Observe Deduce @kaizo1573 - Tumblr Blog

Mind palace

Here is the post I promised (which is one of the most requested ones): 'mind palace' also known as 'the method of loci'

I'm going to write a brief history and then jump to the most important parts, which are not monotonous and are actually useful.

This memory method originated in ancient Greek. According to the available data, (a Greek poet) Simonides of Ceos invented a way to remember information (where each person was, etc) after attending a fatal banquet. Simonides stepped outside the banquet (hall), then it collapsed behind him.

Okay, boring, I know. It's time for the actual part of the post: how to do it!

This is the most brilliant part, so keep reading.

Step one: pick a mind palace:

So the first thing you have to do is picking a place as your mind palace, it can also be an unrealistic place, but you have to be able to visualise that place perfectly (note: it doesn't need to be a gigantic place, you can start with a small room). If you are new to this method, and you don't have good visualising skills, pick a real place that you are familiar with; like your own room, house, etc. In the future, you may also have more than one mind palace like me; to use them for different proposes.

Step two: Visualise and enter the mind palace:

Walk, I repeat, walk in the place, get familiar with it, do NOT jump from a room to another. You must have a proper walking pattern in the mind palace. Note: it takes 5–6 times for the average human brain to remember every detail/ pattern of the mind palace correctly, so repeat.

Step three: Pick the storage spots:

For remembering stuff, pick spots in the mind palace that are not similar to each other (if you pick a sofa, don't pick another sofa). You are going to store information in these spots (stations).

Step four: Draw a simplified map of your mind palace: this is obvious, so I'm not going to say anything about it.

Step five: Pin every station for yourself:

We want the memory stations to be better defined, so it's better to pin them. What does it mean? By using the size, colour, smell, and other characteristics of the mental stations, to make them different and special, by doing this, when you connect certain information to that place, a greater connection is created between them.

Now, I'm going to answer the questions you asked before that are related to this topic:

Q: can you please tell me how is it done?

A: I already answered that in this post.

Q: how long have you been doing this?

A: More than 5 years.

Q: How do you visualise everything perfectly? I know you and in maths classes you could visualise everything like a piece of cake! It's so hard for me to do it...

A: hyperphantasia.

Q: do you visit your mind palace often?

A: More than 29 times in a day.

That's all for now.

-ND

deducter

Well, the speed is quite brilliant.

sleuth2k7

Visualizing the Building Theory using BBC Sherlock

@amateur-deductions recently did a post on the Building Theory. In his words:

[The Building Theory] serves as a wonderful way to illustrate how much a deduction is a progressive process, with multiple little steps between observations and conclusions. It's also an amazing tool to analyze other people's deductions and break them down in a way that allows you to map out their trains of thought and learn from them

He provides an excellent explanation of how the theory works: basically, you think of the process of deducing as constructing a building, with observations and subsequent deductions representing bricks that are stacked on top of one another, building up to more complex deductions based on those original observations & deductions.

I’ve always liked this theory because it makes the process of deduction more tangible and visual, which helps me learn, and I know others like to use visuals to learn too.

I’ve mapped out deductions from BBC Sherlock before, so I thought sharing that here would help provide a visual supplement to @amateur-deductions‘ work.

When Sherlock and John first meet, Sherlock asks: “Afghanistan or Iraq?”

You can watch the scene where he asks that here. And the scene where he explains how he got to that here.

While the show provides a decent verbal breakdown of how Sherlock got to that question, we can also visualize his process like this:

blue: observations // green: deductions made from observations // pink: deductions made from prior deductions & observations (level 1) // yellow: deductions made from prior deductions (level 2)

As you can see, Sherlock uses his initial observations about John to make deductions, and then uses those deductions to make additional deductions. All of this culminates in him asking John “Afghanistan or Iraq?”

Let’s break down this process a bit. We can think of this building as being made up of a bottom floor, and then two supporting sides that work together to build onto that bottom floor and also support the roof placed on top.

First, the bottom floor:

When John enters the room, Sherlock looks up at him and makes four observations about him, which he uses to make two deductions.

1. stance + haircut = military

** Sherlock knows that these observations = military from knowledge he has about the appearance/behavior of people in the military.

2. looks around the room + says “bit different from my day” = medically trained at Bart’s Hospital

** Here Sherlock uses a combination of knowledge and logic. He knows that Bart’s Hospital is a well-known training hospital and if John is familiar with the lab that the pair are standing in (as opposed to a patient room), he must have been a student there.

Sherlock then takes those two deductions and combines them to create another: military + medically trained = army doctor. That deduction forms the base of the rest of the building.

