A Guide To Deduction

What kind of intelligence does your character posses? Based on theory of multiple intelligences, these are some ideas what kind of smarts your characters might posses that aren’t the typical academic or street smarts. 

1. Visual-spatial (space smart)

These people are good at visualizing things, seeing in 3D, being able to imagine how things look even out of sight from the information they have about it. They are good with directions, maps, charts and pictures. Eye for drawing, patterns and puzzles. 

Especially useful for: architects, engineers, artists, pilots

2. Linguistic-verbal (word smart)

The ability to use words well, when writing and speaking. Typical strenghts are telling stories, memorizing information, love for reading, skill with words, debating and persuasive skills, adept at explaining complicated subjects. Also tend to be great at languages. 

Especially useful for: writers, journalists, lawyers, teachers, public speakers

3. Logical (reasoning smart)

Not necessarily but possibly mathematical, these people are great at reasoning, pattern recognition and logical analysis. Enjoyment for abstract thinking and ideas, excellent problem-solving skills and logical argumentation are other common traits. Pattersn, categories, relationships. 

Especially useful for: mathematicians, accountants, scientists, and detectives.

4. Bodily-kinesthetic (body smart)

Great hand-eye cordination, physical movement, often skilled at sports, dancing and creating things with their hands. Learn and remember rather by doing than listening or reading. Sense of timing and mind-body union excellent. 

Especially useful for: dancers, sculptors, actors, athletes, surgeons, crafts people, soldiers, police officers

5. Musical (sound smart)

Sensitive listeners. Thinking in patterns, recognizing rhythms, notes and melodies, good at remembering tunes, these people often enjoy singing or playing instruments. Often show great understanding of musical structure and know quickly when they hear someone going off-key. 

Especially useful for: musical teachers, composers, musicians, 

6. Interpersonal (people smart)

These people are very good at understanding and interacting with others. From verbal to non-verbal communication, they are proficient at assessing motivations, moods and desires of others and seeing things from multiple perspectives. Great communicators, create positive relationships with others easily and solve group dynamics and group conflicts well. Also enjoy discussions, debates and teamwork. 

Especially useful for: psychologists, counselors, salespeople, politicians, philosophers, teachers, managers, team leaders

7. Intrapersonal (self smart)

The opposite of interpersonal smarts is the intrapersonal intelligence, where people are very in tune with themselves and their feelings. They are honest with themselves, enjoy self-reflection, analysing theories and ideals, love daydreaming, and show great self-awareness and assessment of their own strenghts and weaknesses. 

Especially useful for: writers, philosophers, theorits, scientists

Bonus types: 

8. Creative (ideas smart) 

People that show exceptional curiousity, get inspired by little things around them and connect ideas and concepts in an unsual way. It’s a more feeling-based, spontaneous type of intelligence that gets less recognition, but brings immense benefits in all fields. 

Especially useful for: artists, marketers, scientists, concept artists, 

10. Abstract (concept smart)

Drawn to abstract ideas, these people enjoy deep discussions, don’t like to settle on one truth and ask questions that have no easy or no answer at all. Connecting, conceptualizing, analysing, listening and putting things together, they are great at seeing things from a distance, seeing the whole and not just the pieces. 

Especially useful for: scientists, philosophers, researchers, theorists, designers, analysts

However Improbable is a new podcast narrating and discussing the great detective!

Join detective literature enthusiasts Marisa and Sarah in revisiting Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic tales. We uniquely read them in chronological order rather than by publication date. Every other week, we present a fresh new recording of Holmes and Watson’s adventures, and then delve into the story, its history and politics, adaptations, and why we’re still so captivated by the detective and his good doctor. Holmes himself famously said that there’s nothing new under the sun—but we’re willing to give him a run for his money.

Listen to our introduction episode on our website! 

New episodes every other Thursday, staring October 1 with a A Study in Scarlet.

The long awaited Sherlock episode of my new autism coding podcast- where you can get a full update on my journey with the Sherlock fandom, and hopefully learn something about representing autism.

I made a podcast with a friend!  It’s called Spectrum Projection and it’s about characters that you can read as autistic, building on what I spent my masters researching but applied to more approachable pop culture!

Deductive reasoning starts with general premises and draws specific conclusions. In a similar way, deductive storytellers start with general concepts and work their way down to specific details.The Snowflake Method is the purest form of deductive storytelling–you start with the most basic overview, and at each level, you add more details and get more specific, until you wind up with a first draft.

To a deductive storyteller, the overarching framework is necessary in order to develop the small details. For example, if I were writing deductively, I’d decide that Suzie is a brave character, and then write scenes that show Suzie’s bravery. I’d also needs to figure out the steps of the plot before coming up with the details of any specific scene–I’d need to know that Suzie will argue with Dave so I can set up the tension that will lead to that scene. The big picture needs to come first, and any necessary details can be logically drawn from this framework.

In contrast, inductive reasoning starts with specific data and draws general conclusions. Therefore, inductive storytelling starts with specific details of a scene, and from that, draws general conclusions about the characters, plot, and setting. This type of writer aligns more closely with the “pantser” end of the spectrum, and is likely to get more ideas from writing scenes than from writing an outline.

An inductive storyteller needs to write out scenes, and use the small details in the prose to figure out broader facts about the plot, characters, and setting. For example, if I were writing inductively, I might write a scene in which Suzie was the only person in her party to enter a haunted house without hesitation. From this, I’d determine that Suzie was brave, and would use this insight to inform Suzie’s behavior in future scenes.  I’d also use the details of early scenes to figure out the next logical steps of my plot. For example, Suzie and Dave are having tense interactions across multiple scenes, so it’s logical that it will erupt into an argument in the next scene. The small details have to come first, so they can be combined logically to draw larger conclusions about the story.

