#deductioncorrections

@theartoftheconsultingdetective is a deduction blog here on tumblr that works with other deductionists to solve cases and teach other people how to apply the skills of deduction and deductive reasoning in their everyday life, and on this blog one case, Michael’s first case, remains completely unsolved, partially due to his faulty deductive reasoning. I will attempt to rectify these mistakes in this post. First let’s examine the facts.

                                                The Facts (Simplified)

   -Someone went around the social media app Kik and threatened young and vulnerable girls with posting their picture on explicit porn sites, specifically featuring rape and torture themes. To prevent this, he proposed that these girls provide him with nude photos and the usernames of other girls.

                                               Michael’s Analysis

“If you have noticed I keep on using the pronoun he for the extorter, how could i know this, balance of probability. how many females do you know of that would go around asking for female pics to get money.

Yes, money! If he wanted to have pictures to look at then he’d just go to the porn sites in the first place, he would never go through such hassle just to look at pictures. so then only two obvious other reasons: either he wants the pictures to blackmail them (cant be because he already is blackmailing them), or he wishes to post the pictures to receive money.

So obviously he must be at least 18 or older because if he is getting money for the pictures, his credit card would be attached to the account. those type of websites check the credit card for age verification so therefore he must be at least 18 years old or older.” (Theartoftheconsultingdetective, A Case of a Serial Extorter, paragraphs 2-4)

 Now while these deductions are seemingly sound allow me to point out his crucial mistake that invalidates his following deductions and uproots the entire reasoning of his case: It’s Not About The Money

                                                My Analysis

Michael is in fact correct when he says that if this Extorter wanted to see naked women he could just go to a porn site, however Michael missed an obvious reason behind this Extorter’s action. To put it very very plainly, this person just wanted the connection you don’t get from porn, porn is formal and distant and generic and doesn’t compare to the connection provided by a one on one chat with someone. What he wanted was personal and provided the desired level of closeness and intimacy. It’s the same reason any guy would tell you they prefer to hook up with a girl and ask for nudes instead of watch porn (as this person did) it fulfills the need for intimacy. Following this and dismembering Michael’s complicated, and now, seemingly far-fetched explanation we can go ahead and say while this Extorter could be 18 he might just be an adolescent teen with raging hormones. 

How could Michael miss something so obvious? Simple, he is both looking for a complex solution and is or was unable to comprehend emotions and needs such as the need for connection. I am in fact a complete amateur though, and this post was not intended to bash Calladus or his deductive abilities, as I work closely with him, it was simply meant to correct faults in his only unsolved case.