Next, there are two supporting sides. Let’s call them the “limp” side and “tan” side, as those are the two observations that form the base of each.

First, the limp:

Sherlock begins with several observations:

1. has a limp and uses a cane.

2. does not ask for a chair to sit in.

** Knowledge: Sherlock knows that people with limps may look for or ask for somewhere to sit.

From this, Sherlock deduces that John:

1. forgets he has the limp.

2. Why? Because the limp is psychosomatic.

** Knowledge: Sherlock knows about psychosomatic injuries.

3. Which means that trauma caused the limp.

Second, the tan:

Again, Sherlock begins with two observations, and each have their own subsequent deduction.

1. has a tan. = was recently in a sunny place.

** Knowledge: Sherlock knows that people get a tan from being in the sun, and that tans fade over time.

2. only has a tan on his hands and face. = was in a sunny place while wearing long sleeves, so he was not on vacation or sunbathing, but was on business.

** Knowledge: Sherlock knows that when people go on vacation to a sunny location, it is not typical to wear long sleeves or professional clothing but rather dress casual (shorts and a t-shirt, swimsuits, etc.).

Here is where Sherlock’s process culminates into the question. Relying on the deduction that John is an army doctor, and combining that deduction with these two new deductions (1) has a limp from trauma, and (2) was recently in a sunny place for business/work, Sherlock makes this final deduction: John is an army doctor who was recently in a war zone near the tropics.

He cannot go further than this though, as there are a few locations that fit that description. So, Sherlock engages in order to get the information he needs: “Afghanistan or Iraq?”

I hope this provided a helpful visual example of the Building Theory - if anybody has any questions or wants me to go into more detail on any aspect of this example, please ask!

duardius

ockham’s razor[s]

set in monotype bembo—vide ‹bembismo›.

froogboi

sometimes deduction is just pattern recognition and social finagling to get people you care about to leave their house once in a while

Notable Observations

In many deductions and templates I have frequently seen an individual mention observation as a foundation or fundamental core to which I agree. However these individuals too make slight mistakes by only observing what they can see. Of course, it is common to miss things that you cannot see as "out of sight, out of mind" is not an idiom for nothing. However, it is useful to always try to brainstorm what might be missing from the picture, as it is sometimes the smallest things that make the biggest impact. Observation by nature is analysing what you can see, but it is not confined only to what is blatantly obvious. It is equally informing to notice your neighbour's car parked out the front of their house as it is to not notice it there. Both scenarios have their own perfectly significant implications. One could be that they have not used their car and if they usually use their car when they go out it may imply, with a high probability, that they are still within their residence.

On the other hand, if you know that they use their car in accordance to when they go out, then you may infer with an equally high probability that they are no longer at their residence. In this case you can start to mind map and conjecture up possible hypotheses as to why are are not at home. One could be that they have gone out and need to carry something back with them, another reason could be that the weather does not permit them a comfortable journey to where they want to go but that could still go if they take the car etc, etc, etc... Then again, a missing car may not be any of those reasons. Maybe it has broken down and so is off in the shop for repairs. If this is the case then maybe it will be gone for a couple of days. On the other hand, maybe they lent the car to a family member? The possibilities are endless and can only be reduced down with further observations. Usually, with respect to Occam's Razor, it is often that the simplest theory or supposition that is most likely to be the correct one and hence through deductions, keeping them simple is often best. There should always be a balance kept. Remember, "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has any data", but I shall add that it is an equally bad blunder to theorise too decidedly when one has limited data.

-K

#deductive reasoning #logic #deduction #observation #reasoning #general deduction

parrotsplayground

"Most people, if you describe a train of events to them will tell you what the result would be.

They can put those events together in their minds, and argue from them that something will come to pass.

There are few people, however, who, if you told them a result, would be able to evolve from their own inner consciousness what the steps were which led up to that result.

This power is what I mean when I talk of reasoning backward, or analytically."

Arthur Conan Doyle - Sherlock Holmes, A study in Scarlet.

amateur-deductions

The Building Theory

This theory is one of the best ways i've found to understand the different stages of a deduction, it serves as a wonderful way to illustrate how much a deduction is a progressive process, with multiple little steps between observations and conclusions. It's also an amazing tool to analyze other people's deductions and break them down in a way that allows you to map out their trains of thought and learn from them.

/T H E T H E O R Y

The core idea of the theory is to compare a deduction to a simple building. A building has a certain process to being constructed, you can’t start a building by making the roof, or the third floor, nor can you make an efficient one out of cardboard.

