#general deduction

In many deductions and templates I have frequently seen an individual mention observation as a foundation or fundamental core to which I agree. However these individuals too make slight mistakes by only observing what they can see. Of course, it is common to miss things that you cannot see as "out of sight, out of mind" is not an idiom for nothing. However, it is useful to always try to brainstorm what might be missing from the picture, as it is sometimes the smallest things that make the biggest impact. Observation by nature is analysing what you can see, but it is not confined only to what is blatantly obvious. It is equally informing to notice your neighbour's car parked out the front of their house as it is to not notice it there. Both scenarios have their own perfectly significant implications. One could be that they have not used their car and if they usually use their car when they go out it may imply, with a high probability, that they are still within their residence.

On the other hand, if you know that they use their car in accordance to when they go out, then you may infer with an equally high probability that they are no longer at their residence. In this case you can start to mind map and conjecture up possible hypotheses as to why are are not at home. One could be that they have gone out and need to carry something back with them, another reason could be that the weather does not permit them a comfortable journey to where they want to go but that could still go if they take the car etc, etc, etc... Then again, a missing car may not be any of those reasons. Maybe it has broken down and so is off in the shop for repairs. If this is the case then maybe it will be gone for a couple of days. On the other hand, maybe they lent the car to a family member? The possibilities are endless and can only be reduced down with further observations. Usually, with respect to Occam's Razor, it is often that the simplest theory or supposition that is most likely to be the correct one and hence through deductions, keeping them simple is often best. There should always be a balance kept. Remember, "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has any data", but I shall add that it is an equally bad blunder to theorise too decidedly when one has limited data.

Hello everyone, this is my first post and it’s been a while since I’ve practiced thoroughly.

Background: during a bus commute I briefly made some observations about another passenger:

The passenger was holding the right hand in their left hand in a hand-over-hand fashion.

They had medium to short length slightly wavy brown hair.

Was in possession of a green eco-friendly reusable bag. Which seemed to contain an item or two

Dressed fairly nicely but not too formally, had a preference for warmth as well instead of visual appeal.

They were wearing a black face mask and had some earphones in which seemed to be the type to have noise cancellation.

They had a ring, plain silver band with a square type of signet, on their left middle finger. Another ring can be seen on their right ring finger but I couldn’t get a good look.

Has a card holder phone case with their public transport travel card being the only visible card as the card holding compartment was stuck to the back of the phone case.

These observations lead me to believe that:

Based on probability they are right handed.

Hair preferences are always weird however, from the ends to near the roots the tone and colour of hair differed and was lighter than what seemed to be the original colour. This indicates a range of insights such as the probability that the individual was into modern fashion and cared about how they looked but now is not able to care as much meaning that it could’ve been a phase. It could also imply that the person was just overtaken by life’s business to worry about their hair.

The possession of only a single reusable eco-friendly shopping bag shouts that they planned to only purchase a couple of items in their trip out of the house today. In combination with the fact that the bag was not even half full and was folded over itself a little makes it obvious that they were covering a small errand as part of their return trip home.

As they were dressed fairly well in good quality materials it is safe to say that they are doing fairly well financially. However, they are frugal with their money and takes care with their spending. This matches with later observations~~~ As today was a cold day it gives insights into their practical nature.

Due to the black face mask this infers that the person is quite health conscious or has to be health conscious due to either their own immune system or a close one’s. Additionally, the possession of noise cancelling earphones suggests that the individual is a seasoned public transport commuter as a mask was made popular and mandatory when travelling during COVID-19 peaks and the noise cancelling earphones for commuters who don’t want to listen to the humdrum of society’s lessers.

Having one or two rings usually signifies a commitment to something due to some meaningful aspect of a memory or event that ties to it. On the other hand, having many rings, especially visually appealing rings, may indicate that the person is just dressing up for looks. This particular individual seemed to have connected meaningful aspects of their life to these two rings as they seemed to be a bit too small for their fingers. This can indicate that they have been in possession of the rings for a long time and thus it has become a part of them.

