#Sherlock Holmes (Generalised)

[mottlemoth]

All over-18s welcome in my DMs for geeking out, nerding around and generalised chat ❤️

Current obsessions below:

Games

Detroit: Become Human (ship: Hank/Connor)

Horizon Zero Dawn (fave: Kotallo)

Baldur's Gate 3 (faves: Halsin, Astarion)

Mass Effect (fave: Garrus, Jack, Shepherd)

The Last of Us (fave: Abby Anderson)

Skyrim

TV, Radio & Books

Sherlock (ship: Mycroft/Lestrade)

Agatha Christie (books and TV; fave: David Suchet)

Sherlock Holmes (books and TV; ship: Holmes/Watson)

Lewis

Deadloch

Cabin Pressure

Firefly

The Last of Us

Izzy Hands (ship: Izzy/MOC)

Black Sails (ship: Flint/Hamilton)

House of the Dragon

Rings of Power

Film

Venom (ship: Eddie/Symbiote)

Galaxy Quest

Megamind

Les Miserables (ship: Javert/Valjean)

Pirates of the Caribbean

Disney Hercules

[moriarty1234]

T*lc refutation master post (but decidedly NOT johnlock refutation, because that definitely was a thing in BBC Sherlock).

Note: I love and ship johnlock because I saw it for myself in the show when I watched it and was part of the general audience in the past. I even want it to become canon in some Holmes adaption in the future. But T*lc needs to get sucked into obscurity and forgotten. Other fandoms like Good Omens, etc., are following the same rhetoric in their "meta" posts, and that needs to go. This is crucial for our basic critical thinking skills and objectivity.

Part - 1 : (Introduction: why I made this post in 2024 and some brief info about me).

Part - 2 [What's wrong with their actual meta posts? A detailed discussion about logical fallacies (some of which are cherry picking, confirmation bias, and hasty generalisation) and ways to sidetrack arguments, instead of carrying on with healthy discussions that are almost always present in metas written by t*lcers}.

Part - 3 (Everything wrong with their versions of the words "subtext" and "symbolism").

Parts - 4 and 5 (Harmful aspects of t*lc and Conclusion, plus some interesting external links talking about conspiracy theory psychology, cult psychology, science vs pseudo science, etc.).

[maaarine]

MBTI & Scientists Karl Friston: INTP

“Karl John Friston FRS, FMedSci, FRSB, is a British neuroscientist at University College London and an authority on brain imaging. (…)

In 2003, he invented dynamic causal modelling (DCM), which is used to infer the architecture of distributed systems like the brain.

Mathematical contributions include variational (generalised) filtering and dynamic expectation maximisation (DEM), which are Variational Bayesian methods for time-series analysis.

Friston currently works on models of functional integration in the human brain and the principles that underlie neuronal interactions.

His main contribution to theoretical neurobiology is a variational Free energy principle (active inference in the Bayesian brain). (…)

In 2016 he was ranked No. 1 by Semantic Scholar in the list of top 10 most influential neuroscientists.”

Sources: video, wiki/Karl_J._Friston. Screencaps: transcript. Talking to: Lex Fridman. Mentioned: Albert Einstein, Sherlock Holmes.

[alackofghosts]

it’s not entirely in the pet peeve territory yet, but i can’t help but to flinch a little when i see people talking in a generalised way about sherlock holmes adaptations, when they clearly just mean the bbc version

[elizadoolittlethings]

tfp - an analysis

very eloquently put @p07a70-queen-gamer​

@stardustednerd​ mentions that their parents are unaware  {x}

and maybe that is the case. from what is often mentioned, the older generation are unable to accept anything that is alien to their thinking. having genius children may have been a challenge. and, mothers who are academic tend to neglect the emotional health of their children. [this is not a generalisation but an observation from my own social exposure]

i agree with you, that they were grieving.

p07a70-queen-gamer said: I like to think that it wasn’t intentional, that to alienate their children emotionally, but an effect caused by them being too busy dealing with the fact that their youngest child had murdered someone. They were mourning the metaphorical death of the precious child they had.

