#deductionist

OBJECTIVE: USE YOUR PERSONAL ENVIRONMENT TO TRAIN YOUR COGNITIVE ABILITIES AND CONSCIOUSLY UNDERSTAND HOW YOU MUST NAVIGATE INFORMATION

Details: Take an object you own, this can be done with a single object like a pen or a whole area like a room, or even a house or apartment. The goal is to observe whatever subject you've chosen, and use your inside knowledge about who you are, and what your life is like, to trace back the observations you make to their root, and make connections.

The point is not to be able to state things like "oh, these scratch patterns on my shoes come from the way i come up the stairs into my apartment", connecting the observation to its source isn't the instructive part. This exercise puts you in a unique position where you know both sides of the deduction, the observation and the root of it, so what you must focus on is what are the cognitive tools you use (or would use) to connect the two.

Example: As i'm typing this i'm looking at my laptop and noticing there's a slight mark of the bottom of a cup on the right side of the computer, next to where the mousepad is. I know this comes from using that area to place my cups, specifically when watching movies with friends over video call during the night. The connection of observation to source isn't the point, the point is to be able to analize all the cognitive patterns surrounding how i can connect these two if i didn't know where this observation comes from

Since i know how this observation came to be, i also know that it does make a lot of sense for this mark to be on the right hand side of the computer and not on the left, because of my handedness. I also know that i only ever put cups there when i'm watching movies, which makes a lot of sense because it's the only time i'm using my computer without interacting with the keyboard or the mousepad, there's no way that a cup could be put there without severely hindering the use of my computer, so that mark can only appear in that very specific situation. As i'm thinking this i ask myself "well i watch other things throughout the day, things like youtube videos and such, i know i don't engage in the same behavior there, but why?" the point of the question is to teach myself to ask these questions when deducing other people, but also to get an idea of what the correct answer could look like, since i can very easily answer my own question: Because when i watch movies i sit back in my couch, away from my computer, not expecting to interact with it in a long time, while with videos or something of the sort in any other part of my day, i don't expect the stationary period to last long, and i remain close to my computer, sitting at my desk.

Knowing the answer to this question and being able to reach it is not the point, the point is to realize what the characteristics of this answer are: It's simple, it accounts for everything i can see, it's also the path of least resistance between question and answer, since it's simply boiled down to "I don't do this in any other scenario because it's a deeply inconvenient behavior unless i specifically don't engage with my computer for a long time", it follows Occam's Razor, where the simplest answer is indeed the correct one (or at least one of the simplest answers). The point of the exercise is to make light of the characteristics of the observation and how i can logically navigate them to reach its root, to then replicate those same cognitive processes in a real deduction

Through this exercise, i can see that things like convenience, angles of accessibility when interacting with objects are all concepts that are directly connected with this situation. I can notice that it's sometimes important to keep in mind that anything that has a screen has a certain maximum and minimum distance at which it can be used, and each one has its own implications. I can stumble into, and forced to acknowledge concepts like physical and spatial limitations and how they might connect to handedness (the side of the hand a person uses the most can get cluttered and sometimes they're forced to use that are for one thing or another, like use a keyboard or set down a cup), and this concept can lead to the understanding that two things can be true at once and they can at the same time be mutually exclusive (like me being right handed and placing my cup on the right side of the computer and also using both my hands to type and write on the computer on a consistent basis, but only one of these things can be true at any given moment), which starts introducing me to the idea of thinking of what i'm observing as a factor of time, and how the observations can all be visible at once, but may have originated at different points in time

This breakdown that i have done about what i'm observing means, and what i can potentially learn from it, and how different concepts arise simply through the things that i'm observing, is the point of the exercise, doing this to yourself teaches you that this is exactly the type of thing you should be doing when deducing.

It's essentially making a deduction with training wheels, you know you're not gonna fall, cause you know the conclussion to the deduction, so you can focus on the process of making it and the cognitive processes that arise with it

This may be the most important and useful exercise i can give you if used correctly, it's been the single most important training tool in my development as a deductionist, and it's also probably the most complicated one.

Now go give it a shot!

Happy Observing!

-DV

Sherlock Holmes: A good detective knows that every task, every interaction, no matter how seemingly banal, has the potential to contain multitudes. I live my life alert to this possibility. I expect my colleagues to do the same.

@amateur-deductions recently did a post on the Building Theory. In his words:

[The Building Theory] serves as a wonderful way to illustrate how much a deduction is a progressive process, with multiple little steps between observations and conclusions. It's also an amazing tool to analyze other people's deductions and break them down in a way that allows you to map out their trains of thought and learn from them

He provides an excellent explanation of how the theory works: basically, you think of the process of deducing as constructing a building, with observations and subsequent deductions representing bricks that are stacked on top of one another, building up to more complex deductions based on those original observations & deductions.

I’ve always liked this theory because it makes the process of deduction more tangible and visual, which helps me learn, and I know others like to use visuals to learn too.

