The short answer is: Don’t ask stupid questions!
So, how much whisky do I have now?
I decided ten weeks ago that I wanted a better kind of booze. I’d been drink beer most of my life, I’m 39 now, and though I still like beer, I wanted more.
Three weeks ago I started my two month “see if I can go two months without beer” to see if I can do it, three weeks in and I haven’t craved it at all. That maybe in part due to the whisky.
I’ve tried drinking whisky before, but the cheap shit you can get in any off license or “sweet shop” anywhere in London, never paying more then 20 quid… Why would I pay more than 20 quid?
So ten weeks ago I paid £68 for a bottle of Glenfiddich 18. A single Malt scotch whisky, and so began my latest love affair. I still have about a third of that bottle left. In the beginning I don’t want to drink it too much because it was expensive and didn’t want to spend 68 quid every few weeks on a new bottle of the 18. After this weekend that seems so fucking stupid… Or very smart and this weekend was so fucking stupid???
That was me 10 weeks ago hold my first single malt whisky. The Glenfiddich 18. Shortly after this I bought the 15;
The 15 was nice and didn’t last to long, I finished this bottle off and quickly replaced it. And then this happened;
It’s important to understand that I fucking hated this whisky when I first opened the bottle and smelt the iodine. The taste was worse and I thought I just wasted 50 quid. I was told to stick it out… So I did.
Now this is a whisky I can’t do without. The bottle in the above picture is now empty. It was taken on May 20th. Friday night after work I bought another one.
The next day this happened;
And three days after that this;
As similar as the Aberlour 12 and the Balvenie 12 are, I do prefer the Balvenie. Then I got paid and this happened a few days later;
The black bottle is a Glenfiddich Project XX (Pronouced Twenty). The other is a Longmorn 16. At the time my new most expensive bottle. And a damn fine whisky.
On June 1st this happened;
The Dalmore King Alexander III, is now the most expensive bottle of whisky I own, and will probably stay that way for some time. Unless I go fucking nuts. Which could happen so easily. The other is an Ardbeg 10, another Islay whisky like the Lagavulin.
Then on Friday (9th June) this happened;
First my Lagavulin 16b replacement. Next a Lagavulin 8 Limited 200th anniversary edition. Then a Dalmore Cigar Malt. And because I bought the Lagavulin 8 I was given this gift;
Yes, a Hip Flask… That should do nicely to stem the thoughts of my co-works that I am not an alcoholic… The yesterday I bought this;
A Suntroy Yamazaki 12. All in it’s a great whisky but the thing that cheats th whole experience is that it has, and is currently the bottle of single malt whisky I own, a plastic screw cap…
Met the team;
Shit, I forgot to mention the Highland Park 12… It’s not that great.
So Yesterday I planned on visiting The Whisky Exchange in London, near Charing Cross Station, to buy a Scotch that I’d heard was very good… And expensive.
You can see, on the left, a few barrels… Yes they have barrels in the shop, not sure way, maybe I should have asked, but I didn’t so lets move on. I walked in and immediately loved the air conditioning. I looked around for this Scotch but failed to find it, I asked the girl behind the count and she told me to go down stairs.
There I found what I was looking for and something else.
The Glenfiddich Experimental Series 02, Project: XX (twenty). The is a combination of 20 different casks, all hand-picked by 20 Whisky experts picked from all over the world. Those 20 barrels had samples taken and then they were combined to create the Project XX scotch. This scotch lets you drink it is two other ways.
The first three are;
- On the Rocks.
Now you can add a few drops of water to increase the flavour and Glenfiddich have tested different way to drink this and tell us to add a few flakes of sea salt to the rim of the glass. You can drink through them, or just one at a time, or add the flake to your tongue first than drink.
But enough of that, on to the bottle I when all the way to London to get.
A Longmorn 16…Not much to say really. It’s fucking amazing. And th most expensive bottle I currently own.
The Glenfiddich 18 was the most expensive at £68 ($105). But this, this is £90 ($140).
I shouldn’t have to say that I will not be drinking this one a lot… though it is fucking great… But this does mean that I can now drink more of the Glenfiddich 18.
I love Scotch;
On my way home from work today I had to drop by Tesco to get some bottle water, so I could freeze it because of this Sun we’re currently getting here in Blighty, I mean I’m taking up a patio, slabs and concrete underneath, navigating half way around a house and two flights of stairs, while carrying bags filled with rubble. It’s so hot we need to take “water” breaks to hydrate. So I figure freezes water would be better for this.
So I’m in Tesco, and what usually happens when I’m in Tesco’s is I wonder to the Whisky isle. More to the point, the single malt, aged, shit…
I saw this bottle;
So I checked the price but really was just doing that so the woman behind me might think that I’m trying to decide on what I want when I already knew, I hung around for a bit, the grabbed the Belvenie like it was my Dragon and I just had to have it.
So with my 2 litre bottle of Evian and an 8 pack of Coke Zero (Living the mother-fucking-dream) I got in line to pay.
Now, In Tesco when you buy Single Malt, you have to go to the customer service desk. Your see the shelves only have empty containers. You take it to the desk and they give you a container with your bottle.
So I’m in line behind this women who wanted to retire a magazine because, and I shit you not, It wasn’t a special edition, “The plastic bag it came in said it was a special edition and it’s not.” Seriously, she wanted her money back…
When I got home I found a delivery, well, four, but right now only one matters, it was two of these;
I ordered them yesterday evening… Thank You Amazon Prime.
So, I have these glasses. I only drink Scotch that is older than 12 years…
Yeah, I’m a snob.
You can see to the far right of this picture a bottle of Vat 69.