{x}

but something doesn’t feel right

p07a70-queen-gamer said: The Holmes brothers have their mental capabilities amplified but that includes their emotions too. In the end all their acts are dictated by emotions.

not that they are NOT guided by emotions. for intellect is closely associated with emotions. in their case, Mycroft was able to emotionally detach himself to see clearly the situation of Eurus’ ire [trained by Uncle Rudy - who was his mentor], guiding Sherlock to follow in his footsteps.

stardustednerd said: @elizadoolittlethings @p07a70-queen-gamer i think that the Holmes parents were not ignorant, but unaware of the fact that the three siblings got extremely affected by emotions, maybe because they were in John’s words, “so ordinary”. They didn’t really understand their three childern’s nature, and Mycroft, after going through this problem, ended up guiding Sherlock so that he was never in a situation like Mycroft?

but their mother is a genius, right? [hence my argument above - that she isn’t in touch with her feminine/motherly side. and, Mycroft relying on Uncle Rudy for guidance. i know how hard it is to try and talk to a mother when she has absolutely no clue how you are feeling. probably why he kept Eurus’ incarceration a secret. they would’ve wanted to see her, she would manipulate them .. something that Mothers would never accept - that they can be gullible!]

what is quite confusing is, if the brothers are actually ‘Introverted’

Often intellectual, INTJs enjoy logical reasoning and complex problem-solving. They approach life by analyzing the theory behind what they see, and are typically focused inward, on their own thoughtful study of the world around them. INTJs are drawn to logical systems and are much less comfortable with the unpredictable nature of other people and their emotions. They are typically independent and selective about their relationships, preferring to associate with people who they find intellectually stimulating.

{x}

INTPs are detached, analytical observers who can seem oblivious to the world around them because they are so deeply absorbed in thought. They spend much of their time focused internally: exploring concepts, making connections, and seeking understanding. To the Architect, life is an ongoing inquiry into the mysteries of the universe.

{x}

everybody is thinking of them being intellectual so they have to be introverted.

from their ‘home video’ both the brothers looked like any normal child. only Eurus was not. the ‘Eurus incident’ forced them to become Intraverted, is that not how it happened? which could explain their ... humane nature. Mycroft wanted to make up for what he did to Eurus. She did get to him, in a way, making him bring Moriarty to Sherrinford. A lapse in his judgement, that he overlooked from emotional entanglement.

@p07a70-queen-gamer​ am i going in circles? :)

trouble with reblogging again!

[luxe-pauvre]

Profiling and stereotypes are anathema to many people. Police are supposed to choose whom to stop or arrest by observing what those people do instead of what they look like or where they are. In everyday life, many people aspire to Martin Luther King’s vision: ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character,’ We all hope to be treated as individuals rather than as members of groups. Despite these hopes and dreams, we all use stereotypes about groups to predict how other individuals will act. Marketing experts use generalisations about groups to predict which customers will buy their products, as with our Turkish restaurant. Doctors use risk factors - which include group membership - to recommend medications and operations. Insurance agents charge individual clients on the basis of whether or not they belong to groups that cost insurers expensive payments. Universities decide which applicants to admit on the basis of their grades. We hope that these professionals will not judge customers, patients, clients or applicants by the colour of their skin, but they also do not base their decisions on the content of their character. They can’t, because they don’t know enough about their character. In many contexts, it is hard to see how we could do without stereotypes. If I do not know someone at all, but I need to make a fast decision, then the only information I can use is what I can observe quickly. For example, if a stranger in a public bar talks casually with me for a few minutes and then offers to buy me a drink or dinner, then I need to decide whether to trust this stranger. What is he up to? As we saw, Sherlock Holmes might be able to induce a great deal about this stranger, but most of us have no choice but to rely on a few inaccurate generalisations based on our limited experience. We all do it, whether or not we accept the stranger’s offer. These cases depend on arguments up and down. First, they generalise up from premises about a sample of a group to a conclusion about the group as a whole. Second, they apply the resulting generalisation back down to a conclusion about the individual. These two stages can be described as generalisation and application.

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Think Again: How to Reason and Argue

[theartoftheconsultingdetective]

Deductionist Master Class FRAMING - PART 3: Understanding Yourself

Sherlock Holmes once said “Never theorise before you have data. Invariably, you end up twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.” So you might say that you should go into observation with a blank mind. This would be ideal, except that it’s inefficient and slow. So how do you begin to observe without ruining the data? It’s far more messy than you may have thought. Prepare yourself for biases and motivation; aka, you.

To observe is to take in data. TAKE IN. That refers to a process. Data can be manipulated and changed as you’re storing, after you’ve stored, and before you’ve stored it in your memory. The goal of making deductions is that you conclude based on only facts. So having incorrect facts is fatal to intellect. The question becomes:  how do you observe without altering information? This requires taking a rigorous look at your logical fallacies and biases because those change what you see, hear, smell, taste, feel, sense internally, and remember.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

There are A LOT of logical fallacies. You’ll need to understand all of them and their situational contexts to fight them off.

