#deductive reasoning

[chemlock]

Algae and Forensics

If you watch a lot of crime shows, you may have seen algae being used to help solve a crime. In Dexter, the algae on the victims was used to determine the port they came from, which led them to Dexter. Or Hannibal, where the algae led the FBI to Miriam Lass. A lot of crime shows play forensics up, but algae actually can be an important tool for helping solve a crime.

The presence of algae, or lack thereof, can tell us several things. Is there algae present in the closed organs of the decedent? If so, that tells you they were drowned or whether or not they were taken to a second location. What kind of algae? This can help us determine fairly accurately where the victim was drowned. This doesn't include bathwater or water with too few diatoms, such as ice water.

But how? Let's look into that.

First off, I will be using the term "Diatoms." If you are unaware, diatoms are a type of photosynthesising algae, so I will be using the terms interchangeably.

There are over 15,000 species of algae living in brackish, fresh water, and sea water. Ponds, lakes, rivers, oceans, and coastal areas all have different diatom communities, and using that we can identify where the victim might have been killed.

When you drown, liquid is aspirated into the lungs and enters the bloodstream through alveoli. This lets particles such as sediments, microorganisms, or pollen to be carried to organs and deposited in capillaries. This means that diatoms can be found in the organs of a drown victim.

So, if diatoms are found in distant organs or closed systems and are of a great abundance, the cause of death is most likely due to ante-mortem drowning. This lets us know that the victim was drowned and was not just dumped posthumously.

Thanks to diatoms acid resistant sillica shell, they can easily be separated from tissue using acid-digestive extractions, and they are detectable in burned or putrified corpses. This means that drowning as a cause of death could be determined in a burnt victim that was taken to a second location.

Algae is also being researched for its use as a time of death indicator. A study was conducted by forensic scientists, who found the diversity of algae on piglet bodies in water tended to decrease over time with a peak in diatoms recorded after 1-8 days of decomposition. This kind of work remains largely experimental, but it has the potential to be used for establishing a timeline since death (or submersion) in water.

Algae can be useful for linking criminals to their crime scenes, as diatoms can transfer onto clothing or footwear. Comparing microflora with the diatoms found could also give you a general area or type of water they were drowned in, as a swamp would have different algae than say, the ocean.

This evidence isn't damning in and of itself, but all evidence at a crime scene is valuable for solving the crime, and as such, algae can be an important part of forensics.

Thanks for reading! Have a good day and a cup of tea :)

[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

[thescienceofdeductionn]

Observation 101

So, here we are. If you practiced your Mindset and Intuition, observation will be more useful for you. Obviously, in 1 post we can only discuss what is observation and how to observe better. In the future, we will go deeper and analyze scenes. For now, let's get started.

Some people think that observation is just looking around. But here is the difference: Looking around is passive, observation is active. There is something called "Passive Observation" but it is not the same as looking around.

Passive Observation: It is an automatic habit you develop. You don't actively look for details but you observe. For example, you shake someone's hand and later you can say it was a firm grip and he wore a watch even though you weren't paying attention. Obviously, details come with attention so you won't observe a lot passively.

Active Observation: You have a purpose and you channel your observation with this purpose. You want to observe as much as possible in the shortest amount of time. So, when you shake hands you don't just shake, you are trying to get a feel of his skin, you are looking for the brand of the watch etc. When you become active, more details are available to you.

Let's analyze this scene in a very superficial way. Sherlock listens to the victim's parents and while he turns his head, he notices something. He realizes that an object is not where it is supposed to be. It is just an instant intuition and passive observation. It appears he wasn't actively looking but still noticed it because he practiced observation for a long time and he can observe even when he doesn't give attention.

Obviously, we have a lot of examples of active observation so I won't go deep on that.(Basically, every scene where Sherlock makes a deduction is almost an active observation. Though, we will go deeper in the next posts.)We can't do anything about passive observation because it will come with practice. For now, let's focus on active observation.

How to Observe?

Even if you know what to look for, if you don't know how to look, it won't matter. (You will look for a watch on a man's wrist but miss the detail that it is a woman's watch. )

So, for the last 3 years, I did research about how to observe and still @amateur-deductions program is one of the best programs. 2 basic questions will increase your observation skills immensely. Those are: 1-What is missing? This question is important because like the example above(Sherlock notices what is missing, which is bust)you need to see what is not there but should be. Almost everyone buys dumbells as a pair. So, if you see a 5 kg dumbell on the ground, you should question where is the other one.(If there is another one.) If you ask yourself "What is missing?" you will see it easier.

2-What seems out of place?

You see a soldier but he is not shaved. Why? Maybe he left the military or he is lying. Whatever the case, there is something out of place and by asking "What seems out of place?" you will look for odd details. These 2 questions are not enough but very important for the foundation. In addition, never forget: “There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” Never take anything for granted.

