#the science of deduction

[thefisherqueen]

I sprang from my chair and limped impatiently about the room with considerable bitterness in my heart. “This is unworthy of you, Holmes,” I said. “I could not have believed that you would have descended to this. You have made inquires into the history of my unhappy brother, and you now pretend to deduce this knowledge in some fanciful way. You cannot expect me to believe that you have read all this from his old watch! It is unkind, and, to speak plainly, has a touch of charlatanism in it.” “My dear doctor,” said he, kindly, “pray accept my apologies. Viewing the matter as an abstract problem, I had forgotten how personal and painful a thing it might be to you. I assure you, however, that I never even knew that you had a brother until you handed me the watch.”

This is such a touching passage. It shows us a piece of Watson's personal history, and his continued pain about it, and shows us as well that while it is true that Sherlock Holmes can get carried away in his work occasionally and then forget to consider other's feelings, he also is able to recognise them very well and apologise for his insensitivity. This has to be a significant point in Watson's and Holmes' relationship

[thescienceofdeductionblogs]

The Science of Deduction

Greetings idiots on this website!

Allow me to introduce myself. Although you probably already know who I am, I don't need an introduction. If you do not know me I consider you illiterate. But my dear Watson, @johnhwatsonblogs, is forcing me to write this, so for everyone uneducated on this website:

I am Sherlock Holmes, the one and only consulting detective in the world. Famous for my keen deduction skills, superior intellect, and good looks. I might not be the friendliest, but I get the job done. Who cares about manners if you need to solve a murder? Solving the most baffling cases with my highly honed skills, catching the most devious criminals of all and bringing them to justice. I have dismantled whole criminal networks, recovered state secrets, saved countless lives and brought down the most devious criminal mastermind of all, to name a few of my achievements, if you haven’t been paying attention. I am not only London’s best independent criminal investigator, but according to my international reputation, the world’s best and only consulting detective. I have solved cases all over the world, no crime is too difficult or too far away for me.

I have also contributed to the world of science, publishing papers about my criminal investigation methods, including how to identify 243 types of tobacco ash. Or as I like to call it, the science of deduction. So if you are looking for a place to learn about deduction and science, you are visiting the correct blog. I might share my scientific knowledge with you, allowing you insight into my methods of deduction. So do try to keep up. When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

If you think you have a mystery that is challenging and thrilling enough to occupy me, do not hesitate to send it my way. Do you require help with a baffling case or a crime no one can solve? A mystery that seems impossible? I am your detective, then. However, be warned that I only take cases that are interesting, any boring requests will be ignored. So go on, try to intellectually engage me, if you can. Send me a mystery, a cypher, a scientific request, an intellectual challenge. Anything to occupy my mind before I set fire to the kitchen. Again. Or worse. 

I hope you are satisfied now, John. 

-Sherlock Holmes, the world's only consulting detective

[ilovesherlock]

whenever Im bored I try to deduce people like sherlock does and feel like the smartest bitch in the world whenever I get something right

[consult-sherlockholmes]

Just curious how do you employ your deductive methods in every day life(john)

I just observe. It is like a reflex, I cannot shut it off. Just looking at John creates an influx of data and information about his mood, his plans for that day, how he slept, his condition and many other points. His physical state, whether he is in pain, tired or hungry. Whether he had a good night's sleep depending on his posture or tension around his eyes or his shoulders. If he is planning to meet up with someone depending on his choice of clothes and aftershave on special occassions. His gait and movements show whether it is a good day or if he is in any pain. I can tell if he is worried or wants to talk about something by the furrow of his brow. When he keeps checking his phone repeatedly he is waiting for a message, for example when he is concerned about his sister not answering his texts. I can tell what he is thinking about, visible in unconscious movements like twitches, the frequency with which he licks his lips or the direction of his gaze. Whether he craves something when he keeps glancing towards it. The tone of his voice and how talkative he is can show many things. When he is fidgety and barely able to sit still in his chair, it means that he is bored and would like to go out on an adventure. Of course I can deduce many more things but I think I provided more than enough examples. I can deduce John better than anyone else, because I am very familiar with him, have spent so much time with him and analysed his behavioural patterns. Although it took me some time to truly realise what he feels for me, but sentiment is not my area of expertise after all. He is the exception, even concerning my deductions.