Appeals to the Mind

Appeal to Anonymous Authority: Using evidence from an unnamed expert, study, or generalised group to claim something is true

Appeal to Authority: Claiming something is true because an unqualified expert says it is

Appeal to Common Practice: Claiming something is true or good because it’s commonplace

Appeal to Ignorance: Claiming something is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)

Appeal to Incredulity: Claiming something is false because it seems unbelievable or implausible

Appeal to Money: Supposing that wealth or expensiveness affects the truth of a claim

Appeal to Novelty: Supposing something is better because it is new or newer

Appeal to Popular Belief: Claiming something is true because a majority of people believe it

Appeal to Probability: Assuming because something could happen, it will inevitably happen

Appeal to Tradition: Claiming something is true because it has occurred or been true in the past

Appeals to Emotions

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief: Arguing a belief is false because it implies something you’d rather not believe

Appeal to Fear: Arguing by invoking fear or prejudice towards the opposing side

Appeal to Flattery: Using a compliment to hide an unfounded claim

Appeal to Nature: Drawing a comparision to the natural world as a standard

Appeal to Pity: Arguing by invoking sympathy or empathy

Appeal to Ridicule: Presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear absurd

Appeal to Spite: Dismissing a claim by way of personal bias against the claimant

Appeal to Wishful Thinking: Claiming something is true because it is desirable

Faulty Deductions

Anecdotal Evidence: Claiming something is true on the basis of isolated incidents

Composition: Assuming that characteristics or beliefs of members of a group apply to the entire group

Division: Assuming that characteristics or beliefs of a group automatically apply to an individual member

Design Fallacy: Claiming something is true because it is well-designed or aesthetically pleasing

Gambler’s Fallacy: Predicting future outcomes on the basis of unrelated or independent past events

Hasty Generalisation: Drawing a general conclusion from an inappropriately small sample

Jumping to Conclusions: Drawing a quick conclusion without considering relevant and readily-available evidence

Middle Ground: Assuming that because two opposing arguments have merit, the answer must lie between them

Perfectionist Fallacy: Rejecting an imperfect yet adequate solution on the basis of its imperfection

Relativist Fallacy: Rejecting a claim or argument because of a belief that truth is relative to a person or group

Sweeping Generalisation: Applying a general rule too broadly

Undistributed Middle: Equating two things because they are similar or share characteristics

Manipulating Content

Ad Hoc Rescue: Repeatedly revising an argument to explain away problems

Begging the Question: Making a claim that ignores a larger issue

Biased Generalising: Generalising from an unrepresentative sample

Confirmation Bias: Placing heavier weight on evidence that supports a favourable conclusion while ignoring, dismissing, or marginalising evidence opposing it

False Dilemma: Presenting a choice between two options while ignoring or hiding alternatives

Lie: A falsehood repeated knowingly as a fact

Misleading Vividness: Describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is a rare occurrence, to increase its perceived importance

Red Herring: Introducing irrelevant material to the argument to distract or lead towards a different conclusion

Slippery Slope: Assuming a small change will lead to a series of related (negative) changes or events

Suppressed Evidence: Intentionally failing to acknowledge significant, relevant evidence

Unfalsifiability: Offering a claim that cannot be opposed because it cannot be tested

Garbled Cause & Effect

Affirming the Consequent: Assuming there’s only one explanation for something

Denying the Antecedent: Assuming that because there is a cause for something, the lack of the cause will result in the lack of the effect

Circular Logic: A conclusion derived from a premise based on the conclusion

Ignoring a Common Cause: Claiming two things that are correlated must be causal, while ignoring a third event that may have caused both

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Claiming two events that occur together must have a cause-and-effect relationship

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Claiming that because one event followed another, it was also caused by it

On the Attack

Ad Hominem: Claiming an argument is invalid by attacking the person making the argument and not the argument itself

Burden of Proof: Claiming an argument is true unless it is refuted

Circumstance Ad Hominem: Claiming an argument is invalid because of the advocate’s interests in their claim

Genetic Fallacy: Attacking the cause or original of a claim rather than the claim itself

Guilt by Association: Discrediting an idea or claim by associating it with an undesirable person or group

Straw Man: Creating a distorted or simplified charicature of your opponent’s argument, and the arguing against that misrepresentation

 BIASES

Biases are slightly different from logical fallacies. Where fallacies corrupt specific parts of an argument or idea, biases taint the whole thing.

