveness with this subject but I take the science of this very seriously and someone using fictional characters, however legendary, is stupid. There is no science in a fictional character inducing when that is how it is written, real world science and observation is never so clear cut. My anger over this is based solely on the fact I’m reading it in a book and not a blog.
So that book is now finished and was, in my opinion, fucking pointless.
So I forgot to mention this; In the back on the book, page 83, that begins a new section called ‘Helpful Resources’, and in that their is a section labelled Microexpressions, the author begins by giving a very brief description of what a microexpression is and then goes on to show us Tim Roth (from the television show “Lie to Me”, demonstrates the seven universal microexpressions). A few things, from that statement it sounds like there are only 7 microexpressions when in fact there are thousands. For every emotional expression there is an micro/macro representation. The thing that gets me is her choice to use Tim Roth and theTV show Lie to Me. Now don’t get me wrong, I like the show just fine, but it is a television show. What she fails to do is tell you that the character Tim Roth is playing in that to show is based on a real person, Paul Ekman. Ekman has written several book on the subject of emotions and facial expressions when feeling these emotions: What the Face Reveals, Unmasking the Face, Telling Lies (If you like or have watched ‘Lie to Me’, you will find out that a lot of the character points come from this book), and Emotions Revealed. All of these books give you, in greater detail, the science of behavioural psychology/science.
Now on to the next book entitled: Becoming Sherlock (not a good start) The Power of Observation and Deduction. Come back for part 2 of Deduction.