[eirinstiva]

“It is as clear as daylight,” I answered. “I regret the injustice which I did you. I should have had more faith in your marvellous faculty. May I ask whether you have any professional inquiry on foot at present?” “None. Hence the cocaine. I cannot live without brain-work. What else is there to live for? Stand at the window here. Was ever such a dreary, dismal, unprofitable world? See how the yellow fog swirls down the street and drifts across the duncolored houses. What could be more hopelessly prosaic and material? What is the use of having powers, doctor, when one has no field upon which to exert them? Crime is commonplace, existence is commonplace, and no qualities save those which are commonplace have any function upon earth.”

Finally we start The Sign of Four and "The Science of Deduction" is so bittersweet. It's nice to see Holmes using his superpowers with the now legendary clock, but at the same time is so sad to see his drug adiction and Watson trying to help him, and is more important considering Watson's personal history. He lost his brother due to alcohol, and now he don't want to lose Holmes.

[ace-sher-bi-john]

Not sure if this is common knowledge. But someone decided to restore the BBC Sherlock websites!

Just go to strade.org.uk and you will be able to access John's blog, Sherlock's website, Molly's online diary and Connie Prince's website as they were back when the original sites were still up!

[deductionscholar]

The best beginner exercice

Although a lot of deductionists advise these days to try to deduce people , practice people watching and that is true only in the observational aspect to train yourself in observing minute details quickly as for beginners who are still new to the game and are full of biases and inexperience trying to deduce right away will actually lead to wrong conclusions coupled with the lack of feedback and enough repitition and we got a man (or woman) who claims to be a deductionist and is inevitably humbled with his (or her) first boasting

So for people watching i advise you to just noticeminute details and get better at observing but for deducing and linking observation with logic the best exercice is image deduction

As deducing the owner of an object , desk , room anything that doesnt move as you will have the time to think and observe calmly as opposed to fast deductipn in people watching and its easier to get feedback

A good place to practice would be the subreddits: r/deduction and r/science of deduction

Where people post picture of rooms, objects, desks, phones, general interface, and wait for people to make a deduction and then happily provide feedback

And dont forget , dont push yourself too far and dont try to speed up your learning process

Build a good foundation

Before looking into the complex application of deduction start with elementary problems such as this exercice

Information to look for generally are :

Gender

Dominant hand

Country

Language

Hobbies (which can become complex for example she is an artist then deduce her style)

Job/student

Age (approximately)

Personality (beware of biases)

And etc

[consult-sherlockholmes]

The science of deduction is not boring. Evident by how many people follow my blog. You all are just too dumb to appreciate something truly fascinating and mentally stimulating.

But it is true, when John holds one of his monologues I am lulled to sleep.

John records audio books so that Sherlock can fall asleep whenever he's away.

still worked tho u boring af Sherlock

[theghoulboysblog]

OMG I JUST GOT A TEXT SAYING I MADE IT TO STATE FOR FORENSIC SCIENCE!!! 😭

I took a test and my grade was good enough to qualify me!!! I GET TO GO EVALUATE A FAKE CRIME SCENE AND POSSIBLY GO TO NATIONALS IF MY CRIME SCENE EVALUATION IS GOOD ENOUGH!!! 😭

[thefisherqueen]

Watson: Finally, after many months, dares to confront Holmes about the man's drug use, which highly concerns and annoys Watson Holmes: Promply distracts Watson with conversation about the methods of deduction Watson: Is intrigued, forgets the subject of Holmes' drug use Holmes: Is also intrigued and so delighted by Watson's interest that he forgoes a second cocain dose Watson: accidentily discovers how he can help Holmes keep away from the drugs

[deducter]

