#deductionist master class

[theartoftheconsultingdetective]

Art of the Consulting Detective MASTER POST

This is the list of all posts on Art of the Consulting Detective. This will be updated every time a new post is submitted and reblogged between series. You can also find posts organised by series on the series page at theartoftheconsultingdetective.tumblr.com.

DEDUCTIONIST MASTER CLASS

Series Description (x) Series Graphic (x) Part 1: Introduction - Holmes/Watson (x) SECTION 1: FRAMING Part 2: Mindfulness & Motivation (x) Part 3: Understanding Yourself (x) Part 4: Understanding Your Environment (x) SECTION 2: OBSERVATION Part 5: Observation and Stocking the Brain Box (x)

MEMORY PALACE

Palace Building

Learning is a game video (x) Card counting with the memory palace (x) Little update and mind palace visuals (x) [ask] I think its a mild form of aphantasia Part 1 (x) [ask] I think its a mild form of aphantasia Part 2 (x) [ask] I think its a mild form of aphantasia Part 3 (x) [ask] Can you explain where to begin building a mind palace (x) How to make a Mind Palace drawing (x)

Palace Systems

[ask] I'm curious, with your universe mind palace technique (x) Issues with the Universe Memory Palace (x) Ultimate Memory Palace -  The Universe (x)

Super Palaces

[ask] The way I ‘delete’ memories (x) [ask] Mind palace to help with someone deal with ADD and/or OCD (x)

Language

[ask] How would you go about encoding symbols (x)

[ask] Hey, I have a problem (x) [ask] Group of people with the same exact mind palace Part 1 (x) [ask] Group of people with the same exact mind palace Part 2 (x) [ask] Have your mind palace send you reminders (x) [ask] Add and subtract rooms without getting confused (x) [ask] Store information in my mind palace, it doesn't work (x) [ask] What happens if a Mind Palace crashes (x) [ask] Compress information in your mind palace to the size of books Part 1 (x) [ask] Compress information in your mind palace to the size of books Part 2 (x) [ask] Can you store math formulas in your mind palace (x) [ask] I've spent my time making an intricate palace Part 1 (x) [ask] I've spent my time making an intricate palace Part 2 (x) [ask] I’m curious as to what you have in your "contacts" (x) [ask] Tips for creating effective links between the attic and palaces (x) [ask] Do you have any suggestions for places to use for a mind palace (x) [ask] 7 coat wardrobe palace (x) [ask] How would you suggest "traveling" between palaces (x) [ask] Information in a mind palace is dependent on the objects/hooks (x) [ask] Why keep track of actions taken in your mind palace (x) [ask]  Method you use to remain sane (x)

MIND PALACE SERIES 

PLACING PEGS & CREATING PATHS: Mind Palace Series Part 5/? (x) PEGGINGS: Mind Palace Series Part 4/? (x) PALACES: Mind Palace Series Part 3/? (x) Brain Attic: Mind Palace Series Part 2/? (x) ORGANISATION: Mind Palace Series Part 1/? (x)

CASE FILES

Deductions in the parking lot (x) [ask] I am looking to start my first case (x) [ask] Recently a colleague of mine disappeared Part 1 (x) [ask] Recently a colleague of mine disappeared Part 2 (x) Side case: The Maroon Camera (x) [ask] Side case: The Maroon Camera - How to confirm these deductions (x) A Case of a Serial Extorter (UNSOLVED: Negligible) (x)

DEDUCTION

Inquiring preferences from items (x) Unpacking arguments (x) Sherlock Holmes like decision making (x) Ask questions, ask all of the questions (x) What to observe when entering an unfamiliar environment (x) Making personal conclusions from hands (x) Determining height from stride length (x) Determining height from stride length -  I would like you to clarify a point (x) The Consulting Detectives Scientific Method (x) [ask] Way to know if someone is having an affair (x) Cycles of Scientific Thinking video (x) [ask] What things would you look for when deducing someone's MBTI (x) [ask] Do personality types work like genes (x) [ask] [not my blog] You want to know the password to someones phone (x) [ask] I've been paying special attention to pupil dilation (x) [ask] If you could do an analysis on my personality/character Part 1 (x) [ask] If you could do an analysis on my personality/character Part 2 (x) [ask] Naturally elevated blink rate while teaching Part 1 (x) [ask] Naturally elevated blink rate while teaching Part 2 (x) How Meyers Brigg Type Indicator works drawing (x) [ask] I'm curious as to how analyzing one's grammar works (x) [ask] Any tips to help someone who is looking to begin deduction (x) [ask]  You already knew what type of personality your opponent has (x)