I bought that because I knew nothing of scotch and it appeared in Band of Brothers, so I thought, Cool, I’ll buy that… Next to it out of frame or bottles of Jack Daniels, Jim Beam, and an Irish whisky, Jameson’s.
Buy the way I’m typing out this blog while listening to David Bowie’s No Plan EP.
Back when I bought these I knew nothing of whisky or scotch… Still don’t really, except that you don’t buy whisky from your local convenience store because they will only sell the cheapest bottles of “good fun joy“… for the next level up, you need to go to Tesco!
You see that bottle of 18 Year Old Glenfiddich?
I’ve heard Glenfiddich pronounced in a few ways, Gled Fid Dick, Or Glen Fid Ditch… A Scottish buddy of mine (William) assures me it’s pronounce Glen Fid Dich. Okay so the CH at the end is pronounced the same way it is in Loch (Not pronounced Lock).
That was the first bottle of proper Scotch I’ve ever bought, and yes, it’s still more than half full… or empty, depending on your out look on life and whatever.
That bottle of 15 Year Old Glenfiddich is the second, I drink that one more because it’s £30 cheaper than the 18, which was £68 by the way.
The other two, the Lagavulin (pronounced: Laga Voo Lin) and the Aberlour (Pronounced: Aber Lour) where both bought this past weekend, Lagavulin on Saturday and the Aberlour on Sunday.
Now this is all well and good but I need more, but am restricted to what ever Tesco are selling, which ain’t a lot, I could probably buy two or three more brands that aren’t Tesco’s own brand whisky…And who wants that!?
So I did what all desperate people do… GOOGLE!
Or as I like to call it, SkyNet, because It will be the end of us all one day.
Imagine if Google (SkyNet) became sentient. It would know everything about ALL OF US.
So Google showed me this little place in London called, The Whisky Exchange
Needless to say I’ll be saving my pennies and visiting this beautiful place very soon.
I’d love a 40 year old Glenfiddich… But at £2,700 i doubt that’ll happen any time soon.
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..?
I’ve mentioned in the past that I love Mondays because of my new job, Landscaping. That’s not to say that I love my job, I like it sure, but love it… Nah.
I can do it, well, and I don’t have managers looking over my shoulder or co-workers not pulling their weight, as in security. Landscaping is mostly outdoors, so there is plenty of fresh air. It’s hard work, by which I mean heavy lifting, so it’s an active job that keeps me fit. And I get paid weekly, which is all well and good, you don’t have to go more then a few days with no money because you’re getting paid on Thursday or Friday, right?
Well no, what if your boss is in the habit of not doing that. I mean do I really have to remind him every fucking week that he needs to pay me? Frankly I shouldn’t have too, he should already fucking know.
So I sit here, on a Saturday afternoon typing out this blog post having not been out or gotten drunk Friday night, and it’s unlikely I’ll be heading out and getting drunk tonight either, in fact I’m not doing anything all weekend, not because I don’t want to, but because I litereally can’t afford to.
So I sit here complaining about being potless. I shouldn’t have to call my boss and ask to be paid every fucking week.
For the first time since 2005 I actually like my job. But sometimes I put serious consideration into telling my boss that unless I get paid on time each week I’m not working. No pay no work.
This of course will lead to an argument and no job.
Boss: So what do you do this weekend?
Boss: Why not?
Me: You haven’t paid me yet.
Boss: Why didn’t you call me?
Me: Because I shouldn’t fucking have to!
That is how I envision Monday morning going. Again. He’ll try to make some kind of joke out of it which will just aggravate me more.
And the horrible thing is it’ll happen again at some point in the near future. Should I really have to put money aside for when he “forgets” to pay me?
At some point I’m going to get sick of this bullshit and just walk away. But then I’ll have no money and no job. What then?
Shit job but I know I’m go to get paid on time.
Good job but never knowing if I’m going to get paid on time.
When you live pay check to pay check you depend on getting paid on time, especially when bills are due.
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.
So to-day I had a delivery. Something that should do away with stupid excuse for why I’m not writing as much as I should be… I’m using it right now, to write this post.
So there you have it, a super thin keyboard from Apple. Which means fucking expensive, though I didn’t pay full price for it. And you’d expect this to be back lit. It isn’t.
It kinda feels weird, the keys have very little travel, not unlike thin, high end laptops. But this keyboard is lacking that saticifying click at the bottom. That click which tells you tactily that you pressed a button properly and it did it’s job. But I guess the more I use it the less weird it’ll feel, so there’s another reason to type shit, and write more.
Now, my typing skills are not on a level with people that type all day at work, of course not, but it isn’t that bad, and right now I’m pretty much typing on muscle memory.
So far, and so far being the last few minutes, I’m happy with it. Not just because it cost a lot of money and I’m forcing myself to like it. But because it’s better than typing on a keyboard that has little or no tactile feeling at all, you know, the virtual keyboard that you get on all tablet, in fact all, mobile devices. It pops up when you need it and takes up half the screen and you use it by hovering your hands over it, trying not to do what you always do when typing; letting your hand rest on it. I’ve missed letting my hands/fingers rest lightly on the keyboard.
So I guess I’m done now. Done with writing this blog, maybe with this new gadget I’ll post more than I have been.
Now that I’m no longer using my 5 year old MacBook Pro I have no excuses not to write, or in my current case, edit.
That reminds me, I need to update some shit.
September rain has had many names over the years, but we’re back to the original.
So I just deleted the opening chapter because it just felt like I was trying to hard to sound profound, it was filled with cliches and crap. I can do better. I must do better. And right now I’m cool with it, but I’m sure that at some point later, like editing session the third I’ll make more changes, and remove more words.