Your brain will trick you when there is an obvious fact like that:

Wrong: This person wears a watch. A lot of people wear a watch so it is not important. I don't have to observe it.

True: I wonder what can I observe about this watch? What time does it show?

What to look for?

The answer to that question is simple: Everything. You can't take the risk of missing any details so you have to observe everything. After you observe everything, your observations will draw you a path and you will go deeper into some of them. So, observe everything.

This is a long introduction but a necessary one. In the future, we will go deeper. So, if you have any questions about observation, send them. For now, that's all. See you later.

[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

[pratchettquotes]

It had started with The Good Childe's Booke of Faerie Tales. Actually, it had probably started with a lot of things, but the stories most of all.

Her mother had read them to her when she was little, and then she'd read them to herself. And all the stories had, somewhere, the witch. The wicked old witch.

And Tiffany had thought, Where's the evidence?

The stories never said why she was wicked. It was enough to be an old woman, enough to be all alone, enough to look strange because you had no teeth. It was enough to be called a witch.

If it came to that, the book never gave you the evidence of anything. It talked about "a handsome prince"...was he really, or was it just because he was a prince that people called him handsome? As for "a girl who was as beautiful as the day was long"...well, which day? In midwinter it hardly ever got light! The stories didn't want you to think, they just wanted you to believe what you were told...

Terry Pratchett, The Wee Free Men

[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

[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.

[brunoholmes]

You want something to do? See what, if anything, you could deduce from this photo

Marvellous!

So a guy in his teens around 14-16. Hasn’t cut his nails in some time. Either didn’t have time or was to lazy. His room is well room-temperature. Not warm but not very cold. Puts some thought into his appearance. It’s probably dark outside, if yes then Europe/Asia, basing on the appearance I’d go with Europe.

(Almost have)

The photo is quite low quality so it might have been with an old phone or a computer camera. Doesn’t do a lot of manual labour probably - it doesn’t mean that none at all. Is comfortable enough in his appearance to post a photo of himself.

I was supposed to post this yesterday but didn’t. What did I get right?

-BH

[consult-sherlockholmes]

Can you tell us more about your new case?

I cannot tell you much about it yet, just that I am currently in the United States and that it's connected to the solar eclipse yesterday. But if you are bored and want to read about a case in the meantime, I have a case here with quite compelling evidence and a good investigation.

[thedeductionpage]

WHAT PRACTICE MAKES

The good thing about being in robot mode is you get to channel all that into things like old hobbies. Let’s be honest, I’m probably not gonna post in a long time, after this.

So, everyone knows the saying: “practice makes perfect”, and if you hadn’t heard of it, there you go. When it comes to deduction and most things, practice is essential. What you practice is nearly irrelevant. When you practice, getting warmer— consistency is key. However, I wanna talk about how you practice.

If you’ve circulated the deduction community, you’ll see all these pioneer deductionists who have years and years, maybe even decades of experience. Are all of them good? Not really. A person doing it for 6 months could get better results than them, but why? Why, after all these years are some deductionists still inadequate after so much experience?

The truth is, practice does not exactly make perfect, it makes normal.

These deductionists are practicing incorrectly. They go on reddit or facebook and deduce people, maybe go out in real life and get their material there and simply assume they’re right. They have no confirmation. Now, this may seem a little ironic, but I don’t believe in people getting involved in your process. You only need yourself, and whoever your deducing (or the extension of them, like their belongings). Unfortunately, this means you have to socialize and do research.

Don’t just assume you’re right.

Whenever you’re deducing someone, make sure you have them there, available to confirm and deny.

Don’t just ask what you got right and wrong. Try to explore why it is you were wrong, what set them apart from the baseline.

When you get a lucky, improbable deduction, still ask which factors contributed to this phenomenon. Ask, ask, ask.

How do you ask? Just be as mysterious and ominous, then direct as possible. That’s the 1-2-step. Be enticing and mysterious, then tell the truth. I go on whisper or reddit. I make a post that goes: “I bet you I could tell you who you are by seeing a picture of you or anything you own. NO NUDES OR FOOT PICS.”

Just being honest about that last part. People get confused.

So, what’s the moral of the story? Practice makes normal, perfect practice makes progress. I am coining that and you all have to monetarily compensate me whenever you use that, thanks. This is a pretty short post, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask them. I’ve got nothing going on in my life and I may just throw myself into deduction, who knows? This may be my renaissance, or something.

TDP

[parrotsplayground]

At beginner level,

You make observations then deductions, single steps,

And you tell your friends how you get to those conclusions,

And they take a look and say well yeah obviously.

Notice the order here.

It is much easier to check than to notice.

People are non-observant.

Take pride in your "silly" observation.

[chemlock]

Deductions are cool.