CODES & CIPHERS

Here’s a code I made (x) [ask] “I maze a code” (x) [ask] “Analyze this Mr.Calladus” (x) [ask]  I’ve encrypted a message in this sketch (x)

CASE FILE 003: ADVENTURE OF THE BLACK QUEEN

[ask] Is this blog based on real events (x) [ask] The Anon is using chess to learn information about me (x) [ask]  What does RM stand for (x) To the various imposters of R.M. (x) [ask] Deduction battle with that other dude (x) [ask] I noticed you opened with the rook's pawn (x) [ask] Looked again at the chess game (x) [ask] Though the business with R.M. seems a bit over-dramatic (x) [ask] A friendly inquiry on your theory as to the identity of R.M. (x) [RM 13] Until next time Michael Calladus (x) [RM 12] Goodbye RM (x) Dear R.M. (x) [RM 11] You are even better than they said you were (x) [RM 10] E4 to E5 / F6 to F2 - Our little match is about to end (x) [RM 09]  D4 to B3 / D8 to F6 - Tell me who you are before I defeat you (x) [RM 08]  E2 to D4 / F8 to C5 - That is as simple as deductions get (x) [RM 07]  C5 to B6 / C7 to B6 - Fans that are watching you (x) [RM 06]  C4 to C5 / E7 to E6 -  I hope you are as good as they say (x) [RM 05]  C2 to C4 / B7 to B6 -  I'm testing the waters (x) [RM 04]  A2 to A3 / G7 to G5 -  Information comes at a price (x) [RM 03]  G1 to E2 / H7 to H6 -  What's your real name (x) [RM 02]  E2 to E4 / A7 to A6 -  This better be good (x) [RM 01]  I'm watching you (x)

ASKS THAT I MISS FROM HER

[N&C 1]  How could that happen (x) [N&C 2]  Any suggestions on which method (x) [N&C 3]  I'm just wondering perhaps (x) [N&C 4]  You answered my request (x) [N&C 5]  I’m guessing you’re an American (x) [N&C 6]  I’m actually quite outgoing (x)

ASKS THAT MAKE ME HAPPY

[ask] You made it and that inspired me (x) [ask] So glad I found you (x) [ask] Are You all right (x) [ask] I just wanted to say I love the blog (x) [ask] Pardon my intrusion (x)

ABOUT ME

[ask] "the fair sex" means women. why don't you mention men (x) [ask]  How did you learn how to deduce (x) [ask] I understand your online name is an alias (x) [ask] When did you start training to be like Sherlock Holmes (x) [ask] Are you actually male or are you a female (x) [ask] What is your IQ (x) I submitted this a while back to 221confessions (x) [ask] Whats your MBTI type (x)

[theartoftheconsultingdetective]

Deductionist Master Class FRAMING - PART 3: Understanding Yourself

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

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

LOGICAL FALLACIES

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

Appeals to the Mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals to Emotions

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

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

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

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

Appeal to Pity: Arguing by invoking sympathy or empathy

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

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

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

Faulty Deductions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sweeping Generalisation: Applying a general rule too broadly

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

Manipulating Content

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

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

Biased Generalising: Generalising from an unrepresentative sample

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

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

Lie: A falsehood repeated knowingly as a fact

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

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

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

Suppressed Evidence: Intentionally failing to acknowledge significant, relevant evidence

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

Garbled Cause & Effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

 BIASES

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

Cognitive Biases - repeating or basic misstep in thinking

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

Apophenia: human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

-M.C.