I’ve mapped out deductions from BBC Sherlock before, so I thought sharing that here would help provide a visual supplement to @amateur-deductions​‘ work.

When Sherlock and John first meet, Sherlock asks: “Afghanistan or Iraq?”

You can watch the scene where he asks that here. And the scene where he explains how he got to that here.

While the show provides a decent verbal breakdown of how Sherlock got to that question, we can also visualize his process like this:

blue: observations // green: deductions made from observations // pink: deductions made from prior deductions & observations (level 1) // yellow: deductions made from prior deductions (level 2)

As you can see, Sherlock uses his initial observations about John to make deductions, and then uses those deductions to make additional deductions. All of this culminates in him asking John “Afghanistan or Iraq?”

Let’s break down this process a bit. We can think of this building as being made up of a bottom floor, and then two supporting sides that work together to build onto that bottom floor and also support the roof placed on top. 

First, the bottom floor:

When John enters the room, Sherlock looks up at him and makes four observations about him, which he uses to make two deductions.

1. stance + haircut = military

** Sherlock knows that these observations = military from knowledge he has about the appearance/behavior of people in the military.

2. looks around the room + says “bit different from my day” = medically trained at Bart’s Hospital

** Here Sherlock uses a combination of knowledge and logic. He knows that Bart’s Hospital is a well-known training hospital and if John is familiar with the lab that the pair are standing in (as opposed to a patient room), he must have been a student there.

Sherlock then takes those two deductions and combines them to create another: military + medically trained = army doctor. That deduction forms the base of the rest of the building.

Next, there are two supporting sides. Let’s call them the “limp” side and “tan” side, as those are the two observations that form the base of each.

First, the limp:

Sherlock begins with several observations: 

1. has a limp and uses a cane.

2. does not ask for a chair to sit in.

** Knowledge: Sherlock knows that people with limps may look for or ask for somewhere to sit.

From this, Sherlock deduces that John:

1. forgets he has the limp.

2. Why? Because the limp is psychosomatic.

** Knowledge: Sherlock knows about psychosomatic injuries.

3. Which means that trauma caused the limp.

Second, the tan:

Again, Sherlock begins with two observations, and each have their own subsequent deduction.

1. has a tan. = was recently in a sunny place.

** Knowledge: Sherlock knows that people get a tan from being in the sun, and that tans fade over time.

2. only has a tan on his hands and face. = was in a sunny place while wearing long sleeves, so he was not on vacation or sunbathing, but was on business.

** Knowledge: Sherlock knows that when people go on vacation to a sunny location, it is not typical to wear long sleeves or professional clothing but rather dress casual (shorts and a t-shirt, swimsuits, etc.).

Here is where Sherlock’s process culminates into the question. Relying on the deduction that John is an army doctor, and combining that deduction with these two new deductions (1) has a limp from trauma, and (2) was recently in a sunny place for business/work, Sherlock makes this final deduction: John is an army doctor who was recently in a war zone near the tropics. 

He cannot go further than this though, as there are a few locations that fit that description. So, Sherlock engages in order to get the information he needs: “Afghanistan or Iraq?”

~

Hello! great question, i gotta say i didn't write that program, but i did follow it, so i can only give you an answer based on my experience with it and with deduction as a whole. Unfortunately L isn't available to give you the original reason, but if i get in contact with them i'll make a post with their answer.

So, there's this quote from Sherlock which sums up the reasoning behind this very clearly:

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

During this stage of the program it is assumed you're coming into deduction as a complete beginner, and therefore that you haven't honed your observation skills yet. This means you'll inevitably be at a point where if you try to deduce you'll be doing so while missing a large amount of information, and fall into the trap of not knowing you're missing information and trying to work with what you have, which leads to often taking big leaps in reasoning to reach conclusions, because you don't have enough data to work with.

This is also why when i teach people i make sure they're at an acceptable level in their observation skills before i move onto other stuff. Later on in the process you learn how to make the most out of a situation where you have little to no information to deduce from. But that's a bit too complicated for a beginner, so it's important that they don't try to deduce until they have a solid grasp on what information they can gather

Sherlock Holmes and his successors are contentious points of discussion among fans seeking more than fiction. Mysteries provide thought provoking entertainment and a feeling of reassurance for nearly all who consume the genre; however, for a few it is not enough to simply consume the media presented. This uncontent viewer needs to become the superhero (or fabled detective). Unlike other kinds of fiction — as if to put gasoline on the proverbial fire — these superpowers seem tangible. Holmes may be fictional but surely his prowess can be learned. Whether it’s due to the “follow along format” of mystery or a personality trait of the viewer, there exists a cult following restlessly honing their craft of logic and deduction.