As someone who's learning the science of deduction, it feels like how I imagine it would be like to not know how to read. A world of signs, of letters and words forming information if you just knew how to decode it. Learning to make deductions feels like finally learning to read, finally really seeing everything around you and connecting it to things to get information.

It's like learning a new language, one that's everywhere, all the time, just ready for you to notice. There's so much to be gained from that language, I think it's beautiful, and I'm happy to have one more way to quench the thirst for knowledge.

[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

[thescienceofdeductionn]

Stoic Perspective

This post will be some kind of addition to mindset, but also very important part. You might be wondering how it is related to deduction and Sherlock Holmes but even though we don't see Sherlock talking about Stoicism, he follows it in most cases. (Mixed with Cynicism which started around the time Diogenes lived.) So, let's see how Sherlock uses and how we can use it in our daily life.

Remember this episode? Season 1 Episode 3. Sherlock solves 5 cases in a row with some time constraints, stress factors, etc. In one scene, Watson asks, "There are lives at stake Sherlock! Actual human lives. Just so I know, do you care about that all?" and Sherlock answers with a brilliant answer: "Will caring about them help save them?" and Watson says "Nope." and then Sherlock says "Then I will continue not to make that mistake." Obviously, they show it like Sherlock doesn't care about anyone and is an egocentric narcissistic robot but that is certainly not the case. If you watch other adaptations(Granada, Elementary or even the books)Sherlock cares about other people, but not in a way normal people do. I am pointing out this scene because it shows us the attitude and mindset of Sherlock. Let's see how we can apply this in real life:

1-Caring without Emotions

"Emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning." -Sherlock Holmes

After watching Sherlock we shouldn't try to be like Sherlock, especially if we don't understand how he thinks. When he says, caring won't save them it doesn't mean he doesn't care. It just means it is not relevant and emotions won't help them in any way because it will cloud his thinking and deductions. So, what can you do in situations where stress is high and your emotions come to the surface?

1-Recognize them: Don't suppress or act like you don't have them. Just realize they are there and act accordingly. If you say "There is nothing wrong with me. I don't feel any emotions right now..." then you won't be aware of the affect they have on you.

2-Think Clearly: It is easy to say but hard to do. How can we think clearly? What does it mean? It means you have to use the relevant data and eliminate what is not. If you want to think clearly, you have to recognize your feelings, emotions etc. You have to be aware of them at every step so that when they are affecting your reasoning, you can overcome them and keep going.

3-Follow Your Logic

Sherlock doesn't call Moriarty after he solves the case because he wants to use time advantage. He wants to work on other cases and because of that, he doesn't call Moriarty. Watson is reacting with emotions and says this woman was covered with bombs all this time. Although Sherlock cares about the woman, he follows the logic. If he uses the time to his advantage, he can save more than one life but if he reacts with emotions, he will just save one. So, use your logic and act accordingly.

2-Perspective For Problems "External things are not the problem. It's your assessment of them. Which you can erase right now." -Marcus Aurelius

This can change a lot of things about how you see your problems. Let's say you have a lot of work to do and after a long day you are going home. When you arrive there, you realize your house is on fire? How would you react?

I believe, most of us would be full of emotions. Why did this happen to me? Why is life not fair? My life is over. What will I do now?

But if we just can change our perspective and practice it in our daily life we would have a very different and constructive response to the situation. Now, here is the perspective I am talking about:

Now think about the same scenario. You see that your house is on fire. You think "Can I do something about it?"->"Yes. I can call the fire department." or "No. It is too late. Everything is turned to ash." In both cases, you don't have to worry because it is already done. You can't travel back in time so you have to create your plans for the future. You can't waste time thinking about the past because it will limit your capacity to act on the future.

If you use this perspective in every situation, eventually it will become automatic and your emotional reactions will not be as strong as it is now. This way, you will be able to use your logic more easily and solve the problem you have.(Or you will stop worrying if you don't have a problem.) This is probably the fundamental perspective of Stoicism.

3-Expressing Emotions

I won't go deep into the Jungian Shadow or deep psychology of the emotions and suppressing etc but we have to be aware of this fact: The fact that if you don't express your emotions in some way, it will come out later bigger than it was.(Also, you won't be in control.)

If you watched Elementary, you know that almost in every episode Sherlock express his emotions to Watson.(Or to someone else. Which by the way is a more human adaptation of Sherlock.)He talks with her about what he feels and thinks about the situation because he can't deal with them alone. We can't deal with them alone too so we have to find some ways to express them. Here are some basic ones: 1-Talking to your Watson

If you have someone you are close to, then talk to them. Explain your feelings and emotions as clear as you can be.

2-Keeping a Journal

You won't always have an opportunity to talk with somebody so you need to talk with yourself clearly, which is what journaling does. You use words and getting things out of your head so you can analyze them more clearly. Just write and then read them aloud.