[theartoftheconsultingdetective]

Deductionist Master Class PART 1: Introduction - Holmes/Watson

The Deductionist Master Class (herein refereed to as DMC) is an in-depth articulation of what it is to perform analytical reasoning. This series points to what a deductionist or consulting detective means when they say “I make deductions”. This is the full master class on what, when, where, why, who, and how to make deductions. This is the method to the madness to change your thinking from Watson Brain to Holmes Brain.

A Note To The Reader

Here we will lay the ground for what we’re about to cover. It’s crucial to frame our minds in a way that turns each post into a piece of a larger set of information. Details are essential albeit worthless without context.

A: This series is largely structured off of Maria Konnikova PhD’s book “Mastermind: How To Think Like Sherlock Holmes”. It’s an amazing book and I suggest you read it for and apart from this series.

B: This series goes through the stages of logical reasoning and how to do it. Each post is part of a section on a specific stage of analytical thinking. So if you’re starting Section 2: Observation, all information should be studied as it’s own set of information as well as taken in light of the previous section and the overall process that this series points to.

This is the approximate outline for the DMC series:

Introduction (1 post)

Section 1: Framing - How to prepare your mind to take in data (3 posts)

Section 2: Observation - How to appropriately take in data (5 posts)

Section 3: Analysis - What to do with that data (8 posts)

Section 4: Navigation - How to appropriately connect data 4 posts)

Section 5: Deduction - How to pull new data from connections (3 posts)

Conclusion (1 post)

The numbers above are approximate albeit currently accurate. Changes may be made in order to clarify information. Speaking of clarification, 5 days after a post goes up, I will submit a collection of asks about said post. That collection will be followed by a response and hopefully many answers. So if you have questions about what is said in any part of this series please ask within 4 days of the post going up so that I may include it in the Q/A. Please don’t be afraid to ask questions, the point of this series is to shed light on and clarify all aspects of these topics. If a question isn’t appropriate I just won’t include it.

Welcome To Part 1

Before we get to Part 2, there are a few things you need to keep in your mind. As I said above, it’s crucial to frame our minds in a way that turns each post into a piece of a larger set of information. So, a little rudimentary psychology to set us in motion. Your brain has two modes of functioning (no, not two sides. Right brain/ Left brain is not a thing, please let it die). 

“Most psychologists now agree that our minds operate on a so-called two-system basis. One system is fast, intuitive, reactionary - a kind of constant fight or flight vigilance of the mind. It doesn’t require much conscious thought or effort and functions as a sort of status quo autopilot. The other is slower, more deliberate, more thorough, more logical - but also much more cognitively costly. It likes to sit things out as long as it can and doesn’t step in unless it thinks it absolutely necessary.” (Mastermind: How To Think Like Sherlock Holmes -Maria Konnikova PhD).

We’ll call System One (fast, reactionary) Watson, and we’ll call System Two (slow, reflective) Holmes. Since System Holmes is so mentally costly we spend most of our time thinking in System Watson, making us act automatic and quick to judge. Naturally we’re quick to believe and accept what is presented to us, and only then do we question.

“Put differently, it’s like out brain initially see the world as a true/false exam where the default answer is always true. And while it takes no effort whatsoever to remain in true mode, a switch of answer to false requires vigilance, time, and energy.” (Mastermind).

In the following series we’ll take a look at what makes our brains comfortable, and how we can make the uncomfortable second nature. Time to switch on our Holmes Brain more often and let the Watson Brain take a seat. In Part 2 we’re going to begin Section 1: Framing, which will help us begin the journey to System Holmes by showing us how to frame ourselves before we ever take in data.

I truly hope you enjoy this series, and have fun making deductions. - M.C.

[theartoftheconsultingdetective]

Deductionist Master Class OBSERVATION - PART 5: Observation and Stocking the Brain Box

In the previous section of posts we looked at how to frame the mind for new information. So what do you do when that information is in front of you? In the next month we’re going to look at how to actually observe new information. There are a few things to keep in mind. One of those things are observations do not equal deductions (deductions in the Sherlockian sense of the term). Observations are just raw data. Deduction involves cultivating that data into something new, a sum of multiple observations, until the only thing left is a new perspective. Such a process is delicate. If one piece of information is incorrect you ruin your end product.

