Deduction: Part 2
So this book isn’t much better, spelling, grammar, and just bad writing in general… This reeks of self publishing, and clearly nobody read this book before it was published. No peer review, just some dude who has read Sherlock Holmes, and watched the shows and movies and thinks, “I can do that. But better yet I can teach others to do it too.”
According to this “writer”, if there aren’t slipper next to a bed, then the slippers are missing. Not that the person might not have or wear slipper. They are missing. And if you have a Violin in a window you are either “lying” or “showing off”… Not really sure how you get to that, oh wait you might also be a deceitful person or just egotistical.
“No violinist would put a violin in the window, it would be exposed to the sun and it’s heat. Consequently it would dry out and crack”. This might be true, I don’t know… But why does having as violin mean you play one, or that your a liar for having one but not playing it… maybe you’re a music buff, you love music composed with violins, and you saw it in a shop window and impulse bought it as decoration.
My point is, having a violin but not playing it doesn’t make you a lair, a show off, or egotistical.
The “writer” also says that not having a crevice in your pillow (on your bed) means you have trouble relaxing, because you do not sit up in bed reading!? And you don’t have a haddock next to your chair to rest your feet…!?
Clearly this “writer” want’s to be a deductionist so badly, and what’s to seem like he knows what he is talking about that he will Google an image and then just make up a bunch of bullshit to fit his needs… “I’m good at this, let me teach you.”
Looking at one piece of evidence, a violin in a window, doesn’t say anything about a person, unless you have other evidence to add to that to induce or infer who this person is, one piece of evidence says nothing unless you back it up with something else. Does this person have a music sheet stand, or a music collection filled violin music. Or did this person simply think it looked cool… It sure as shit doesn’t mean you’re a lair.
I don’t seem to be reading about seeing the truth in these books. It’s more like seeing this one thing and infer something, that thing you inferred is the truth… They all harp of about Sherlock Holmes but are quick you jump in with inferences… rather then tell their readers to base “theories to suit facts, not facts to suit theories.” Also “Data data data, I can’t make bricks without clay.”
Self published books this short have no value in this kind of subject. In order to make good deductions/inductions/inferences is to have the knowledge to understand what you are looking at. These books tell you from the start that reading them means you’ll be better at it… Then go on to tell you nothing.
I’m now 57 pages into this book and I’ve lost count of how many times the author has mentioned Sherlock Holmes and so I’m left having to say it again, you shouldn’t be referring to fictional characters when trying to teach people about a scientific subject.
Though I have to add here that deduction would come under the heading of Pseudo-Science rather than your garden variety science.
I’m of the mind that if your going to teach people about deduction/induction it’s probably not a great idea to use a fictional character to make points. Sherlock would sometime give evidence that hadn’t actually appeared in the book and make judgement based on nothing… He is fictional, he is great at what he does because he is written that way.
If you want to try to help people improve their awareness, memory, and observational skills, then do that without fiction. Research those topics and use actual people that have used real scientific methods to study them. And on top of that don’t just stick to one point of reference: One person, one book. Use multiple sources.
If you’re a hugh fan of Sherlock Holmes these books might interest you but trust me, you’ll learn nothing of any value, but you might think you have.
On page 8 we are asked to study a picture: A bedroom. There is a bed on the left a bedside table in front of a window with a lamp and a violin then finally a chair on the right turned into the room slightly.
Not a great image, sorry.
The author asked us to study it and determine the personality of the occupant, what is missing, and is there anything wrong with it.
The author says that the occupant is slightly unkempt and rushed due to the bed not being made. Has trouble relaxing because there is no crevice in the pillow from having sat there reading a book. And no haddock, by the chair presumably, to rest your feet.