Similarly, in Deduction there's a certain order to the process, you can't start a deduction at the conclusion, or the middle of the reasoning stage, neither can you deduce anything without solid observations and data. In other words, "you can't make bricks without clay"

/B E G I N N I N G

A Deduction is built using the same principle, first we gather the materials, we gather data, observations, snippets of information we'll use to build our structure. Then out of these materials we build a foundation or a base for the building, and everything we deduce will ultimately be supported by this foundation, by these observations. Then we build the first floor on top of this base, this floor represents any deductions that rely directly on the observations that serve as a base (eg. phone on right pocket = right handed, as you can see there's no middle conclusion reached between these two points).

/U P P E R F L O O R S

Next we get onto the second floor, this one will be composed of any deductions we make that are based on the observations that make up the foundation, but also based on our previous, straightforward deductions that make up the first floor (eg. phone on right pocket -> right handed = They shoot a gun with their right hand, this conclusion rests on the shoulders of the observation and the very straight forward deduction that comes with it).

And so on and so forth we construct this building, each time getting further and further away from the observations we first made, and each time relying more and more on the stability of the prior deductions. For our building to be stable and not crumble at a slight shake, we need to make sure the materials we use are the best quality, so our observations must be well established, without assumptions or biases, and the deductions we make must be accurate, with sane trains of thought. And of course, the taller we make any building the easier it is for it to fall, so we have to make sure as we go higher, as we add more and more deductions that stray further from the observations, we make our building sturdier, making sure our deductions have less and less flaws in them.

Once we have experience we can start choosing what kind of building we want to make. A tall skyscraper with multiple levels to the deductions that intertwine with each other, or a simple 2 story building that relies on it's horizontal area, consisting of a large base made out of many observations, and only direct deductions from these.

/O F N O T E

It's also important to note that the deductions from the first floor onwards always have to treat any deductions from previous floors as correct, we cannot deduce that someone would shoot a gun with their right hand if we don't treat our deduction that they're right handed as correct. Now this doesn't mean our deduction HAS to be correct, we can still be wrong about it, but in the moment of making deductions we have to assume we're right to push forward onto higher level deductions.

It's worth understanding that this theory serves as a way to visualize how far away a deduction is from the initial observation and how it connects to other deductions around it. This doesn't mean that just because a deduction is higher up in this building it's more complex. While distance from observations and complexity can be related, they're not the same measure, a "tall" building doesn't necessarily mean a more complicated one, and vise versa.

So with this in mind, i'm gonna end the post here, hope you liked it and if you have any questions feel free to drop them in my inbox

Happy Observing!

-DV

studies-in-the-art-of-deduction

How to break down information

So a while back i was asked how i break down information when deducing, you can see my answer to that question here. But since not long after that i was teaching deduction to a friend, and i had to get into this topic again, i thought i'd make a post out of it.

I'm gonna be linking this to another question i was asked a while ago, and that is "how do i see the world when deducing?", again, i give an answer to that here. But i think expanding on this answer, and linking it to the question at hand, may be useful for anyone wanting to learn deduction through watching other people do it, which is how most deductionists learn.

So the first thing we have to do when breaking down information from what we observe, is to keep in mind the implicit information that comes with those observations. So for example, let's say that we're deducing someone, and for some reason, the only thing we know about them is that they have car keys that belong to them, well that means that obviously they have a car, but some implicit information that comes with that is the following:

The fact that they have the money to acquire a car, which tells us about their economical status

They have money to pay for the gas for said car

They have accessibility to go to a lot of places without having to rely on outside factors like public transportation

The radius of places they can comfortably visit is quite large

They drive places, which means that they at least shouldn't drink for the periods of time when they're driving

They're at least 16-18 years old (depending on the country)

You can see how we go from knowing absolutely nothing about this made up individual, to knowing a few things, just by understading that the existence of car keys means the existence of a car, which means a plethora of other things. Now we can take one of these implicit meanings and expand on it, for example, their age being at least 16-18 means:

They're probably close to or have graduated high school

They're close to having or have a job

They work or study somewhere within the previously mentioned radius

They follow a daily route to get to where they work or study

And with that now we get an idea of location, routes they take, and travel times, and this is just with a single piece of information about them having car keys. Now if we were to know, for example, the model of the car, we could know more about their economical status, placing them as a student or knowing what kind of job they might have, which would give us a more accurate age range than just a minimum of 16-18. From this point on it's just a matter of stacking more and more information and relating it to what we already have, discarding things that don't match with the new observations we make, and adding new ideas based on the new information we acquire.

