Taylor Exgersi I said “personally”. Meaning my opinion. Everyone has different depictions of characters :) and it’s not something to argue over unless you want to be petty, childish and immature. It’s an opinion. I respect yours and would appreciate if you would respect mine. Thank you.
ah, sherlock, since it is obvious that you are real now, would you like to solve a mystery for me. i am a huge fan of your blog and would love to be a client of yours. you see, the last season of bbc's sherlock ended a few years ago and hasnt come back... the game is on
I just kind of embraced the term. I recognize that I am a nerd and have no issue with it. I've seen multiple people who were dubbed 'nerds' who carried out incredibly productive and beneficial lives. Therefore, being mocked as a nerd is truly more of a compliment than a harsh jeer at someone's character traits. So go out and be a nerd. You might enjoy it.
Ayesha Irfan Same problem. There's one time I got the highest mark on my class, and this dickhead(who gets a lot of fail marks btw) called me a nerd, plus, the stereotype with me wearing glasses.
No! Be that person, having knowledge from different spheres is not only good for conversations but also for creativity, new inventions and general usefulness. Learning stuff trains your brain and makes it better at learning c:
It sucks when you like to observe but aren't social. Then suddenly you become a creep. Personally, I like to observe everything around me, but I also try to avoid giving any input into the environment, but get caught and it's awkward AF.
EnterTheFatrix Agreed, trying to read people is difficult as you need enough time to be able to read them without it being weird. I once wanted to see if someone was tired by looking at their eyes and they ended up commenting that I was being creepy. Kinda sucked. I suppose Holmes can do it so fast because he has done it for so long...
EnterTheFatrix if you percieve yourself as a creep, then it might be the way you act or dress. Since you stated that you don't socialize that much, I assumed you're kind of anxious or maybe awkward around people? Ik, I've been there. But yeah, Sherlock is sometimes a creep, can't really avoid that.
Well, I observe people, kind of stare at them, but i don't leave it on one person, I observe many people, and I actually don't care if I'm creepy, it's even kind of fun to see their reactions, it's even helping me deduct them
i think you're doing it wrong, observation is not staring at someone creepily, its actively looking around, taking in your environment, creating a mental map of the place, and understanding the context of the situation.
Live The Future I didn’t mention staring at an individual. I did mention observing and looking around. However, when you get caught in the act of observation, it’s rather awkward. I remember getting noticed by security detail at the Met museum in NYC when I was observing all anti-theft installations in the place. The look I got was weird.
High functioning sociopath - check Thinking like Sherlock Holmes - check Now all I need is that huge jacket, those slim fitting suits, and to move to London
Hope you guys enjoy this one! It was really fun to make. Check out the video on game theory I worked on with Jade as well: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-t-D5yoknywM.html
If you want a "cinematic" version of the sign of four story, the BBC Sherlock series has the very same thing (in the pilot episode I think) where Sherlock deduces things about Watson's mobile phone (adapted to the modern era). Its really very accurate to the original and does a great job of explaining how he came to the conclusion.
"You know without all the sociopathic tendancies and substance abuse" Me while being destructive/self-destructive in other ways: It's fine I'm pretty sound minded.
I desperately need a video about efficiently developing a reading list that saves you from stumbling upon bad books which may put you off a whole genre. and to help you read more books in more diverse categories. how to avoid abandoning the older items on the list for a random book that you just heard of . Thank you for the great videos . I'm a Sherlock addict by the way. peace from Egypt.
This actually really helped me I now observe things better and can spot things before others. I am more attentive in classes remembering things that matter and putting it into effect and I also think more probably.
Thomas I love Charisma on Command as much as you do, so I'm loving the breakdowns you're doing. This type of video should be way more common across RU-vid.
Hmmm always thought that the reasons given by the character Sherlock Homes for deducing his facts were a bit lame as for sure there are a 100 different reasons why a given situation or bit of evidence could have played out differently. Sounds great when he explains and it seems to make sense, but it is just that people including myself are to lazy to think on it further. .
People like you .. Hats off : ) Thank you so much for imparting such great knowledge.. many people don't even realize they could work on such thoughts amidst the worldly chaos
If you are interested, I highly recommend an anime/ Japanese novel/ comics called hyouka by Honobu Yonezawa. It's like series of story applying holmes method onto daily problem solving. I was also a good story of youth and romance, very nice.
