#Deductive reasoning

[tremendously-crazy]

⚠️ALERT: SHERLOCK HOLMES DOESN'T ONLY DEDUCE!!!⚠️

Despite the fact that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle refers to his methods as "observation and deduction," Sherlock Holmes actually used a variety of deduction, induction, and abduction!

Merriam Webster uses a very clever soup analogy to explain these three!

"Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is making an inference based on widely accepted facts or premises. If a beverage is defined as "drinkable through a straw," one could use deduction to determine soup to be a beverage. Inductive reasoning, or induction, is making an inference based on an observation, and often an observation of a sample. You can induce that the soup is tasty if you observe all of your friends happily consuming it. Abductive reasoning, or abduction, is making a probable conclusion from what you know. If you see an abandoned bowl of hot soup on the table, you can use abduction to conclude the owner of the soup is likely returning soon."

Throughout the Canon, Holmes uses a mix of all of these methods. It's probably because these terms weren't as well known in the Victorian era. It is a common misconception to refer to any sort of inference as a deduction, but there are actually other types of inferences.

So yes, Sherlock Holmes does use deductive reasoning, but not all of his "deductions" are really that!

[thescienceofdeductionn]

Biases 2-Anchoring Bias

Here we are with another bias. This one could be one of the most important ones because of 2 reasons:

1-It affects every deduction you make.

2-You don't be open to new information even if it conflicts with your deductions.

Let's hope that after learning this bias, we can be more aware of the effects and shape our thinking in a better way.

What is the Anchoring Bias?

The anchoring bias is a cognitive bias that causes us to rely heavily on the first piece of information we are given about a topic.

That's the definition on the internet but basically, first information stays with you all the time and affects every step of your deductions.

Examples

You meet with someone and you are trying to deduce them. The moment you see them, there are already some prejudices about this person on your mind. You might think they are married because they wear a ring or they are right-handed because they carry the phone in their right pocket.

After this point, you will make your deductions based on them being married or right-handed. If some data suggest the opposite, you will either ignore it or change it and suit it to your previous deductions.

That means, if you can't manage this bias, you will go where it leads you and not where you supposed to.

Another example is if you've decided that someone is a liar, every time they tell you something that doesn't make any sense, you will determine it as a lie.

Effects

-You are going to be less receptive and less open to the new information.

-You are going to arrive at a completely different(maybe even opposite)conclusion.

-You are going to be at risk of Confirmation Bias.(We will talk about it next time.)

How to Manage the Effects?

You can start with being aware.(This applies to all biases.)Then, you can check the first information and decide if it is correct or wrong before moving forward.

The important part I realized is that every time you come to a conclusion, check if it is connected to the first information or not. Connection doesn't definitively mean you are wrong or you were affected by Anchoring Bias but it is a possibility.

So, just be aware of the first interactions/information/deductions and move forward accordingly.

“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.” -Sherlock Holmes

[studies-in-the-art-of-deduction]

Deduction Tips #16

The size of a bag is indicative of how much a person needs to carry, and usually we prefer to carry less things. When you see someone with a bag (be it a backpack, a purse, or anything else) think about why this person needs a bigger one rather than a smaller one, and what that says about the contents of the bag and the situation of the person carrying it

[dinosaurwithablog]

Colombo meets the boy King...

[dosesofcommonsense]

If Trump declassifies the JFK files, what would stop him from exposing Fauci, especially when RFKjr wants to expose BigPharma and the BigFarma connection?

[amateur-deductions]

When it comes to the observation weeks in the training program. Could you elaborate on why we shouldn’t deduce then? Is it only about the time when we are doing the exercises?

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

Aditionally, the training program, as incomplete as it may be, attempts to separate the process of learning deduction into manageable chunks. That program was written during a time where the community was much bigger and everyone attempting to find some way of learning this skill. Everyone was coming up with solutions to their problems and sharing them in the community, and that program is an attempt to solve the overwhelming feeling that comes with trying to learn a massive skill with multiple possible points of entry. It segments it into manageable, organized chunks for people to have a neat way of getting started with deduction, and one of those chunks is just observation, since it's complex enough of a base skill to have its own section

[deducter]

Culturing Bacteria in a Petri dish With Agar; an experiment/observation

Today's post is quite different from the usual;

So, we had to do a project in the educational institution I study in; Which was growing bacteria in a Petri dish with agar.