Now, in my blogs you're gonna be seeing a lot of different ways to visualize deduction, a lot of different theories that compare deduction to a Timeline or a Building to help illustrate certain parts of the skill. I think the closest i've gotten to describing it as a network of interconnected points has been my String Theory (yes, i know, super original name), but for purpose of this post we're gonna try to visualize deduction as a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff connections between observations, implicit meanings you can derive from said observations, and probable conclusions, conclusions that are derived by mixing and matching these things together.

For this purpose i've made a quick and simple illustration of what this could look like with different observations you could make. For this example i've worked simply with the existence of a theoretical phone, watch, and set of keys, but the more we go into detail the more our conclusions go from very general, to incredibly specific (for example knowing that the phone is old and scratched, or knowing that the car keys are of a certain brand of car, or that the watch is a gift. All of this gives us more information to add to this ever expanding web of simple conclusions). The diagram is the following:

So to explain this visual aid a bit, you can see how the objects are broken down into things that we know about them or their owner just from their existence. Knowing a watch is a smart watch means it has apps, it has connections to a phone, it can recieve texts or calls. Knowing keys are for some sort of gate means they open some closed off, private residence, or knowing they're for some sort of office tells us they're probably connected to some job, which means the person has an income, they go somewhere probably about 8 hours a day, they probably have to interact with people quite a bit, or if the keys are for a locker that measn this person regularly carries a lot of stuff they have to deposit in said locker. This is all information we could know about someone just by knowing they possess these items, not even getting into any details about the items, or getting into more than just 3 of them.

Now, i wanna be very clear, this diagram is Not supposed to be used as a base to make your own deductions, i'm not giving you a diagram for you to whip out as a guide for when you see a phone or a set of keys, and i'm definitely not encouraging you to immediately see an analog watch and follow this diagram to conclude it has a single use, and then use that as a base for your deductions. This diagram is supposed to be nothing more than an example, and not by any means the extent of the deductive process you should go through when dealing with these objects in your own deductions. In fact, you can see the diagram is not actually complete, and it doesn't include any specific details about these objects nor how the conclusions link together from object to object. Seeing these objects in real life will not always have you arrive at the same conclusion, since each deduction is hugely situational, and specific details about these objects might lead you down completely different paths. All i want you to take from this diagram is the methodology of extracting and navigating information

That being said, i do encourage you to start thinking about the observations you make as clusters like these, little groups of implicit information that comes with anything you observe. Expand it onto things like scratches on a phone screen, stains on a shirt, fingernails, shoes, desks, lamps, anything. Make sure to use these very simple, little steps to slowly carve your way to the big conclusions.

That's it for today, i hope this post was helpful and maybe better illustrates how to actually extract information from what you observe. If you have any questions my inbox is open.

Happy Observing!

-DV

footprints-and-tea-stains

The Pavilion: A Map of Holmesian Deduction

Imagine all of the information available in the deductionist community; of which there is no shortage. Take all of the videos on personality typing systems, blog posts describing micro-expressions, quotations of fictional and real detectives, etc. You could, if you were extraordinarily dedicated, teach yourself to become a highly knowledgeable deductionist. However, it is my opinion that internalizing these resources alone will never move you past the beginner stage. I will explain why.

Most new deductionists teach themselves through mimicry. We see something we like on a film, a TV show, in a book, or on a YouTube explanation and we copy what we see until we get repeatable results. A very common first experience is witnessing the scene from BBC Sherlock's episode "A Study In Pink" wherein Holmes deduces the occupation and itinerary of a dead woman wearing all pink from nothing other than the rain on her coat and the ring on her finger. It gets the mind turning and its certainly compelling enough to kick start many journeys into learning deduction.

The unfortunate part for those who want to learn, I think, is that Holmes explains how he made his deduction. This may seem counterintuitive but we copy what Holmes does without understanding how he gets there. Holmes never articulates the years of formal logic or how he chooses to make observations. We see the useful facts from which he pulls and some individual leaps in thought and we mimic those until it pays off. It is for this reason you will never move past a basic understanding of deductionism if your foundation is in memorizing information and pulling it out when a situation matches what you've practiced.

How then does one learn Holmesian deduction from the ground up? The very first step is sentential logic. In fact for the entire beginner section of this blog there will be no teaching of occupations or enriching the knowledge base with situational factoids. It's all topical and important to learn, but NOT YET!

I prefer to view deductionism as a pavilion shaped model. This is a map of the subject I find useful for understanding my craft as a sound structure I can rely on. The strong foundation deals with sound logic, understanding observation, analysis of data, and not ruining the data at any stage of the deduction. This is the beginner stage. The pillars of the pavilion deal in a well organized knowledge base divided into three main areas and built around the structure of occupations as the most extensive map of habits. This is the intermediate detective's realm. The roof of the pavilion is tiled from ones particular area of expertise and looks different for every deductionist. A chemist and a linguist would have very different roofs but would hopefully pull from the same foundation and pillars. This is the advanced region. Each part of the structure has intentional shapes, materials, and blend together to form a coherent craft. The foundation holds up the pillars which hold up the roof. Each part below only strengthens the parts above. This solves the mimicry problem because we've learned the skills without extra unnecessary information that gets in the way of process. We don't have to remember anything, we just do.