Under the missing part of this idiocy we have the violins bow string and slippers. The author says that if you are late for work and rush out, where are your slippers? The author reckons they should be on the floor by the bed. Now we have ourself a Problem: yes, the author underlined this bit. The occupant can’t be a violin player because a real player would know not to put a violin in front of a window where it’ll be exposed to the sun and heat because that would dry it out and crack it. (I know nothing about violins so this could be true and therefore will not comment on that part).
Back to the Personality;
Unkempt and Rushed because the bed is unmade. Yet you say a little later that the pillows have no crevice. The pillows look like they are placed there, two in fact, one smaller pillow in front of the larger pillow. Presumable the occupant would sleep on the second but remove the smaller pillow as it would just be in the way. The rest of this room is very tidy and orderly. You can’t even see the lamps power cable, so the bedside table was placed there because it’s under the window but also covers the socket, hiding the wire. The violin could be in the window, and it’s bow string missing, because this person doesn’t play the violin, that it is nothing more than decoration. The author however describes the occupant as either a lair or as someone trying to show off. That he or she might be deceitful and is almost certainly egotistical.
What the author fails to mention is that this a picture might actually just be set up and the bed covers were disturbed on purpose to indicate that someone lives there, nothing more. A slightly unmade bed doesn’t mean that the occupant is unkempt as the rest of the room is tidy and in order. It doesn’t, in my mind, indicate that the occupant is rushed either, as the occupant had the time to replace and “fluff” the pillows. Which answers to the “unable to relax” bit. Fluffing the pillows would remove the crevice. Have you heard the saying “messy room, messy mind” that would suggest that this person has an orderly mind, which would do away with the unkempt and rushed parts of the personality. I’d also like to mention a few things that I think the author missed. First that this occupant, from the point of view of the picture is female, I base this on the lamp. It’s stand is either glass or a clear plastic, something that a man is unlikely to buy for himself. But as we can’t see the other side of the bed we have no idea whether the bed holds a couple. Women tend to decorate the bedroom to their own designs no matter if there is a man beside them or not. But we can’t see that so I can only base my assumption on what I see. This women is almost certainly more extroverted than introverted as the window has no curtains, only a netting. Clearly this woman doesn’t mind people getting a look. She is confident in her appearance, and maybe likes to tease the men around her. That’s not to say she is a slut.
The slippers thing. The author states that because the bed is unkempt (I’ve already dealt with this) and so the woman was rushed, so where are her slippers? Well, maybe she doesn’t have slipper. Not everyone wears slippers. But, having said that maybe she does, she had time to replace and fluff the pillows so why wouldn’t she have time to slip on her slippers.
I find it fascinating that I’ve written more on this subject than the author did and induced that the occupant is an extroverted woman.
It’s no surprise to discover that women like to decorate with inane objects. She saw the violin in a shop window and thought it would look good on her bedside table. Or maybe it was moved there later on, she wanted to keep it because it looked nice. Having a violin you don’t play could suggest a lot about the person who bought it for decoration, but a lair, a show off, deceitful and egotistical…?
If I were to ask her why she has a violin by her bed and she said “I just liked it” then she isn’t as the author describes, at all. If she said, “I wanted to learn but never got around to it” Again, not as the author describes. If she said “I played as a child, but not anymore” again, not as described. Take a look at her music collection, is there a lot of classical/violin music? Are there any books on playing a violin. Are there any pictures of her as a child playing the violin. One piece of evidence says nothing about a person unless you have more evidence or a lack there of to base it on.
I have just debunked this authors entire deduction/induction/inference about this occupant.
But then I think this picture was a set up to sell an idea. Like an Ikea image, Ikea are trying to sell the bed, the bedside table, the lamp and the chair. Everything except the violin. But then the violin suggests culture, so Ikea are trying to sell these items to a someone cultured or someone who wants to be cultured or at least appear cultured.
I just added the picture, above, by taking a photo of the page with my phone, go up and take a closer look at the violin, you can see a vertical line just right of centre. Is that the bow string?
32 more agonising pages to go.