Today, the results came in, but our professor insisted that we have to throw the dishes in the bin. I didn't give up there; after talking to her for a short amount of time, she accepted that I can take the dish with me to my flat, and have a look at it with microscope.

I still cannot comprehend why other students were disgusted by them; they are beyond wonderful.

Allow me to explain this astonishing journey:

What exactly is agar?

Well, agar, derived from the minute aquatic organism known as seaweed or algae, specifically the types Gelidium or Gracilaria, is a widely employed gelling agent. Found abundantly in the coastal regions of East Asia, particularly Japan and South Korea, it undergoes a process of cleaning and extraction to obtain agar in its usable forms of dry strips, flakes, or powdered consistency.

Now, when it comes to the realm of cell and bacterial culture, agar assumes a pivotal role as a solidifying and gelling medium within culture media. Its remarkable gel-forming properties allow for the creation of a three-dimensional matrix, offering an ideal environment for the growth and sustenance of cells and bacteria alike. Nutrients and metabolites find efficient transfer within this agar-based culture medium, while its structural integrity ensures the confinement of cells to designated areas.

Agar's utilization in cell and bacterial culture provides a multitude of advantages, including its ease of implementation, stability, and facilitation of cell separation procedures. The versatility of agar finds application in diverse fields, from microbiology to biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.

Bacteria can be found on any surface, anywhere.

I decided to pick them up from my shoe soles.

After extracting bacteria from the soles of the shoes, I cultured them in an agar-containing Petri dish. After one week, I observed bacterial and fungus growth in this environment. Here are some images I captured with my microscope:

Wonderful, aren't they?

ND

[brunoholmes]

My deduction and observation skills have gone downhill recently, barely any practice, if any trying to deduce someone on the street in 5 seconds of which I am not capable because of my very novice level in this field.

I am losing hope and faith in myself, but I don’t want to give up, I can’t - I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I did.

I’ll try again and again.

Let’s try it like this: if I’m not doing anything specific I will observe and deduce.

Let’s see where this journey takes me

-BH

[delta-m]

Truffle pigs are a thing.

The reason pigs love truffles is because they love the smell. The smell happens to be like the pheromones of the male pig.

Truffles smell like pig dick.

Anyway enjoy your truffle fries.

[ijustsmackedmynewtattoo]

Deducing With Disorders Pt. 1

Dissociative Disorders: TW - Mentions/Descriptions of Dissociation

Credit to @sleuth2k7 for the idea

So quick disclaimer: I am not a certified psychologist, I am giving generalized advice for deducing with disorders that I have been diagnosed with based on my personal experience. Nothing is one-size-fits-all.

When I was 15 I was diagnosed with derealization/depersonalization disorder. DR/DP is one of three types of dissociative disorders spanning approximately 1%-2% of the population, and as with all dissociative disorders, involves repeated episodes of disconnection from one's sense of self and surroundings. With DR/DP specifically, I experience long episodes of what I can only describe as having a VR headset glued on where you can only watch what's happening to your character, and you just have this certainty nothing in this world is real, occasionally being removed from the driver's seat entirely and placed further back in the VR world by some part of your brain that belongs to you on every count except your own.

TLDR: Am I real? Are you? How to deduce when you aren't sure if you're real is the question.

Answer: I personally do reality checks to start, and I incorporate deduction into that. Am I real? Well does 2+2 still equal 4? Do those baggy pants plus that ill-fitting suit still mean that this teenager is wearing his dad's clothes? Probably. Let's find out.

So when we're reconnecting to ourselves and our surroundings, we look for things that verify our experience as truly our own. Make it a game. Certain deductions are worth certain points, it can help to have a friend to play with. A profession is worth 5, a relationship status is worth 10, etc. No friend? No problem. The classic grounding method of listing 5 things you see, 4 you hear, 3 you can touch, 2 you can smell, and 1 thing you can taste can be built upon to be a more mindful exercise that you don't just run right through.