Due to the nature of the "roof" being unique to each person, this blog will only cover the formation of the foundation and the pillars. If you follow along and study what I post here my claim is you will move from pre-beginner to post-intermediate. With this prowess under your belt you'll have the skills necessary to build your own roof out of your particular interests.

For example, the Holmes of BBC Sherlock would have this core foundation and pillars, then he would have a roof built from his extensive knowledge in chemistry and his intimate orientation of London. He would, I think, have a fourth stage around the pavilion for mastery in some very particular areas of chemistry due to his university thesis on the matter.

Below you will find a broad overview of the trajectory of this blog following the pavilion model:

Foundation: Beginner

Argumentation: The core of all deduction work depends on proper logic being followed all the way through.

Framing: Understanding ones internal biases and environmental factors before ever observing.

Observation: How to accurately gather data with all available senses and which data points to cast aside.

Analysis: Statistics section 1; How to organize and compare observed data. How to extrapolate new data.

Synthesis: Why we fail and how to reach more accurate deductions with the data available.

Pillars: Intermediate

Analytics: Statistics section 2; Weighing data and updating beliefs. The intermediate deductionist thinks in statistics.

243 Forms of Occupation: Creating a structure to store your knowledge base. Occupation is the most widely applicable and well documented map of habits.

Physical Profiling Pillar: Ritualistic and environmental habits. Reading the room.

Language Profiling Pillar: Linguistic and non-verbal habits. Communication is key.

Psychological Profiling Pillar: Cognitive and personality habits. Processing the unseen.

The outline above will take a long time to cover, a longer time to learn, and only vaguely expresses the complexity of the subject. However, I think it's detailed enough to see where you are now and what you need to learn.

NOTE: The foundation section is loosely built off of Maria Konnikova’s book “Mastermind: How To Think Like Sherlock Holmes”. Over years of working with it my methodology has deviated from Konnikova’s format in a few major ways, which will become self evident as the following series progress. I still highly recommend reading it for faster learning.

-CM

thedeductionpage

How To Get Accurate But Interesting Deductions

Note: I’m working on…working on a little project on deduction, I think it’ll be pretty interesting, once finished. It’s a pretty laborious one that requires the collection of information and a lot more bullshit, so…you probably won’t be seeing that, anytime soon.

Okay, so back to the topic: How to get accurate but interesting deductions. This is very broad. Honestly, I chose this title because I knew that the kind of people who’d be attracted to it would probably be the ones who need to hear it. Some phrases these people may use while reasoning:

“Because they’re an idiot”

“Because they want to impress potential romantic partners”

“Because they’re slow”

“Because they’re shallow”

“They’re mentally unwell *insert mental illness here*”

If you find yourself saying these things, then you probably need to read this post. Humanization: it’s important. I’m not here to be the morality police, or whatever— it’s just a fact.

Do you want to stop getting the same, surface level, inaccurate, blanket statement deductions? Then deduce people, not a version of your projections. If you haven’t guessed, I lean more towards the psychological aspect of deduction, and I’ve gathered that humanizing the people you deduce will help you psychologically profile them.

The thing is, deductionists sometimes underestimate or dehumanize the people they’re deducing. Whether they do it to feel better about themselves, to force a more interesting story onto their person in order to come up with more exciting conclusions, or whatever they’ve got going on, doesn’t matter. The point is, they don’t think other people are allowed to be intelligent, or substantial and interesting.

As a deductionist, one of the worst things you can do is judge the person you’re deducing. It’s not your job to judge them, you’re supposed to be analyzing them.

Your projections and clumsy methodology will only get in the way of that. When you deduce them, give your person a chance. Give them as much justice as you would want to be done onto you. If you want accurate deductions, then actually treat people like…people. Look for meaning in everything, then just discard the ones that don’t fit into the picture— it’s better than missing a piece.

For example, a person I was deducing, along with others, had an old blanket with cartoons on it. Here’s how one person went wrong:

Cartoon blanket—> immature, possibly autistic/ADHD, not many friends.

Can’t they just be young or sentimental?

Either attached to childhood, looking for comfort, or financially unstable?

No books—> stupid, shallow, immature.

E-books are a thing. His book could’ve been in his locker, at school, or hell, in his backpack in another room.