I’ve always admired Holmes, but even more so, his actual counterpart Dr Joseph Bell. He was one of Arthur Conan Doyle’s lecturers who dazzled his students with his extraordinary diagnostic skill. He was not only able to make his diagnosis before the patient even opened his mouth, but also make incredibly accurate deductions about their occupation, home life and many other factors entirely by his powers of observation. For example he might notice that a patient has come in with a gait problem, but also connect this observation with another like that patient having a florid complexion, evidence of alcohol abuse round the eyes and in his speech, and verify these deductions with finding a half full gin bottle in his coat pocket. The process of deductive reasoning is one thing many fields have in common, most especially medicine. Dr Bell was fantastic at this and used it not only to help his patients but also to assist in solving some of the most baffling crimes of his time. Dr Doyle owes the creation of his most famous detective to his teacher. Another example from my line of work: I may see that the person standing in front of me at work is out of breath by observing that they are talking in very short, broken sentences, using their accessory muscles, leaning forward, I may also observe that they are beryl chested, there are sternal retractions on inspiration, I may hear a wheeze on inhalation and exhalation, I may also observe some blueing of the mouth and nose, some minute haemorrhages in the whites of the eyes. If they hand me their ID I may also notice the finger nails and their shape and colour. I may form several snap hypothesis, that they have emphysema, copd, or are affected by some genetic resistors conditions. Some less likely may be that they may have recently been strangled, but the verifying bits of data I may gather to narrow these down may be if they tell me they’re a smoker, if I hear any anomalies in their chest or that I may see evidence of atelectisis in their chest X-ray or evidence of compensation in their blood gasses. But the fact remains I’m able to form several theories based on all of these findings, many of which I observe in the space of about a minute. Another thing occurs to me as I write this tho, and that’s that once Watson asks Holmes how he managed to notice such a minor detail like the presence of tracks in the street outside the house where a murder had taken place, and Holmes said, simple, I was looking for it. If you know what you’re looking for, it’s highly likely you will find it. The more expertise you have in your field, the better able you are to know what to look for.
I’ve actually never watched any movies or shows involving sherlock as anything more then a small reference but I adore reading the books at a slower than normal pace so I can mentally tear each thing apart. As i was doing this I started to think “how realistic and practical is this process and can I apply it if it’s effective?” and I figure thought process is as good as a place to start
People actually have meals with others to only go on their phones? What's the point? Why not just eat alone and be on your phone, it's the same thing if you're not going to interact with the people there. I find it kind of rude.
Yes people do it. It’s kind of like when the average family sits in front of the television while eating. Nobody interacts, it’s just small conversation here and there. This is actually incredibly common for American families, but it is still horrible nonetheless
Guy Richie’s movies where the best in my opinion, & most accurate to what I’d imagine he would be in actual real life. I love how Robert Downey Jr. played him! By far the most badass & down right awesome portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in my opinion. Those are my absolute favorite movies for sure.
Nice video! Just a small correction, when you mentioned inductive reasoning, you're talking about abductive reasoning. Inductive by itself simply generalizes and is not useful when you use only that. But abductive is the one that makes good use of probability and simplicity to narrow down the outcomes of inductive reasoning. It's just terminology though, I love this video. It's going into my "Take notes" playlist
I always thought it was so cool in the movies how he could like... figure everything out just by looking around a room and picking out context clues and subtle actions to put together scenarios. Cool video, Thomas! Thanks for creating this. Hope guitar's going well!
Love the Sherlock Holmes stories in particular the Bonnie MacBird version. Also, I loved the breakdown of the deep observation, skepticism, and probabilistic thinking. Especially the point about using probabilistic thinking to recover a lost item. This vid was awesome! Thanks for sharing.
I forget where I read this, but a writer once observed that Sherlock Holmes uses not mostly deduction and induction, but the sort of probabilistic reasoning that the philosopher Charles Saunders Peirce termed "abduction." The writer illustrated his point with examples that sort of went like this: Deduction: (1) A serious knife wound causes severe bleeding. (2) There was a serious knife wound. (3) Therefore there was severe bleeding. Induction: (1) This is a serious knife wound. (2) There was severe bleeding. (3) Therefore serious knife wounds cause severe bleeding. Abduction: (1) There was severe bleeding at the crime scene. (2) Serious knife wounds cause severe bleeding. (3) Therefore it was a knife that caused this severe bleeding.
It's theorized that Sherlock has Aspergers syndrome, a condition that falls on the autism spectrum. People with this condition usually tend to be much more attentive and aware than others and are able to store lots of information in their heads. Thanks to this gift of mine there hasn't been a single test, quiz or exam that I've ever had to study for since I just keep everything recorded in my head. Pretty neat huh? I will be applying for career in profiling.
You used silent non copyrighted music in the background because it's slightly better than just having your voice. Most people use the same non copyrighted songs but those are usually happy go lucky annoying ones which you couldn't pick for this kind of a video. I also remember hearing it in PewDiePie's videos a few years ago. The music is from Tarantulas by Christian Nanzell for anyone wondering.