When listing your sensory observations, use your list to then deduce things about the person. For example, I used to smoke, quit like 2 or 3 years ago, but my ex would always be able to know I had been smoking when I was within 20 feet of her. She could see the nicotine stains, the smudge of ash on my thumb from flicking the cigarette, the lump of a crumpled cigarette pack in my pocket, and not just the obvious pieces of information, she saw the cologne in my bag, and the look on the faces of my friends who would smoke with me before school. For sound she may have heard the dry smoker's cough, the crackling of a lit cigarette, the spritz of a bottle of cologne before I walked up to her, and the click of a lighter in my fidgeting hands. She would reach out and touch the grainy bits of ash on my shirt, and feel the tremors in my hand, and the movement of the pack in my pocket. Obviously, she could smell the tar and smoke of the cigarette, even under the smell of my cologne. Even if I had brought a change of clothes, sprayed copious amounts of cologne, and washed my hands, she could always taste it when we kissed.

All this is of course the long-winded way to say that mindfulness is a invaluable tool when deducing with a disorder that separates you from reality. Hopefully, you can use these mindfulness techniques in conjunction with abductive reasoning to reconnect with yourself and your surroundings. I apologize for the brevity of the post, but rest assured the quality and frequency of posts should be back up to standard soon.

[sleuth2k7]

using all 5 senses in observing and deducing is a pretty well known tip I think

for one, sometimes there are sounds with a source we can't see, so we only know about them through sound

we also can't *see* how things taste or feel (though we can get a vague idea through sight)

a less obvious part of this is that multiple senses can be used at the same time - deducing is sometimes visualized as a step-by-step process where each step happens in succession, and that's mainly to help beginners learn - eventually, the thought process goes faster and can overlap *because* we overlap our senses in everyday life

for example, the other day i was walking through my neighborhood

i was focused on the sky, and to the right, not to the left - i was watching the sky for a few things, and then dragging my hand across the stone wall to the right, so that's already using multiple senses at once

im walking and i realize i smell honeysuckle, so i look around and realize to my left is a line of honeysuckle bushes

had I been looking All Around, I'd have seen the honeysuckle and not even needed to smell it (since I know what honeysuckle looks like), but my eyes were preoccupied elsewhere, and I'd have missed the bushes if I hadn't been able to smell them in place of seeing them

so, point here is yes sight is probably what you're focused on when deducing, but while you're looking around using your eyes, stay aware of any noises or tastes or textures that pop up in your periphery

[thescienceofdeductionn]

Biases 1-Baader-Meinhof Effect

This is the start of a new post series. From now on, I will share biases with examples from daily life. "Why?" could be the question on your mind. Because biases are the first thing that shape your deductions. So, if we are aware of them, we can at least try to decrease their effect.(We can't delete them. Only we can control them.)

If you are ready to face yourself and ready to change it, let's start with the first one: the Baader-Meinhof Effect.

Let's say you went shopping for shoes. You saw a brand new model of shoes you've never seen before and thought "Wow. That's a brand new model." You left the shop and went home. A few days later, you start to realize that a lot of people have the same shoes you have. The first thought is: "This shoe is starting to become popular. Everybody buys it nowadays." And here is the bias.

The real reason you started to notice this shoe model is because you've just bought it and your brain became aware of it. Then, started to show it to you everywhere you go.

This bias is also called:

-Frequency Illusion -Selective-Attention Bias

-Recency Illusion

You can apply it to everything you've just become aware of. So, how can we as "Deductionists" use it to our advantage and be aware of the dangers?

First of all, the biggest danger is the effects on your deductions. If you've read or learned something, you will have more tendency to see the situations in the way you learned them. For example, married people wear a ring on their ring finger. When you learn that, you will notice a lot of rings on people's fingers and you will be more likely to see all of them as married. So, whenever you learn something new, be aware of that.

And now, how to use it to our advantage? If you can learn something and you can start to notice that a lot, that means if we learn a lot of information about the things we see in daily life, we will be more aware of them. If you learn all of the shoe brands and models, whenever you go out you will notice the shoes and you will also know the model. That means you are going to miss less information.

So, start learning and noticing more. Just be careful about the ways it can distort the information. That's all for this post.

[studies-in-the-art-of-deduction]

Hi!!! How can deductions be used in day to day life, or like, usefully? And how have you made useful deductions? Sorry if that made little sense

Hi! I see you sent this question in the past two days, i'll gladly answer it, but in case you send any other questions in the future and i don't answer them as quickly i'll inform you that usually all the questions of the week are collected in my inbox and you'd get your answer on a Monday (this week i had some scheduling problems so i pushed it to Wednesday), so if you don't get as quick an answer next time just wait for Monday!