Cognitive Biases - repeating or basic misstep in thinking

Anchoring: psychological heuristic that describes the propensity to rely on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions

Apophenia: human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data

Attribution bias: when individuals assess or attempt to discover explanations behind their own and others’ behaviours

Confirmation bias: tendency to search for, interpret, flavor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses while giving disproportionately less attention to information that contradicts it

Framing: involves the social construction of social phenomena by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, and so on. It is an influence over how people organise, perceive, and communicate about reality;  Cultural bias is the related phenomenon of interpreting and judging phenomena by standards inherent to one’s own culture

Halo Effect: an observer’s overall impression of a person, organisation, brand, or product influences their feelings about specifics of that entity’s character or properties

Horn Effect: if the observer dislikes one aspect of something, they will have a negative predisposition toward everything about it

Self-serving bias: tendency for cognitive or perceptual processes to be distorted by the individual’s need to maintain and enhance self-esteem

Status Quo bias: an emotional bias; a preference for the current state of affairs; the current baseline (or status quo) is taken as a reference point, and any change from that baseline is perceived as a loss

Conflicts of Interest -  person or association has intersecting interests which could potentially corrupt

Bribery: the giving of money, goods or other forms of recompense to in order to influence the recipient’s behaviour

Favouritism: sometimes known as in-group favouritism, or in-group bias, refers to a pattern of favouring members of one’s in-group over out-group members

Funding bias: refers to the tendency of a scientific study to support the interests of the study’s financial sponsor

Insider trading: trading of a public company’s stock or other securities (such as bonds or stock options) by individuals with access to non-public information about the company

Lobbying: the attempt to influence choices made by administrators, frequently lawmakers or individuals from administrative agencies

Match-fixing: occurs when a match is played to a completely or partially predetermined result, violating the rules of the game and often the law

Self Regulation: process whereby an organisation monitors its own adherence to legal, ethical, or safety standards, rather than have an outside, independent agency such as a third party entity monitor and enforce those standards

Regulatory Capture: form of political corruption that can occur when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating

Shilling: deliberately giving spectators the feeling that one is an energetic autonomous client of a vendor for whom one is working; an example of shilling is paid reviews that give the impression of being autonomous opinions

Statistical Biases -  Statistical bias is a property of a statistical technique or of its results whereby the expected value of the results differs from the true underlying quantitative parameter being estimated.

Contextual Biases -  well-intentioned experts are vulnerable to making erroneous decisions by extraneous influences

Academic bias: the bias or perceived bias of scholars allowing their beliefs to shape their research and the scientific community

Educational bias: refers to real or perceived bias in the educational system; the content of school textbooks is often the issue of debate, as their target audience is young people, and the term “whitewashing” is used to refer to selective removal of critical or damaging evidence or comment

Experimenter bias: occurs when experimenter expectancies regarding study results bias the research outcome

Full Text On Net (FUTON) bias: scholars can more easily discover and access articles that have their full text on the internet, which increases authors’ likelihood of reading, quoting, and citing these articles, this may increase the impact factor of open access journals relative to journals without open access

Inductive bias (also known as learning bias):  a learning algorithm is given a set of assumptions that the learner uses to predict outputs given inputs that it has not encountered

Media bias: the bias or perceived bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media in the selection of events, the stories that are reported, and how they are covered

Publication bias:  academic research is likely to be published because of a tendency of researchers, and journal editors, to prefer some outcomes rather than others

Reporting bias: selective revealing or suppression of information of undesirable behaviour by subjects

Social Desirability bias: bias within social science research where survey respondents can tend to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed positively by others

Prejudices -  forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case

Classism:  discrimination on the basis of social class; it includes attitudes that benefit the upper class at the expense of the lower class, or vice versa

Lookism:  stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination on the basis of physical attractiveness, or more generally to people whose appearance matches cultural preferences

Racism:  ideologies based on a desire to dominate or a belief in the inferiority of another race; it may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently

Sexism:  discrimination based on a person’s sex or gender; sexism can affect any gender, but it is particularly documented as affecting women and girls

CONCLUSION

As you can see, there are so many ways to tamper with data. It takes years of rigorous, mindfully motivated, attentive practice to decrease the effects of even a handful of these. That’s everything you have to learn to control. Next week we’ll get into the stuff that you can’t control that affects information, your environment.