Shoes inside the room—> messy, no parents at home, slob.

Could be, or it could be a matter of convenience. It could be a matter of routine. Or, he could have extracurriculars and has to be somewhere, after. He could have a social thing, which would go against the whole “no friends, loser” thing.

When you deduce someone, treat it like a courtroom inside your head. There are two attorneys, the defense, and the prosecutor. One person looks for meaning, stretches and bends over backwards to redeem your person, while the other just goes buckwild and absolutely shits all over their little head. It’s called balance.

People are allowed to be as smart and interesting, maybe even moreso, than you. People are allowed to be complex.

Anyways, I know I neglect this blog a lot. In my defense, you hit a certain plateau, when you’ve been deducing for a while. I don’t know when I’ll upload again, but…ya’ll eatin’ today. Bye.

ramshacklefey

How to Logic Properly

Ok, I meant to write this yesterday, but exhaustion got the better of me. Here goes.

We've all seen a the posts like this one that talk at length about logical fallacies, but I haven't ever seen a post about how to do logic right. There's a lot more to building a good argument than just avoiding fallacies, so I thought I'd make a quick guide to some of the fundamental principles that will help you build a logically sound argument.

Logic is a system for building arguments that will take you from a set of premises that are true to a conclusion that's also true. It's about how you connect pieces of evidence to each other in ways that let you draw accurate conclusions about the world. Basically, logic is math but with words instead of numbers.

Just like math uses certain formulas to get you from, say, the base and height of a triangle to its area, logic uses formulas to get you from one set of true statements to another. In geometry, you need to start with accurate measurements AND apply the formula correctly in order to get the right answer. In logic, it's exactly the same.

Fortunately, there are way fewer formulas that you need to remember in order to do logic! Even more fortunately, they pretty much all rely on the same kinds of statements: if/then statements (called conditionals) and "either/or" statements (called disjuncts).

Here are the three basic ones that will get you pretty much everything you need: (Note: when we're talking about the formulas, we use letters to represent where you would normally put a whole statement in)

Modus Ponens: The absolute most basic thing you can do in logic. You start with a conditional statement (If A, then B). Then you say that statement A is true, and you conclude that statement B is true as well. The formula for it is: If A, then B. A Therefore, B.

Modus Tollens: Very similar to modus ponens. You start with a conditional statement (If A, then B). Then you say that statement B is false, and you conclude that statement A is also false. The formula for this is: If A, then B. B is false. Therefore, A is false.

Disjunctive Syllogism: For this one, you start with a disjunct (either A or B). Then you say that one of these is false, and you conclude that the other must be true. The formula for this is: Either A or B. A is false. Therefore, B is true.

Let's take a look at some examples using actual statements.

Modus Ponens: If you stick a fork in an outlet, then you will get electrocuted. You stuck a fork in an outlet. Therefore, you will get electrocuted.

Modus Tollens: If you stick a fork in an outlet, then you will get electrocuted. You will NOT be electrocuted. Therefore, you did NOT stick a fork in an outlet.

Disjunctive Syllogism: Either you wear a space suit when you leave the station or you die. You did NOT wear a space suit. when you left the station. Therefore, you die. You can do this the other way round too: Either you wear a space suit when you leave the station or you die. You did NOT die. Therefore, you wore a space suit when you left the station.

That's it. It's really that simple.

However, it's possible to fuck this up if you don't apply the formulas correctly. There are three BIG mistakes that people often make with these.

Thinking that when the "if" half of a conditional is false, the "then" half is also false. If you stick a fork in an outlet, then you will get electrocuted. You did NOT stick a fork in an outlet. Therefore, you did NOT get electrocuted. If you think about it for a minute, it's easy to see why this doesn't work: There are lots of ways to get electrocuted other than sticking a fork in an outlet.

Thinking that when the "then" half of a conditional is true, the "if" half is also true. If you stick a fork in an outlet, then you will get electrocuted. You got electrocuted. Therefore, you stuck a fork in an outlet. Again, this doesn't work because there are lots of other ways to get electrocuted.

Thinking that when one half of a disjunct is true, the other must be false. Either you wear a spacesuit when you leave the station, or you die. You wore a spacesuit when you left the station. Therefore, you did not die. But you could have died from lots of other things, like getting shot by aliens.