3-Physicality

If you like to work out, run, go to the gym or do any physical activity, do it. It is especially useful for anger and sadness. Try and find whatever works for you.

So, that is a general look at emotions and how to live with them. After you read this, you won't immediately detach from your emotions and act with your logic. This post is not enough, so you have to do your own reading. Some suggestions for reading: Meditations-Marcus Aurelius (Excellent example of journaling in a stoic way.) The Handbook-Epictetus Ryan Holiday's books(All relates to Stoicism)

And one last thing. Always remember these wise words:

"You have power over your mind, not outside events. Realize this and you will find strength." -Marcus Aurelius

[deducter]

henlo. im afraid you think this is boring and delete it lmfao but DONT ! answer me ! favorite school subject?

Why people use 'lmfao' all the time, what does that supposed to mean?

Anyway, it's chemistry.

[sleuth2k7]

Christmas deductions - whose wrapping paper is whose?

This post is coming a few days later than I intended, but it is still December! Inspired by @studies-in-the-art-of-deduction's post about deducing presents and @a-study-in-sepia's post deducing presents under her tree.

Each year, my parents randomly choose a different wrapping paper for the seven people in our house. For the past few years, my parents have had my siblings and I guess whose wrapping paper belongs to who - whoever gets the most correct gets to open the first gift. Not important to the post, but I did win this year, buuuut I only got 3 out of 7 of my guesses correct. For this post, I'm focusing on the 3 correct guesses and how I used observations/deductions to get those 3 right. I say both observations and deductions because I'm including information collected in the weeks leading up to Christmas and also physical examination/deducing of wrapped gifts.

--

I get Amazon package notifications on my phone as my family shares one account, and I saw a 3D printer pop up in November. I knew that my Dad had wanted one for years and had been collecting the plastic-y materials for 3D printing for years too. So that's his present: I know from this that one of the larger presents must be a 3D printer. But which box is his? There were four larger presents - 3 different wrapping papers, with one wrapping paper being used twice. Related to that, I remembered a conversation with my Mom in November - she had been excited about a present for Sibling Y and told me about it, referring to it as one of the presents in the stack of four large boxes. She then slipped and mentioned that the item was in two separate boxes. I now know Sibling Y's wrapping paper. So I went to the other two large presents and picked both up: one was light and one was much heavier - 3D printers are heavy, so I know what my Dad's wrapping paper is. (Note: I double checked this deduction by looking at whether that wrapping paper had very few gifts, as my Dad typically has the fewest, and that wrapping paper did.) With the last large present, I did not deduce correctly whose it was - but I know why I didn't so I'll explain. Months ago, I was told how Sibling R's suitcase had been broken and how she would get a new one for Christmas. I forgot this conversation, because if I had remembered I would have known the final large box was a suitcase. Why did I not realize this when I picked the box up? Because of a conversation I remembered in November where my mom had told me she wasn't sure how I'd fly back to my place with my gifts. I swear she said that I had a gift or two that was too "big" but she told me post-Christmas that she had meant too heavy, not big. I had taken it as meaning my wrapping had to be the one the fourth large box was, since that was the only box left that would be too big for a suitcase - which is hilarious to me now because it literally was a suitcase. Oops. Lesson learned though: don't look at physical data through the lens of a conclusion you'd come to before looking at the physical data.

Those deductions were made through a combination of paying attention prior to Christmas and physical observations. The third wrapping paper that I deduced right was Sibling N's - I found two presents, deduced what was inside, and based on that knew which sibling that was. Box #1: I shook this box and could hear a liquid sloshing around inside. In the weeks before Christmas, there had been a lot of talk of body sprays and perfumes from Siblings R and N. Based on how the sloshing sounded, this was not a perfume bottle, since the sloshing was too "big" if that makes sense - I could tell the bottle was bigger and there was more liquid than a perfume bottle. Sibling R uses perfumes and doesn't like body sprays, and Sibling N predominantly uses a body spray - so I deduced that this box had her specific brand of body spray. I marked the wrapping so when she opened it on Christmas day, I could confirm that I was right (I was). Box #2: I picked up a few other boxes with the same wrapping as the body spray, looking for any indication of another gift Sibling N would be likely to get. One was a long (maybe a foot (or 2 hands length), rectangular box. I shook it and based on the sound I thought there was one item inside: similar shape to the box, long and rectangular. I deduced that this was a flat iron or curling iron of some kind, since several of my siblings, including Sibling N are always fighting over/stealing each other's flat irons. I confirmed this deduction on Christmas - she had gotten a flat iron.

I may make a second post that includes where I went wrong with the 4 incorrect guesses, but I will definitely do another post like this one next year - it was fun. :)