-M.C.

[ellenmcelroyixd]

Sherlock Holmes Moodboard

As part of our ‘Narrative and Storytelling’ module. We were told to create a very generalised moodboard based on Sherlock Holmes. I took to Pinterest to find my inspiration and this is what I came up with. I focussed a lot on the ‘Art Deco’ era, image, colour, and typography.

View the full moodboard here: 

https://www.pinterest.ie/ellenmcelroy353/sherlock-holmes/

Typography

Imagery

Art Deco

[paulsletters]

I am very pleased to hear that you’re not offended Mick. That’s excellent news. I’m not sure that it’s actually possible in the normal sense of the word to prove to an unbeliever that predestination exists because you don’t actually believe that the word of God is the word of God. On that subject I think it might interest you to know that Jeffrey Satinover an American psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and physicist, the author of The Truth Behind The Bible Codes, wrote the book because a number of brilliant atheist mathematicians/physicists ceased being atheists because they realised that it was mathematically impossible for the codes to be in the Bible without God putting them there. The knowledge of God’s foreknowledge is inescapable for anyone who does their due diligence on biblical prophecies. I met a rather zealous Christian some 30 years ago who became converted when he failed to prove that the prophesies in the bible were bunk but instead to his utter amazement, his careful painstaking research validated them. However he was an honest man. He didn’t need to climb up another gum tree to try and nullify the statement that God exists. As I have never met you I cannot say with any great certainty that you’d be like him wanting to make your own enquires. Maybe you will. However as a generalisation I can say that the majority of atheists upon hearing what I just said from the horses mouth about the man on his mission to prove the prophecies wrong, would instead of doing the same, or even doing their own Sherlock Holmes thing, do absolutely nothing. That tells a story doesn’t it. But let’s not forget you’re not compelled to believe in God. You don’t have to if you don’t want to. And of course believing in God isn’t an automatic get out of jail card. 500 years ago the whole world believed in God. Matthew 7:14 King James Version 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[lauriexxgregory]

AESTHETIC RESEARCH

I decided the best way to collect ideas and research on the aesthetic of Sherlock Holmes would be through Pinterest where I can pin a load of images surrounding the topic. 

The general feel of the aesthetic that I got was this dark, gloomy mood with muted tones. I think this would be quite interesting to work in as I have never really worked in any colour palettes similar to this so I would be able to expand my creativity to something outside my comfort zone. Another thought I have had is maybe doing something completely outside the box and going with a futuristic colour palette like something of Blade Runner? (Just a thought for consideration for my work doesn’t look so generalised with everyone else.) 

[ijudgebythecover]

So, I went to a charity shop and pulled a random book out of the pile, only guided by some unclear law of attraction. And here is the first book that caught my attention. It says on the cover that it’s a detective story, so I have this going on for me. Clearly, the dark cover suggests a rather unsettling narrative. The photo shows a few men peering into the distance. Bear with me, I am going to exhibit here my complete ignorance of uniforms: they look like firefighters to me because of the helmets, but one of them is holding what appears to be a weapon. Do firefighters use weapons? Against the arsonists, maybe? Whoa, I thought this was not their jurisdiction. It makes some sense, but not much. The place itself evokes an atmosphere of grizzly London of the 1980s. It must be autumn, and the feeling of sadness and unrest permeates the air. One of the men is aiming his weapon (a very old fashion-looking one, if you come to think about it), while the other one is watching. It is a suspense for them and for a reader. Are they waiting for someone? Since they are officials, they must be an opposing force. Is this a story of a hero versus the state? Here is my guess - they are after him, but in fact he is a good guy. The firefighters in the end will understand their mistake (or maybe they won’t, but the reader certainly will). Well, when you call someone “good”, you have a danger of slipping into some simplistic generalisations. Imagine this guy has killed someone there, by the cenotaph. Perhaps, he killed a politician, responsible for some war atrocities. A character who killed him was being a sort of vigilante, but his action is ultimately a right thing – at least this is what we will feel. Life can be quite complicated. Perhaps this book will pose a question on how do we live in the world, where it is hard to know what is right and what is wrong and where you just have to commit and try to do the things that feel justified. Okay, I settle on this and will start reading. Sherlock Holmes would surely find my attempts laughable, but still – one can try.