Four Lenses

So how do you gather data without spoiling it? That involves mindful motivation in four aspects.

These aspects are:

Selectivity

Objectivity

Inclusivity

Engagement

These four aspects will, from here on out, be called The Four Lenses. These lenses ensure that you gain the maximum amount of useful data possible with the least amount of useless data. Little to no red herrings mean more useful information to play with while not worrying about something that’ll set you back to square one. Selectivity keeps you on track while choosing what’s useful. Objectivity helps in placing yourself inside of the information without losing sight of what’s truly pointing in which direction. Inclusivity puts your information in a group of a much larger picture, allowing you to see what was previously hidden or not included. Engagement prevents you from missing data that otherwise would have slipped away from your senses. The combination of The Four Lenses provides a more clear shot between you and what you’re attempting to gather.

Conclusion

This post was meant to give your mind a framework for how observation works on a consumable level. In the next four posts we’ll be holding each of these lenses up to the light to understand exactly what they are and are not capable of. A mix of practical and conceptual examples will provide a more full knowledge base on how observation works. In the meantime, practice observing. -M.C.

[theartoftheconsultingdetective]

Deductionist Master Class FRAMING - PART 2: Mindfulness and Motivation

In Part 1 we learned that our brains work on a two-system basis: System Watson (the default system that’s fast and reactive) and System Holmes (the more cognitively costly system that’s slow and reflective). If we want to get our minds to Sherlock level we have to learn to make System Holmes second nature, but that’s really, really difficult. “It wont be easy. As Holmes reminds us, ‘Like all other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only be acquired by long and patient study....’ In essence, it comes down to one simple formula: to move from System Watson to System Holmes, governed thinking takes mindfulness plus motivation.” (Mastermind - Maria Konnikova PhD). So to think like Holmes, we have to utilise mindfulness and motivation, which is in fact the first part of framing.

Ok, so what is framing? It sounds like a way of planning or drafting. These are close. In fact it’s what you do to prepare yourself to appropriately take in data (yes, there’s a whole stage before you even observe anything). But what does mindfulness or motivation have to do with anything. Those aren’t words I’d use to describe deduction. In fact those are words I’d use to describe getting out of bed. And to that I would say precisely! Switching on System Holmes is difficult. But if we want to think like Sherlock we have to think outside of our comfort zone. “Mindfulness, in the sense of constant presence of mind, the attentiveness and hereness that is so essential for real, active observation of the world. Motivation, in the sense of active engagement and desire.” (Mastermind). Why do we loose our keys and glasses only to find them on our person later? Why do we go into the kitchen and then forget why we entered. Why do we drive from work to home and then realise we don’t remember any of the drive. System Watson is the reason why we go on a sort of autopilot. We aren’t mindful or motivated 24/7, our brains get tired so they take little brakes from focusing.

“But in order to break from the autopilot mode, we have to be motivated to think in a mindful, present fashion, to exert effort on what goes through our heads instead of going with the flow.” (Mastermind). If we want to see the world like Sherlock Holmes, we have to actively desire to think like him. Motivation is what many researchers contribute to the difference in the scores of the cognitive test of younger and older individuals. Why do adults tend to outperform younger people. It’s not necessarily because they’re smarter. We know that the brains of younger individuals are often more sponge like and learn new things quicker. So why is it that adults score so high? Motivation. They try harder and engage more, more serious and present. To them the cognitive test matters, it says something about their mental capacity; and they are going to prove they still have what it takes. But this isn’t just with old and young cognitive test takers, MOTIVATED SUBJECTS ALWAYS OUTPERFORM. When we learn anything new we learn better if we are motivated learners.