Fluorescein | the experiment

Well, you see, making fluorescein isn't as easy as snapping your fingers and voilà! It requires a bit of scientific know-how and experimentation. In this particular experiment, I attempted to make fluorescein. Unfortunately, the first try didn't go as planned due to a shortage of equipment and having to make do with whatever we had at hand. But hey, that's the beauty of science—it's all about learning and trying again. Now, let me break it down for you. To make fluorescein, we need a few key ingredients that are always the same, regardless of whether we succeed or not:

Phthalic anhydride

Resorcinol

ZnCl2

In the first step, I mixed ten millimoles of phthalic anhydride and twenty millimoles of resorcinol in a two neck flask. I also added a magnetic stirrer to ensure everything blends together nicely. Now, the crucial part is achieving a uniform mixture, and for that, we need to heat things up in an oil bath at a temperature of 180 degrees Celsius. Unfortunately, I didn't have silicone oil, which is ideal for reaching that temperature. So, we improvised and thought using a sand bath might do the trick. It wasn't perfect, though, as the magnetic stirrer didn't work properly, and the mixing wasn't as uniform as we hoped. But hey, I'm not one to give up easily!

Once the substances were heated and combined, it was time to introduce twenty millimoles of zinc chloride into the mix, adding it slowly through one of the flask necks. Now, we let the substances mingle at the same temperature for a good 45 to 90 minutes. Patience is key!

When they turned a deep red colour, I switched off the heater and let the temperature drop to ninety degrees Celsius. At this point, I added twenty millilitres of water and one millilitre of concentrated HCl. Now, here's an important note: toxic vapours are produced during this process, so it's crucial to carry it out in a well-ventilated space or under a hood. Safety first, always!

To ensure complete dissolution of the substances, I placed the solution back on the heater. Once that was done, I filtered the solution, washed it with water, and finally, dried it in an oven.

Now, here's where things took a turn. The first attempt didn't yield any precipitate, which meant starting over from scratch. But I didn't let that dampen my spirits.

For the second try, I used an oil bath with silicone oil, which provided better results. After going through all the previous steps, it was time for the purification stage.

In this stage, we have to make a solution containing NaOH and HCl.

After adding them (dissolved in NaOH solution and precipitating with dilute HCl), filter the solution several times and wash it with water. Then, dry it in an oven at one hundred degrees Celsius.

And there you have it (I will show the results in the post I'm going to make in the future. So, stay tuned)! Fluorescein is ready to shine its vibrant colours. Science can be a bumpy road, but with determination and a bit of improvisation, we can make amazing discoveries. Allons-y!

— Deducter

[thefisherqueen]

I'm feeling so ace right now lol, the eroticism of intravenous drug administration went straight over my head. I appreciate all of you pointing out the gender role reversal and queer coding involved in injections and smoking! Would never have thought of that

I posted about this last year a bit, but it's now officially time to Post About It

Sherlock Holmes took his bottle from the corner of the mantelpiece and his hypodermic syringe from its neat morocco case. With his long, white, nervous fingers he adjusted the delicate needle, and rolled back his left shirt-cuff. For some little time his eyes rested thoughtfully upon the sinewy forearm and wrist all dotted and scarred with innumerable puncture-marks. Finally he thrust the sharp point home, pressed down the tiny piston, and sank back into the velvet-lined arm-chair with a long sigh of satisfaction.

This is the FIRST PAGE of the book. Fucking strap in (and then take that tourniquet off before you lose the arm)

There's a much better post somewhere about how intravenous morphine use (Watson only mentions morphine once, I personally don't think there's solid evidence of him using it, but that's debated - anyway) was considered effeminate. Syringes were for girls. Men smoked opium. So that's already setting Holmes up as suspiciously unmanly within the culture, but it's the penetration imagery here that absolutely kills me. It's SO unsubtle. Was it necessary to say 'thrust', Watson

He does also make a point of describing the syringe as tiny, every time it shows up. Do with that what you will...

Oh, yeah, and 'fingers' with three adjectives. Three is too many, Watson. We know you like his long fingers, you've said.

[codemonki]

What if .. herlock sholmes.. Skye ancestor..... What if.....

[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.

[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.

[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