Like me looking at people walking by vs my friend. My friend would observe families, relationships, ages and other abstract details. I see limps, gaits, oedema, injuries, I see smokers, Parkinson, I see a person walk by and I can look at the feet, the gait, the legs, posture, how they carry themselves and their stuff and their hands and face and I can see if they smoke, weather they have any orthopaedic problems, I can spot oedema and signs of heart failure, Parkinson all that kind of stuff. What my friend sees is less viable to me unless I'm actively looking for it. I can spot physical pain, my friend can spot emotional pain. We both love doing that, just sitting in a walk way or in a mall and observe those around us. I like to look at someone and determine their dominant hand, try to determine their field of work, their relationship with the person they're with and those other details that are normally less visible to me. We can both spot indications that tell us how the person sits in a chair, weather they may own a dog or a cat, I once looked at someone on a train and guessed that from their backpack, its contents, their clothes, their phone conversation and their laptop that they were either a university lecturer or a doctor. At work they would have access to a fridge, they would have to work with a computer which they bring home with them, they were slightly overweight but made an effort with their appearance but the tell tale observation was their phone conversation in which they let slip they would be marking the essays with their associate that day. I once observed the clubbed fingernails of the person I was serving at a store I was working at and guessed there must be a problem with oxygenation, gas exchange or breathing that was long standing. they were also stained I then searched her face and saw yellowing of the whites of the eyes, many small haemorrhages in the whites of the eyes too, I saw yellowing of the teeth and saw the characteristic wringles round the mouth suggestive of a habit of either using a straw or smoking. I heard a slight wheeze in her breathing and noticed that she never spoke in full sentences, always pausing for a second to inhale and then confirmed my hypothesis when I observed the cigarette packet in her bag when she opened it to take out her glasses. This all before I smelled it. As you get better at this, all these bits of data get absorbed and stored in a meaningful way in a few seconds without you being consciously aware you're doing it. Ive noticed this while at work with clinical data.
Notes I took from the video- Actively pay attention to enviorment Take notes summerisen notes Study bi subjects related to main subjects Belive nothing until you have proof Don't rely on others for your reason Push aside bias Develope hypotheseis Find the most probabilistic thesis Think probabilistic all the time( where is it most likely I left this, what are they actually trying to say)
Ok here is the tips: 1. pay more close attention on others than yourself 2. notice changes in theyr behavior. 3. put away distractions and focuse at one thing at a time, this way you will get better results 4.learn to link your observations together, to form a picture 5. Practise!
Anna Ellenberger yeah, having skits in there really helps to mix up the "talking head" template too, despite it probably being way more expensive timewise
You geek hahaha. Very well made video this, I love how you pose the concept, explain and then give us actually tips for practical application. And I see your passion for these concepts and for Holmes persona / series. Well done Sir!
I did a bunch of research on this and got a bunch of different answers. In the end the argument seemed the most logical is that abductive reasoning is a subset of inductive reasoning, so I decided to say inductive in order to keep things simple.
Thomas Frank, I believe that you have made an erroneous conclusion. To start, I will quote an article about abductive reasoning in Wikipedia[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning#Deduction,_induction,_and_abduction]: 1. "Inductive reasoning allows inferring b from a, where b does not follow necessarily from a. a might give us very good reason to accept b, but it does not ensure b"; 2. "Abductive reasoning allows inferring a as an explanation of b. As a result of this inference, abduction allows the precondition a to be abduced from the consequence b". I think it will be clearer on examples: If all swans that we have observed so far are white, we may induce that the possibility that all swans are white is reasonable. We have good reason to believe the conclusion from the premise, but the truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed. (Indeed, it turns out that some swans are black.) This is an example of inductive reasoning. We have some partial data (all swans that we have observed so far are white), from it we form the general picture (all swans are white) and further we assume that this picture is correct until it is found the evidence refuting it (some swans are black). Abductive reasoning goes quite a different way. For example, we see something floating in the water. It has something very similar to a long neck, on the sides are pieces resembling wings. From the part that, by our assumptions, is the head, protrudes something long, resembling the beak of birds. And for the most part this thing is white. On the basis of all this, we can put forward the most probable hypothesis - this thing is a swan. Now, it is worth noting that this is only a hypothesis and its confirmation requires further observations or even active actions, the setting of experiments that reduce the set of all possible hypotheses. Maybe it's a very realistic toy floating in the water? Let's look at another example: Induction: We observed that the trees sway during the wind. From this we conclude that the wind is the cause of this behavior of trees. However, if we find at least one of them that does not swing during the wind, we will need to reconsider our statement. Abduction: We see through the window of our house that the tree on the street is swinging. If this is all the information available to us, then the most likely explanation for this behavior may be the presence of wind. However, this is not the only possible explanation. We can also assume that the tree is being cut down by people or even just kicked. Well, whatever hypothesis you choose for current evidence, it still can’t be called true and requires further observations/experiments to confirm it. Now it's time to sum up. Induction allows us to receive new knowledge based on what we already have. Any empirical law is the result of induction reasoning. Abduction in turn allows us to put forward the most probable hypotheses on the basis of already existing knowledge, and not to form new knowledge. Any hypothesis obtained by abduction should then be verified by deduction and induction. For the most part, I wrote all this using my knowledge in this topic. Therefore, if you can provide authoritative sources that confirm your point of view, I would like to look at them.