Now, regarding your question! There's many ways deduction can be used in daily life, sometimes it even depends on what you do for a living. For example i know psychologists and other healthcare profesionals have to rely on non verbal communication and information they gather from observation, along with what they're told, since patients can't be relied upon to be transparent and honest all the time, or even know what information is releant to share. In this case deduction can be massively useful.

On a more general note, it depends a lot on the type of relationships you have, i know people who use deduction to interact with their friends, it allows them to know when they're feeling upset or worried, and about what, and act accordingly, all without needing to do more than just glance at them. I know people who use deduction to navigate social situations because they're not good at interacting with people and having the extra information deduction provides helps. Personally i'm someone that introduces deduction into everything i do, from acquiring helpful knowledge when talking to superiors, to knowing what waiter is best to call over at my table cause they've gotten more hours of sleep.

I recommend you watch Sherlock, House M.D., The Mentalist, and all of these deduction heavy shows that sometimes showcase how these characters use their skills casually, it's really not much different than what you see there. If you want a blog that really goes into casual uses of dedduction i'd check out @froogboi 's blog, it's full of everyday life uses of deduction

[dinosaurwithablog]

This is one of my all time favorite Colombo episodes, It's All in the Game. Throughout this entire episode, Faye Dunaway is trying to seduce Lt. Colombo. He plays along, but he's faithful to his wife. He gets so cute as he gets flustered and blushes. I love Colombo. He's such a great guy. I've been watching this show since it first aired in the 70s. I can almost recite the dialog because I've seen them all so many times, but I still watch. It's a crime show with no violent scenes. I love that. And I enjoy watching Colombo solve the crimes using just his mind and deductive reasoning. I wish all police shows were like this. It makes for a much more interesting show. I get no anxiety watching it. If you're ever gonna watch an episode of Colombo, I recommend this one. It's great

Faye buys him the perfect gift as she tries to seduce him. He loves his wife and dog more than anything so she bought him a dog bed from Saks Fifth Avenue. Hoity toidy dog bed for real. She's very good at her craft. He was very happy 😊 😃

[a-study-in-sepia]

Proxemics and Deduction 01

Proxemics is defined as the branch of knowledge that deals with the amount of space people feel is necessary to set between themselves and others. 

It’s a fascinating field that we, as deductionists, pull from on a daily basis whether we’ve been aware of it or not. If you see two people walking together, how do you gauge their relationship? Lovers, family, friends, colleagues, mortal enemies; all options, along with many more. There are quite a few scenario-specific examples, such as coworkers carrying the same identification tag, or a couple each tending to a stroller, but without fail, as a supplementary measure, or more often, as an introductory observation, we fall to proxemics. We look for levels of comfort, and one of the best ways to gauge that is physical closeness. Proxemics is one of several modes of nonverbal communication, ranging from something as simple as touch (haptics), to something as obscure as use of time (chronemics). 

To explain proxemics in its most concrete state, we can reference Edward T. Hall’s interpersonal distances of man. 

Imagine four concentric circles, in the center, a person. The first three circles are at 4, 8, and 12 feet respectively. Now add one more circle at 1.5 feet. From nearest to farthest, you have the intimate distance, personal distance, social distance, and public distance. Each of these measurements is used to represent the acceptable levels of closeness in various situations. It is important to note that Hall’s model, and thus Hall’s denoted application, is limited to Western ideals of social conduct. While these same measurements may not fully apply cross-culturally, all human-hosting spaces will model some form of proxemics. There will always be bounds between intimate, personal, and public space, but occasionally, they will be marked at different points. The difference between a friend and a colleague may be a matter of a few inches, and yet breaching that unspoken rule, can cause immense discomfort. Gauging this space, or lack thereof, is a major aspect of social deduction. It’s one of the first behavioral observations we utilize as deductionists, both new and old. 

Before marital status, even before handedness, we have social connection. We all see it, I would venture to say we intuitively understand it, so much so that the lines between observation and deduction begin to blur. 

The basics are in the textbook application, but there’s much more to proxemics than reciprocal relations. What about the colleague who’s getting a little too close for comfort? The wife who’s preparing for an imminent divorce? The regular with the irrational phobia? 