Now, the thing that makes this tricky is that people are rarely polite enough to lay out their arguments in this form. They put their premises and conclusions in different orders, or they don't actually come out and say all the premises. Being able to read an argument or to think through your own argument and come out with these clear formulas is its whole own skill. But that's a topic for another post.

compoundchem

Water boils at 100˚C everywhere, right? Wrong! Here’s a look at why: http://wp.me/p4aPLT-1Kk

science-of-logical-reasoning

Deducing Musicians Hands

Its a lot so just jump into it:

Pianists:

Pianist will have on their left and right hand a curved last bone at the middle finger toward the ring finger and they will have used of finger tips depending on how much they play:

7 years pianist with unregular playing now

First picture is the left hand and second one is the right hand. As you can see the middle finger is bend into the direction towards the ring finger. Note that some people have that condition too that dont play piano. I have not found out why they have it but try to use some context and you might like personality and try to combine it to find out if it is likely that the person plays piano. A good indicated that they actually play piano is that the condition is on both hands. People that dont play piano normally have the condition only at one hand. Pianists will also usually have a thicker connection between the thumb and palm as also seen on the pictures.

Saxophone:

People that play the saxophone will tend to have a crooked thumb. This condition is as a before with pianist also found at people that dont play the piano. Mostly its people who are hyper flexible that get the condition if they dont play the saxophone. Again context is the key. Deduce with other clues and you might be getting on the right track:

2 years training, playing one to two hours a day

As you see the thumb is bend backwards making a curve. I can be more or less and is caused by people that press with the thumb on something a lot.

Clarinet:

Clarinet players have usally a mark on the right thumb. Its due to that they rest their instrument with a thumbrest on their thumb. Which causes a mark / callus to form on it. If they use a neck strap the mark is not visible as much and turns into just a bit thicker skin. Might be “bumpy”. After training they can also have a round mark on the right hand index finger. Wrong playing of the clarinet can also cause a red mark on the index finger, on the side toward the thumb:

6 years of training, one to two hours a day

There you can see the mark on the thumb under the knuckle. You can also the the mark on the ring finger which is caused by wrong handling of the instrument.

Here is the same hand again but after he trained. As you can see the marks are very visible and red.

Here is also the hand from the inside after training where you can see on the index finger a round mark because of the training. (Sorry I forgot that picture in the first version)

7 years clarinet training, 2-3h a week to sometimes 6-9h a week

Here is a person that uses a neck strap as you can see there is just a little visible bump above the knuckle at the inside between thumb and index finger. Here is the other hand that does not have that bump:

Stringed Instrument:

Advanced string players tend to have calluses on their fingertips as seen here:

20 years guitarist, training 15 to 20 hours a week

If they recently trained with the instrument they will have straight marks on their finger tips as seen here:

Depending on the instrument they will go in different directions:

Violin or Viola:

Lines as seen on the above picture. They go from bottom left to top right.

Cello:

Lines the opposite as seen above. They go from top left to bottom right

Guitar:

Lines go straight across the finger tips or in a very slight angly from bottom left to top right like the violin but in a very flat angle.

Depending on how hard they trained the marks can last up to 40 min:

05 min - mildly visible , 07 min - barely visible , 10 min - still visible in good lit areas, 12 min - now only visible on 3 fingers (index, middle and ring), 20 min - seeing it on the index finger (good), barely on the others, 25 min - barely visible on middle and ring finger and still visible on index finger, 28 min - barely visible only at index finger now, 30 min - almost gone at all fingers index is still a bit of a visible mark, 35 min - only visible at the index finger with good light and close looking, 37 min - all gone

*Simulated with pressing on a violin (because it was broken)*

Thats it for my study. It took some time and a lot of people to be able to do this. I am really happy with the results as I can show to most or basically everything at lest one example picture which was important to me. Again here: Thanks to everyone who took part and helped me to make this as accurate as possible. If you have anything to add please hit me up at: [email protected]

Thanks for reading

-Sol

Deduction #1

Hello everyone, this is my first post and it’s been a while since I’ve practiced thoroughly.

Background: during a bus commute I briefly made some observations about another passenger:

The passenger was holding the right hand in their left hand in a hand-over-hand fashion.

They had medium to short length slightly wavy brown hair.

Was in possession of a green eco-friendly reusable bag. Which seemed to contain an item or two

Dressed fairly nicely but not too formally, had a preference for warmth as well instead of visual appeal.

They were wearing a black face mask and had some earphones in which seemed to be the type to have noise cancellation.

They had a ring, plain silver band with a square type of signet, on their left middle finger. Another ring can be seen on their right ring finger but I couldn’t get a good look.

Has a card holder phone case with their public transport travel card being the only visible card as the card holding compartment was stuck to the back of the phone case.

These observations lead me to believe that:

Based on probability they are right handed.