This framework has given me insight into why I write the way I do. The “plotter vs. pantser” argument is generally framed as “do you get bored if you know the story beforehand”? But the difference goes much deeper than that–it ties into which method of story building feels more logical to you. I find that detailed outlines often destroy my stories. I might have a plot plan and character sheets that work extremely well in summary form, but I find I can’t use those big pictures to extrapolate the small details I need for a scene–the resulting story feels vague and artificial. It works much better if I write at least a few scenes first–see the characters interacting in their environment–and then dig deeper into what those details tell me about my characters, plot, and setting so I can further develop the story. Other people might find that they can’t come up with useful details unless they know the larger picture. Neither way is better–it just depends on your preferred storytelling strategy.

You are tapping your foot. Someone asks you to stop. You do. You feel no ill effects aside from maybe disappointment at having to stop. You tap your foot often. This is a habit.

You are tapping your foot, whether you want to or not. Someone asks you to stop. You can’t. If you try to it feels like holding in a sneeze and the pressure builds up. It might come out in a different, even less controllable action. This is a tic.

You are tapping your foot. Someone asks you to stop. You do, but immediately feel worse physically or emotionally. It was a way for you to express yourself and how you feel. You may feel pressure. This is a stim.

You are tapping your foot. Someone asks you to stop. You can’t, because if you do something bad will happen, possibly some specific bad thing. You know it’s irrational, but not doing it gives you anxiety. This is a compulsion.

Its a lot so just jump into it:

Pianists:

Pianist will have on their left and right hand a curved last bone at the middle finger toward the ring finger and they will have used of finger tips depending on how much they play:

7 years pianist with unregular playing now

First picture is the left hand and second one is the right hand. As you can see the middle finger is bend into the direction towards the ring finger. Note that some people have that condition too that dont play piano. I have not found out why they have it but try to use some context and you might like personality and try to combine it to find out if it is likely that the person plays piano. A good indicated that they actually play piano is that the condition is on both hands. People that dont play piano normally have the condition only at one hand.  Pianists will also usually have a thicker connection between the thumb and palm as also seen on the pictures.

Saxophone:

People that play the saxophone will tend to have a crooked thumb. This condition is as a before with pianist also found at people that dont play the piano. Mostly its people who are hyper flexible that get the condition if they dont play the saxophone. Again context is the key. Deduce with other clues and you might be getting on the right track:

2 years training, playing one to two hours a day

As you see the thumb is bend backwards making a curve. I can be more or less and is caused by people that press with the thumb on something a lot.

Clarinet:

Clarinet players have usally a mark on the right thumb. Its due to that they rest their instrument with a thumbrest on their thumb. Which causes a mark / callus to form on it. If they use a neck strap the mark is not visible as much and turns into just a bit thicker skin. Might be “bumpy”. After training they can also have a round mark on the right hand index finger. Wrong playing of the clarinet can also cause a red mark on the index finger, on the side toward the thumb:

6 years of training, one to two hours a day

There you can see the mark on the thumb under the knuckle. You can also the the mark on the ring finger which is caused by wrong handling of the instrument.

Here is the same hand again but after he trained. As you can see the marks are very visible and red.

Here is also the hand from the inside after training where you can see on the index finger a round mark because of the training. (Sorry I forgot that picture in the first version)

7 years clarinet training, 2-3h a week to sometimes 6-9h a week

Here is a person that uses a neck strap as you can see there is just a little visible bump above the knuckle at the inside between thumb and index finger. Here is the other hand that does not have that bump:

Stringed Instrument:

Advanced string players tend to have calluses on their fingertips as seen here:

20 years guitarist, training 15 to 20 hours a week

If they recently trained with the instrument they will have straight marks on their finger tips as seen here:

Depending on the instrument they will go in different directions:

Violin or Viola:

Lines as seen on the above picture. They go from bottom left to top right.

Cello:

Lines the opposite as seen above. They go from top left to bottom right

Guitar:

Lines go straight across the finger tips or in a very slight angly from bottom left to top right like the violin but in a very flat angle.

Depending on how hard they trained the marks can last up to 40 min:

05 min - mildly visible , 07 min - barely visible , 10 min - still visible in good lit areas, 12 min - now only visible on 3 fingers (index, middle and ring), 20 min - seeing it on the index finger (good), barely on the others, 25 min - barely visible on middle and ring finger and still visible on index finger, 28 min - barely visible only at index finger now, 30 min - almost gone at all fingers index is still a bit of a visible mark, 35 min - only visible at the index finger with good light and close looking, 37 min - all gone

*Simulated with pressing on a violin (because it was broken)*

Thats it for my study. It took some time and a lot of people to be able to do this. I am really happy with the results as I can show to most or basically everything at lest one example picture which was important to me. Again here: Thanks to everyone who took part and helped me to make this as accurate as possible. If you have anything to add please hit me up at:  [email protected]

Thanks for reading

More body language informations ans infographics?

Check out our Blog: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/learning-mind-reading

Also check out our new content: http://gedankenlesen-lernen.de/koerpersprache-deuten/

Also check out our new website: http://hasenstall-vergleich.com/

Interessiere am Thema Körpersprache deuten? Besuche: http://gedankenlesen-lernen.de/koerpersprache-deuten/

Du bist tierlieb und willst alles zum Thema Hasenstall kaufen wissen?

The 9 biggest misconceptions everyone has about cologne and perfume

( How to Pick a Lock with a Bobby Pin)