Deduction, in many ways, is best dissected through deviance.

Proxemics sets a baseline for us to observe and through this baseline, enables us to detect changes. These changes speak volumes. To take the first example. You notice two coworkers behind the counter in a cafe. Their relationship status is unknown - simply colleagues, barely acquaintances, best friends - it's unestablished to you. You watch them interact; there’s limited camaraderie, few words exchanged from one, a few too many from the other. Is worker B simply over communicative, or is there more to it? You see B encroach on what would be appropriate for a colleague (social/personal depending on the available space - which is something I’ll touch on in a moment), but A steps away, leaving B in the next available concentric circle. This is something we would likely notice without the knowledge of proxemics, but would be unable to categorize beyond a vague ramble about “intuitive social knowledge”. By referencing an established baseline we streamline the observation and solidify it in the process, creating a new building block to jump off of. “Individual A looks uncomfortable” turns into, dare I say, a mathematical reference point for any and all future behavior. 

It is important to acknowledge that this particular example is not representative of Person A’s baseline. It is also important to acknowledge that not every person follows the same baseline, and that certain situations will inherently alter expected baselines. Let’s take the example of a very small area behind the counter in this imaginative cafe. Informal colleagues will likely be forced into what would be considered personal or even intimate space. Proxemic expectations change not only cross-culturally, but by environment. The best way to understand proxemic norms in non-standard situations, is to spend some time observing many people who are exposed to that specific situation. If you simply go off how you would feel in that situation, you are setting a baseline with a possible bias. People tend towards environments they're comfortable with. There is, after all, a reason they’re behind that counter and you’re not.

Now, one might argue that if the proxemic standards are constantly changing, the applications of the specific measurements are all but useless. While it is true that the baselines are constantly changing by environment, there is an overarching standard. When the space is provided to do so, people will revert to defined patterns. And in situations where the space is not available, using this model, you can deduce a whole host of things with the proportional proximal input and subsequent behavior. Personality, relationships, levels of comfort and discomfort are all vital bits of information. 

One interesting morsel I feel like throwing in here is the fascinating subject of lines. Lines, queues, whatever you want to call them are one of the best places to observe shifting proxemics in action. As more people enter the queue (when the space is confined) the spaces between individuals will decrease until they reach a social breaking point, at this point the line will turn, often veering out of the designated queue area. Onto another cafe example (can you tell I got coffee this morning). One person walks up to the register. At this point, the only proximal opportunity is between the cashier and the patron - which is generally defined by the width of the counter between them. Now, another person walks up and starts a line - depending on this individual’s personal proxemic preference, the standard in the line is set. The next person who joins the line will tend to follow the set amount of spacing, and the next person, and so on, as space allows. The patrons up ahead, uncaring of what’s going on behind them, will typically not adjust their positions, leaving a continuous theme of compression as the line progresses, until someone breaks and opts to turn the line. If there is no way to turn, that same slinky effect will move its way back up the line as people become aware of the discomfort behind them. I observed this in action this morning while waiting at my local cafe. Because there is continuous movement, the comfort of the line is rarely at the forefront of anyone’s mind; their priority is to reach the front, not be optimally comfortable while waiting. If, for example, people were queuing onto a bus (which for some reason didn’t have seats) and had to stand there for a couple hours, everyone would evenly disperse. In scenarios with movement, one person’s typically insignificant social preference has a domino effect on those behind them. There’s an observable push and pull of conscientiousness and the introversion-extroversion spectrum. We adjust subconsciously to the line’s collective consciousness, bow down to the social conduct overlord, and occasionally get squished in the process. Take some time to observe this phenomenon next time you’re waiting. Be a menace and try standing too close or too far and watch how uncomfortable you, and possibly others, get. Next time you're first in line, set a weird tone, but remember, with great power comes great responsibility. 