So mindfulness and motivation make you more prepared and capable of learning how to make deductions. What’s missing? Practice! “...practice, practice, practice. You have to supplement your mindful motivation with brutal training, thousands of hours of it. There is no way around it. Think of the phenomenon of expert knowledge: experts in all fields, from master chess players to master detectives, have superior memory in their field of choice.... they see things that are invisible to a novice; they are able to discern patterns at a glance that are anything but obvious to an untrained eye.... Even [Sherlock] could not have begun life with System Holmes at the wheel.” (Mastermind). Brutal training indeed. Over the next 23 weeks you will be subjected to a system of thinking that is far from default. You will be made uncomfortable and the reasons you make the decisions you do will be made visible. However, it will quite liberating. So, the first piece of the puzzle in learning deduction: Mindfulness and Motivation.

I hope this series is helpful thus far. Please send me your questions and in 5 days I will answer them all together. And as always, thanks for reading. -M.C.

[theartoftheconsultingdetective]

Deductionist Master Class FRAMING - PART 4: Understanding Your Environment

When framing thought patterns, there are two things to worry about: your internal world (biases and logical fallacies) and the external world (unfortunately a lot). Last week we looked at the former. This week we’ll be looking at the external world. There are a lot of external things that can get in the way of pure data. In this post we’ll be breaking them into a two categories: Observer Danger and Coincidences.

Observer Danger

This includes anything that can prevent you from or harm you for observing something. Confidential information is legally protected. Information about the black-market is dangerous if the observer is perceived as a threat. Basically it would be difficult to take in information if, say, you were getting punched in the face. So it’s important to frame research around these limitations before you begin research.

Coincidences

If two thing happen at the same time, and they aren’t related, that could get in the way of properly taking in accurate data. It’s fairly self explanatory. In fact this post is probably the most self explanatory post of the whole series (but I’m gonna explain it anyways). So if a bus gets in your way while you’re watching a person, you will have difficulty continuing to watch that person until the bus, person, or you are moved a substantial distance. If a dog bites you while you are observing a house, you will find that process more difficult than if there were not a biting dog. This slightly overlaps into observer danger, but the dog is not trying to prevent you from observing (the dog just wants attention. Don’t get mad at the pup, be nice to the pup). You should frame coincidences into your observing process, just as you did for observer danger.

That’s the external world. There’s not much to this post. It’s pretty simple but a necessary part of the process. I hope this was useful.

-M.C.

[theartoftheconsultingdetective]

Deductionist Master Class

Dear followers,

I am writing a series of posts to be the basis of this blog. This Deductionist Master Class will cover completely the art of deduction and logical reasoning. This series will be the foundation and grounding for all other posts on this blog concerning deduction and deduction sub-topics. This should be considered a loose text book which can be referred to again and again and added to for clarity. All posts after this series will be tips and tricks (unless otherwise specifies) to add to the foundation setup in this series in order to enhance the usefulness of that foundation.

There will be around 25 posts in this series, one a week. The Deductionist Master Class will be broken into 5 sections, with a few posts in each to cover the many angles of said subject. Each week I will submit a new part of the series, and then in 5 days I’ll submit a Q/A on that post consisting of the asks I’ve received and a few paragraphs to answer all questions (you know how I like to get into the details...so a few paragraphs is hopeful). Then another 2 days until the next part is submitted (thus a weekly system)

This system is setup so that you can scroll through my blog at any time to find a specific post without getting lost or frustrated. Post 1 - Q/A 1 - Post 2 - Q/A 2... and so on. Easy to navigate, not too difficult to read (My paragraphs do get quite dense though. I’m probably the reason there’s a market for blog commentaries).

Please let me know what you think and any concerns you may have. This series will begin November 1, 2017. In the meantime I’m open to any questions, topics, and puzzles you may have. While the series runs I would like to limit myself to private cases so that my blog remains easy to navigate.

This series structure is heavily influenced by Maria Konnikova PhD’s ‘How To Think Like Sherlock Holmes’. I’ve taken it and cut out any fat and added in what I think is important. I highly suggest reading this book both for and apart from this series.

(P.S. - Memory palaces are a completely separate series. I will cover it completely, however, memory palaces are not necessary to making functional deductions; so that will be submitted later as a sub-topic in order to enhance you deductive prowess.)

[theartoftheconsultingdetective]

Deductionist Master Class begins November 1, 2017.