And on the very first page read today. The author is referring to people in Ancient Greece having to rely on memory more than we do today, and that could be correct because, as the author mentions, we have calculators, smartphones, and the internet to hand. But he then says in the same paragraph, “And a good memory, by the way, was much more mandatory centuries ago.” He’s words, not mine.
Then he goes on about the devices and then says this, “does this mean that the people from the 1800’s had better memories than we do now?” This could be forgiven as it’s a book based on Sherlock Holmes’ deductive learning. Sherlock first appeared in the 1887 if I’m not mistaken. So he might just have gone there, right?
The next paragraph however goes back to Ancient Greece which was between 1200BC and 600AD. So not centuries, but millennia. I spent less then a minute and discovered those dates with an internet search. I took less then a minute to discover that, the another did not. What does that tell you about the writer of this book. What can you induce/deduce/infer from that? Maybe that this writer thinks he knows what he is talking about but mistakes Ancient Greece for the 1800’s. If the writer is so wrong about something so obvious, why should we then believe anything he has to say about the science/art of deduction?
This is another reason why self published authors seriously need to get there shit read by someone who fucking knows what they are doing. An editor or proof reader or a friend who won’t bullshit them, because this is the kind of crap that I’m trying to make a point about.
Just because you “self” published a book doesn’t make you a teacher, people write this shit because they feel they have knowledge or skill that they want to share with the world. But have no real understanding of what it is your writing about, you think you know and that is far more dangerous than not knowing because you are instead teaching people your mistakes, which then get past on to others, and now they think they can do this.
You can’t watch Sherlock on your television and be a deductionist, it takes years of study and (this is the crucial part) experience. The same as you can’t watch Lie to Me and think you can detect when someone is lying. Instead realise that Lie to Me is based on Paul Ekman, then study him and realise that he studied emotions for 20 years and before that had a grounding in psychology.
If these shows cause you to want to learn that’s great, just don’t think that you can learn all you need from television or self published (without peer review) books. Research the topics, buy books that are written and published by established writers and publishers, and never settle for a single point of view. Read everything you can on all the subjects.
Sure you can go out and people watch, it’s kind of fun to sit and watch people and make up stories based on what you observe of them. Where have they been where are they going, who are they what kind of life do they have. But whose to say your right? All you’d be doing is learning bad habits. It’s better to start with people you know well. You already know them, now try to spot things about them, on their person or their surrounds, house, flat, car, that will reinforce what you already know to be true about them, this will increase your knowledge base and give you some, if limited, experience. Good detectives don’t just walk out of the academy, they are honed on the streets.
Pages 72 and 73 deal with eye position, you know, eyes left mean that you’re lying or was it eyes right… anyway the other direction means your trying to remember something, wasn’t all this debunked years ago.
Page 75 gives a few based statements about Psychopaths and Sociopaths, in one paragraph with no reference to any one scientist or study. He describes Psychopaths and then Sociopaths when, if you read/research the matter you’ll come to release that clinicians and psychologists even have a hard time distinguishing between the two. The author even puts Ted Bundy under in the Sociopath umbrella. If he had studied sociopaths at all he’d know that Sociopaths that kill are incredibly rare, and would normally be referred to as Homicidal Sociopaths. Ted Bundy was a serial killer, a psychopath. Sociopaths don’t become serial killers, they become CEO’s, lawyers, and politicians.
There has been a lot of talk about body language in this book so far, and just now, at the thought of continuing so I can finish it, I let out a loud sigh… what does that tell you?
This book end with this;
“There is a chapter devoted to reading body language. That has given you the ability to detect deceit.”
That chapter is 9 pages long. Which means the 9 books with thousands of pages I have on the subject were a waste of money and time. Because all it took was 9 pages from a self published book.
My brain hurts.
Next book: A Guide to Deduction: The Ultimate Handbook for Any Aspiring Sherlock Holmes or Doctor Watson.
Why the fuck do I do this to myself?
Could it possibly be to entertain you guys..?