The last topic I’m going to be touching on is something I can find absolutely no research on (great intro, I know), so bear with me. I’d like to discuss proxemics in terms of the inanimate object - something that I’m very poorly defining, but I believe works in the context of this article. I’ve been taking notes on this subject for some time, but only in my own geographical area. It’s proved wildly effective at predicting where people will go, so I took some time this morning to watch live CCTV footage of city walkways in other cities, both in the US and nationally (London, Oxford, and Tokyo). This is simply anecdotal, but through this limited observation it became clear to me that people will walk in the middle of their perceived space, cross-culturally. This sense of available space changes depending on the presence of a roadway, varied storefront structure, as well as other people. If there is no one coming towards them, people will tend towards the middle of the walkway, often veering slightly towards the right or left side (driving/passing side of the given country). Individual patterns can answer questions about openness, day to day activities, and conscientiousness. For instance, a person on a walkway with no one coming towards them who is walking distinctly on the right side (in a right-driving country) may be very high on the conscientiousness scale, and/or their typical routine involves walking among many people. These sorts of deductions can be further parsed using other observations. 

If we accept the premise that people tend towards the middle of their perceived space (which, if other people are approaching, may be one side of a walkway - effectively leaving their “middle” veered to one side), then deviance will usually stem from moving towards, or away from, something. There are a lot of fun applications to this, for instance, deducing how much of a hurry someone is in based on how likely they are to go for the most acceptable path or the quickest path, at baseline. For example, I tend to opt for the most acceptable/safest path, I have high conscientiousness and high neuroticism according to the OCEAN model. But today, I jay-walked through a busy street to get somewhere before my order was ready. This is an example of considering the safest path. Considering the most acceptable path has some predictive applications. As I was taking a break between shifts the other day, I noticed that people who wanted to walk into a store changed their path relatively far in advance. In this case, they were heading towards something. I was able to easily predict which store someone might go into well up to a block away, when utilized in tandem with other observations. 

Early on in my research journey I found that in videos of people walking on the street oncoming individuals were encouraged to veer away from the person filming. I prioritized finding CCTV to avoid this, but found it to be an interesting example of people changing course to avoid something. There were also a few people who veered into the camera's view. Something as simple as this may give clues to an individual's level of openness and extraversion. 

In public situations where a person must veer into an oncoming flow of people to cross to their desired destination, they will often wait until they’re near adjacent to it; in a more desolate walkway, they’ll veer much earlier. Possibly charting their whole course along the less-acceptable pathway. 

I label this idea as the proxemics of objects because when walking, we seem to assign objects their own personal bubbles. We don’t walk near the table line of a restaurant unless there’s a specific reason to. We tend not to encroach on their space, in the same way we consider people. Perhaps it’s more for our comfort than the objects’, or perhaps we’ve all been traumatized by the videos of people dressing up as bushes. Either way, I found it interesting enough to throw in here, and if you’re seeing this, you found it interesting enough to read (yay). I’ll be further exploring the topic of object spatial awareness in a future article I have planned. 

Thank you for reading - below are some relevant articles - 

https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/11826_Chapter8.pdf

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/understanding-personal-space-proxemics/

Hall, Edward T., et al. “Proxemics [and Comments and Replies].” Current Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 2/3, 1968, pp. 83–108. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740724. Accessed 6 Dec. 2023.

[amateur-deductions]

Greetings @amateur-deductions

What are your Go-to advice for for those who start becoming a deductionist and just finished learning body language?

Appreciate Your reply

Bless you all and have a good day.

Hello! Sorry for the delay, i've been on a hiatus since Christmas.

So if you're coming from having learned body language already you have a bit of a head start compared to people that are starting fresh, since you probably have already learned to be more observant, to be constantly aware of things like body movements and facial expressions, and to intepret these things and process them as you take them in. I would say this means you can put a bit less time into the observation practices beginners usually have to go through, and you can dedicate more time to practicing reasoning and logical thinking

I would also say you have the option to approach deduction using your body language background. Something you start to realize as you get better at deduction is that everyone has cultivated different skills they use to extract information, some people use raw logic reasoning, some use extensive psychology knowledge, and some use extensive knowledge in body language and facial expressions, and there's nothing wrong with any of these methods, they're simply what you could understand as different "specialties".

So i would advice that you don't try to learn deduction as a separate discipline than body language, but rather use your body language knowledge, coupled with anything you learn in the field of deduction, to enhance your conclusions

This does come with a disclaimer though. Make sure that you're not leaning into your body language knowledge so much that you're avoiding doing the exercises and learning the methods that are core to deduction simply because body language provides an easier path, since you're well versed in that already