Many of these fans — which we will call “Deductionists’” — have taught themselves formal logic from a pastiche of well documented media analysis, criminology and forensic information available online, mentalist television performers, and an ever growing pool of arbitrary facts called a knowledge base. The unfortunate side effect of this inevitable approach is the deductionist gathers and processes new information through the lens of a writer, therefore producing something adjacent to fiction. On top of this complexity — which is an equally long and chaotic experience for most new deductionists — disagreements within the community creates divisions along the axis of “stage performances” versus “real deduction” separating further into Mentalists and Holmesians; which in all honesty is not always a helpful distinction. This can be uniquely difficult to sort through as a new member of the community.

However, the purpose of this blog is not to document the complexities of self driven education; it is to demystify and simplify the entire process. Deductionists' of the internet age memorize situations and series of circumstances as if drilling events in a martial art. Unfortunately they do not understand the core principles of the art they drill for, therefore learning entire swaths of information that may have been avoided altogether. The deductionist asks themselves "What does the discoloration of the fingernail mean?" but do not ask the more important and topical question "What is deduction?".

I present a new deductionist paradigm. A full knowledge base on deduction organized into one map without the situational complexities. This blog is a re-packaging of all the information I have taught myself over the past years. I will post everything I know about Holmesian deduction in the form of written lectures as if you were attending a university. After each lecture I will answer topical in a singular post. There are a few more overview posts I need to get out of the way (which I highly suggest you do not skip) and then we will go directly into the meat of deduction, beginning with formal logic.

This is a controversial opinion. I doubt many people would share it. And why would they? It’s one of the more dramatic and impressive avenues of this hobby. Those trying to emulate Sherlock try to mimic it, and those who are led to believe it’s useful put lots of time and effort into it. Here’s why I think it is (largely, but not completely) a waste when being used for storing massive amounts of data.

First, an appeal. Many of us began by reading or watching some adaptation of Sherlock, and here I think is a good example. Would Sherlock have spent so much time and effort on a mind palace if he had all the knowledge of humanity at his fingertips? Of course BBC Sherlock says yes, but let’s take the glamour out of it for a second. Would the true character have bothered with it in today’s day and age?

I think yes, but nowhere near to the same extent.

Bottom line is, mind palaces take effort, energy, focus, and time. In your practice, these are important resources. Knowledge is undeniably a crucial aspect to the process and will assist you immensely, but do you need to have every aspect of the human body memorized? Every aspect of a chemical and its makeup? No, not anymore. However, this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t know about it. Do your research, read up on it, and save the information in an easily accessible way. Additionally, decide what information is most useful to you in your day to day life, what is most relevant, and store that away in your palace instead. This is a more productive use of your time.

Here’s what I propose to replace this.

1. Decide what information is most useful to you in your day to day life. I doubt many of us are working with murder cases on a day to day basis. Maybe some of us are, but generally, most of us aren’t. So maybe learning and memorizing aspects of crime scenes isn’t a good use of your time. But then again, if it is something you work with, maybe you should. It is up to you to decide what is useful for you to store, but ideally, it should be minimal.

3. Read and practice. You should put every effort into constantly learning new things. Body language is a fantastic example that would benefit everyone. Always studying and learning more about body language would help. Work with the material every chance you get. The more you work with it, the more you train your brain to work with it, and the easier this will be. An example would be riding a bike. Do you study in a book how to ride a bike? No, you get out and do it. And when you practice enough, it becomes second nature. And no matter how long you go without doing it, you can still hop back on a bike again. Practice and work with what you learn (within reason and safety, of course) instead of memorizing information.

3. Focus on your observational memory instead. When you can recall what you’ve observed and taken note of later, you can do more research into it, or double check your hunches. This will be a better use of your focus and memory.

4. Develop a good data management system. There’s plenty of free resources out there to organize articles, videos, podcasts, websites, etc. Find an easy and organized way to store useful information. This is where you should put all the info you would otherwise haphazardly shove into your head, and maybe use again, maybe you never touch it again. But it’ll be here where you can access it, and you’ve left room in your head, as well as used your time better. Take advantage of technology.

Here’s some good suggestions:

Google Drive

Pocket

OneDrive

I do suggest that whatever you choose can be accessed online. This ensures that you can access it from anywhere with an internet connection, and you don’t rely on one device that can be stolen or break. With this in mind, make sure you practice good online security and make sure you remember your login info.

Make sure you use an intuitive and accurate organizational system to find what you need to. This means tags (if applicable), folders, and descriptive names.

Can you imagine what Sherlock would have done with today’s tech? If anything, I think BBC Sherlock doesn’t even begin to cover it. He would be taking advantage of awesome websites like Reddit, like Quora, to find quick answers from people. He would have articles on articles saved, Youtube playlists galore, flash drives full of info, and would know how to access it and use it.

Tech makes things faster and better, if you let it. I’m not saying ditch mind palaces completely. However, that doesn’t mean you should throw away fantastic opportunities to make some of this stuff easier. The mind palace does certainly still have its place, I myself still use mine frequently, but have managed to make it far more efficient and useful, but its place is no longer for remembering massive amounts of data.

Thanks for reading.