As the card holder seemed to be there for the sole purpose of using their paid travelling card it is safe to deduce that they are a seasoned commuter and it is part of their every day life. This gives insights into the potential idea that the individual does not own their own vehicle for transport and/or is unable to use a close relative or partner’s. Following this line of inferences and all of the above leads me to summarise.

TLDR;

I’ve gotten a few messages related to deducing a person’s occupation,

like this one:

and this one:

How can i know if someone works outdoors or indoors??? — sherlockholmes1928

and this one:

This is one of the more difficult deductions to make about a person. There are thousands of occupations. Some people work multiple jobs, or have changed careers multiple times. Context is key, as with everything. I will say that it might be more reliable simply to deduce a person’s field, since within a field there are potentially hundreds of occupations, or even the nature of their job. For example, start with deciding whether or not someone deals with customers on a regular basis, works in a highly skilled or technical field such as the sciences or the medical field, or if they work in the arts. If you can narrow down the category, that’s an excellent start.

It is also fairly simple to deduce a person’s financial situation; the status of their clothes, watch, phone, etc etc. From there, you can decide their relative wage, which can possibly lead you to what type of occupation they may have.

One of the best ways to learn more about occupations is to observe them. Next time you’re sitting in class having difficulty paying attention, observe the mannerisms of your teachers or professors. Notice their vocabulary, the way they present themselves, and what they wear. If you happen to see them outside of a professional teaching setting, pay even more attention to these things to notice the difference in and out of the workplace.

Be aware that a persons’ work clothes and casual clothes are likely to be different, and this difference can widen the more prestigious the profession is. Some businessmen do make it habit to wear suits or at the very least nice clothing outside of the workplace, but it is all a matter of preference. Someone working at a retail clothing store may not have a strict uniform, so their work clothes and casual clothes overlap greatly. This has to do with having a job versus a profession.

Realize that women have more options for professional attire - many blouses can double as casual and dress tops. A woman wearing something along the lines of a nice ruffly blouse and a pencil skirt outside of work might have to wear similar clothes to work.

For both genders, however, shoes can often overlap in work and home life, so pay specific attention to them. Open-toed shoes, for example, are generally considered inappropriate for work (except for certain outdoor occupations, especially those to do with the water like life-guarding and guiding whitewater rafts). Many professional businesswomen wear heels or dress flats to work.

Sometimes it might be easier to deduce what a person doesn’t do for a living.

Hands and fingernails can be good indicators of what a person does or does not do.

If they are well-kept and clean, they do not have a job in manual labor.

If they are manicured and painted, or are fake, they likely do not work with their hands heavily (this does not include computer-related jobs, as nails don’t get in the way).

Books, books, books.

In any Sherlock Holmes novel you read, or any interpretation you watch, Sherlock Holmes is always able to pull off amazing feats with his abilities to deduce. He is always able to study a person, and read their history as if it was written out in a book, getting it right 98% of the time. In A Study in Scarlet, Sherlock Holmes wrote an article that talks about deduction, and how it is used. He calls deduction a science. He also talks about the correct ways to use it, and the steps you use to identify and deduce everything about a person. In ‘Sherlock’, the BBC series, Sherlock made a website called, ‘The Science of Deduction’, where he mostly explains everything about a person’s deduction skills, and how it can be mastered. Not to mention the 243 types of tobacco ash (BBC deleted it, and I wanted to read that article so badly *creys*). In both the tv series and the novels, John highly doubts Sherlock’s knowledge, and his statement that ‘Deduction is a science’.

Sadly, Sherlock Holmes is fictional character (I’m sorry that I must break the news to you guys). There is no article online that can correctly define what went on in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s head when he thought up the article that Sherlock wrote. People will never know the correct way to deduce, and how deduction is a science.

Luckily for you, I’ve looked into deducing for a long time. I’ve even have some minor deduction skills. While I might not be Sherlock Holmes, I decided to make this article or essay for anyone who wants to read it. Welcome to, ‘A Guide to Deduction: Deducing Down to a Science’.