Hair preferences are always weird however, from the ends to near the roots the tone and colour of hair differed and was lighter than what seemed to be the original colour. This indicates a range of insights such as the probability that the individual was into modern fashion and cared about how they looked but now is not able to care as much meaning that it could’ve been a phase. It could also imply that the person was just overtaken by life’s business to worry about their hair.

The possession of only a single reusable eco-friendly shopping bag shouts that they planned to only purchase a couple of items in their trip out of the house today. In combination with the fact that the bag was not even half full and was folded over itself a little makes it obvious that they were covering a small errand as part of their return trip home.

As they were dressed fairly well in good quality materials it is safe to say that they are doing fairly well financially. However, they are frugal with their money and takes care with their spending. This matches with later observations~~~ As today was a cold day it gives insights into their practical nature.

Due to the black face mask this infers that the person is quite health conscious or has to be health conscious due to either their own immune system or a close one’s. Additionally, the possession of noise cancelling earphones suggests that the individual is a seasoned public transport commuter as a mask was made popular and mandatory when travelling during COVID-19 peaks and the noise cancelling earphones for commuters who don’t want to listen to the humdrum of society’s lessers.

Having one or two rings usually signifies a commitment to something due to some meaningful aspect of a memory or event that ties to it. On the other hand, having many rings, especially visually appealing rings, may indicate that the person is just dressing up for looks. This particular individual seemed to have connected meaningful aspects of their life to these two rings as they seemed to be a bit too small for their fingers. This can indicate that they have been in possession of the rings for a long time and thus it has become a part of them.

As the card holder seemed to be there for the sole purpose of using their paid travelling card it is safe to deduce that they are a seasoned commuter and it is part of their every day life. This gives insights into the potential idea that the individual does not own their own vehicle for transport and/or is unable to use a close relative or partner’s. Following this line of inferences and all of the above leads me to summarise.

TLDR;

The subject under perusal is a middle-aged individual who is dominant right handed, consumed social media and was influenced to conform to modern fashion for a brief period of time. They are environmentally friendly and seem to be frugal with their spending and money. They are quite the practical person opting for functionality over aesthetics leading to my belief that they have quite a straightforward personality, are caring and introverted. They are comfortable financially but could be doing better. Additionally, they are not in a relationship or are close to their biological family as there seemed to be no pictures of close ones, children, partner(s) or family anywhere on personal objects. Lastly, they do not own a personal vehicle.

#deduction #general deduction #observation

pr1nceshawn

How Much Can Kill You?

Water - Everyone has heard that they should drink 2 liters of water every day. But if you drink 3 times as much, your kidneys will not be able to process this much liquid and get it out of your system. The result can be internal organ and brain edema and respiratory arrest.

Coffee - Half an ounce of caffeine is believed to be a lethal dose. It is approximately 113 coffee cups (of 250 ml). It is worth mentioning that in this case, a person would probably die not from the caffeine overdose but water intoxication: 113 cups are actually almost 30 liters of water. So if you don’t eat coffee beans or mouthfuls of instant coffee, you are safe.

Chocolate - Chocolate contains a small amount of theobromine. This alkaloid is a powerful agent that stimulates the central nervous system. But if you ate 22 lb of chocolate in one sitting, it could lead first to nausea and diarrhea, then an epileptic fit, then internal bleeding, cardiac infarction, and finally death.

Alcohol - For a healthy man, a deadly dose would be 1.25 liters of 40% alcohol (approximately 27 shots of 45 ml each). But it will happen only if the man finishes this amount within one hour and does not throw up.

Cigarettes - Taking into account that each standard cigarette contains approximately 0.8 mg of nicotine, 75 cigarettes can blow you to kingdom come.

Marijuana - Things are slightly different with marijuana. The fatal dose is 1,500 lb, smoked within 15 minutes or 48 lb eaten at one time. And you probably won’t enjoy it at all. Not even Snoop Dogg can do that.

Apple Seeds - You won’t die from eating 18 apples. But if you take out the seeds from those 18 apples, smash them to pieces, chew them thoroughly, and swallow them, then there is a possibility that you will die because apple seeds contain cyanide.

Bananas - Bananas contain potassium, an overdose of which can lead to death. But for this to happen, you would have to eat 400 bananas in one sitting.

Oranges - To die from an orange overdose, you would need to eat 11,000 oranges in one sitting.

Salt - The everyday norm of salt is approximately 0.1 oz. A lethal dose of salt is 9 oz in one sitting (approximately 48 teaspoons). If someone decides to choose this way to commit suicide, it will be a truly regretful choice because the death would be agonizing (from a lot of enemas) and long.

Sugar - The fatal dose of sucrose is 5 oz per pound of your body weight. This means that a man would need to eat 55 lb of sugar in one go, which equals approximately 500 teaspoons