I have made this subreddit recently and this is the mission statement. This is our current discussion for setting up our first experiment [numbers to be tracked by a google doc]. Since there are likely to be many here would have some experience or capability in this matter, I would like to ask if someone can help us design and maintain this experiment and the spreadsheets. For the future, we could carry these on by ourselves if you don't want to, but the initial setup is quite a challenge and its just us two 19 year olds running the show. You are welcome to join or participate, but any feedback at all is appreciated. Ps. Yes, we know this effort may be a waste of time and are willing to accept it as an outcome. TL;DR: Sherlock Holmes has well know powers of observation, reasoning and deduction. Our goal is see if there exist techniques [from forensics, mentalism, etc] which can help someone push their own skills as close to Sherlock's as possible. The first experiment is under discussion but the basic idea is we choose a set of triggers [eg. people cross their arms with their dominant hand tucked in] for deduction and run it among ourselves for [x amount of time] on as wide a sample [other people in their daily lives] as possible. At the end, we collect that data and figure out how reliable that deduction is. This way, a database of what to look for and what it means can be compiled, with is one of the ways we are testing to try and achieve Holmesian skills.
I apologize, a quick glance over left me slightly confused - i will read more in depth a little later (when not pre-occupied with a sick wife). Would you mind providing a brief quick-summary of your goal here?
Hope she gets well soon. Ok summary - Sherlock Holmes has well know powers of observation, reasoning and deduction. Our goal is see if there exist techniques [from forensics, mentalism, etc] which can help someone push their own skills as close to Sherlock's as possible. The first experiment is under discussion but the basic idea is we choose a set of triggers [eg. people cross their arms with their dominant hand tucked in] for deduction and run it among ourselves for [x amount of time] on as wide a sample [other people in their daily lives] as possible. At the end, we collect that data and figure out how reliable that deduction is. This way, a database of what to look for and what it means can be compiled, with is one of the ways we are testing to try and achieve Holmesian skills.
Could you expand on that a bit? It may be one of the methods we try to reach the goal and you are welcome to suggest it in the ongoing discussion thread.
Elte is likely to come onboard as a mod. I am quite relieved by this. We will still need advisors and members if you are interested, and feedback is appreciated too.
Try these couple of Links : http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199828340/obo-9780199828340-0041.xml http://www.buzzle.com/articles/nonverbal-communication-an-overview.html Hope it helps.
Nice. This will be in the pipeline for the future, I dunno if we can handle such a complex topic experimentally right off the bat.
Well, the idea behind superior powers of observation is an interesting one, because observation entails several things: Exceptional Eyesight (after all, you can't notice what you can't see) Impressive ability to pick out the unusual (and by extension, the ability to determine what IS unusual) Impressive background knowledge The ability to reason logically despite incomplete data You then need to take what you have reasoned and test it without self bias
All lot of those will be easier once be start compiling a database from the experiments, like so: Observation A means Deduction B [Or Observation A is likely to mean, in descending order of probability, Deductions B,C,D,etc] Status: Confirmed/Falsified. Reliability: 85% =/- 5%
The discussion for designing the experiment is going nicely - http://redd.it/1y2ago I would love it if some of you guys would participate in the discussion too.
Exceptional eyesight can be got around by merely being very careful about what you are looking at and how you are looking at it. Like any other skill, the power of observation improves with practice. When you have observed a lot you will note the unusual when you encounter it. The more you observe the more you will retain of your observations which will give you that background knowledge. Reasoning logically from sparse data is called "inferential reasoning". Reasoning from inference is also known as deductive reasoning. example: I see that your shoes are worn, muddy and scuffed, you have plant detritus on your clothing, you are wearing a sun hat and reek of mosquito repellent. I deduce that you have been for an extended walk in the wilderness. From this, I infer that you are an 'outdoors person'.
Or i am a city boy who came home early and caught my wife in bed with the gardener, Then buried wife and gardener by the swamp wearing gardeners clothes so not to spoil my 5 grand suit.
One guideline for Sherlock style reasoning is to assume that things are not always what they appear to be. If you don't take anything at face value you, will look deeper to figure out what might out of place with respect to the obvious explanation. There will be a conceptual flaw, which, like a tiny hole in fabric, will begin to open as pressure is applied at this weak point Another principle is to follow your gut or intuition. The unconscious can pick up subliminal data easier, since its works at much higher bit rates. Sherlock gut sort of knows in the advance where to look. It is a matter of figuring out how the puzzle fits together so it is closed case.
Thank you everyone for the feedback you have been giving. When Elte dropped out, I panicked and PMed several senior members. I apologise that despite being a long term member of this forum, what I did was tantamount to spam. Sorry, Sciforums.