This is something I’ve been having some doubt about, ever since a friend of mine said he considered such a thing to be quite shallow. Can you actually say things like: he’s a narcissist, she’s egotistical, they’re smart and so on? I mean, surely you can do it after getting to know a person, but can you say that someone is a narcissist only by the fact that they like to wear tight and revealing clothing? Can you say that someone is dominant or extroverted or self-confident by the strength of their handshake?

I don’t know. I don’t like not knowing.

What you most certainly can do is make comments on their behavior and behavioral residue. If there is a lot of mud on the shoes, that person has obviously been outside. If one’s clothing is dry and clean, and it’s raining outside, one can safely infer that the person has either been indoors the whole time or has changed attire.

But what about their personality?

We do not like to be negatively categorized, even though we fully embrace positive categorization. No one likes to be called lazy or selfish, but rarely will you find a person refusing to be called trustworthy or steadfast. So if I as an observer decide to call someone vain or untrustworthy, there would be a lot of disproving. If I were to call someone altruistic and creative, my words would be accepted. This still tells us nothing about the veracity of the personality inferring process.

If you call people bad things based on what you see, you should at least be able to call them good things based on what you see. I think this question is a matter of preference and opinion, not of fact. Some people would avoid personality deductions altogether. This is fine, but I feel you lose a lot of information out of fear of being shallow or mistaken.

So my working solution for this problem is yes. Yes, you may judge people’s personality from what you perceive. But, as in other deductions, change your deduction if new data points to another direction and do not suppose more than what the data tells you. If someone is selfish, it does not necessarily mean that the person is also a liar, nor does it mean that being selfish increases the chance of that person being a liar, or anything else, for that matter. If you conclude that someone is selfish, well, then it’s the only thing you conclude.

I do not guess. I observe. And once I’ve observed, I deduce.

Improve Your Powers of Observation by Taking Field Notes Like a Scientist (via Lifehacker)

Everyone knows you're supposed to stop and smell the roses every now and again, but if you really want to improve your observational powers it might be a good idea to sketch that rose out as well. In fact, Time Magazine recommends taking field notes throughout the day to better track your day.

Most people are casual observers at work or in life. It's not a bad thing, but as scientists note, "seeing is not observing." When you sketch or write something out you're making an active choice as to what to include and that means you're actively making decisions about what's important. Time explains:

First, scientists train their attention, learning to focus on relevant features and disregard those that are less salient. One of the best ways to do this is through the old-fashioned practice of taking field notes: writing descriptions and drawing pictures of what you see.

So what use could this have in your daily life? Keeping notes helps you quantify data. That data might be a sales floor, a conference room, or you daily routine. The point is that you're actively breaking down the minutiae of what happens and analyzing it instead of just letting it pass by your eyes. Time suggests two ways to make use of it in an office setting:

Try attaching a number to each episode you observe: how many times a customer picks up an item before deciding to buy it, how many minutes employees spend talking about office politics before getting down to business.

The difference between a casual observer and an expert is pretty simple. While the novice takes a note and then moves on, the expert returns and analyzes that information. If you're looking for a way to boost your powers of observation then keeping field notes seems like a pretty good tactic. Have your own tips for better processing the world around you? Share you ideas in the comments.

How to Boost Your Observation Skills and Learn to Pay Attention (via Lifehacker)

It's easy to not pay attention to the world. We lower our eyes when we walk and avoid eye contact at the supermarket. For most of us, our default state tends to be ignoring what's around us. But doing so makes us miss out on inspiration and fails to develop our curiosities. Here's how to train yourself to pay a little more attention to the world around you.

We know that getting out and taking a walk can boost creativity and a little mindfulness can help with all sorts of things. But neither of those is useful if you're still gazing at your navel. Being observant means watching people, situations, and events, then thinking critically about what you see. We miss a lot in the world while we're busy shuffling between here and there. While there's no way to quantify how that affects our well being, it's clear the more you pay attention, the more often you'll come up with new ideas. If nothing else, you'll expand your worldview. First, you have to train yourself to pay attention again.