Remember not to forget

Dear reader,

I think Albert Einstein was right when he said, „The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Sadly this happens far to often and far to quickly when one is looking for something and can't find it. At least for me anyway. This happened again actually the day before yesterday.

Normally I keep a couple of things only at very few specific places and never anywhere else. I taught myself to do that automatically with my flat keys for example, to avoid looking for them for long and so I don't lose them. I keep the keys to my dad's flat, say, almost all the time in a certain backpack and in a specific inner pocket there. But a few days ago I had them in a different backpack, haven't been at my dad's, but I was in the neighbourhood and just in case, I had those keys with me. I did see those keys in this other, unfamiliar outside pocket several times the days before two days ago. I knew where they were. In the small outside pocket of the smaller backpack. I had seen them there the previous days again and again when I had the backpack in my hand and the outside pocket had been open. And yet I only checked the bigger pocket and also repeatedly(!) completely emptied the big backpack. It took me almost a quarter of an hour to finally take the small backpack again and for once also check the outside pocket to find the keys again.

Years ago I was looking for glasses once with blue tinted eyeglasses, which I have had. But did I have them still? In the past I had glasses at all times. Only a couple of years ago I started wearing them only occasionally. That's why I never used the sunglasses with the tinted eyeglasses. They didn't have the glasses I would have needed for my eyes sight. Did I have the glasses still? I checked every possible drawer of two specific cupboards in my room, also two drawers in the hallway. Several times. Because it's so much fun and suddenly the biggest things could have become tiny and hidden and be overlooked. I thought of Einstein checking everything the second time. After the third time I cursed myself for checking again, although I had found nothing the first two times already. I thought to myself, “I'll go to the living-room ask my mum. Maybe I don't even have the glasses anymore anyway. Checking a 100 times wouldn't help then. Maybe she knew something. Should I still have the glasses, I trust my unconscious and wish for to just walk up to the right drawer to find them there.” I went to my mum. She knew what I was looking for, but couldn't remember if we still had the glasses or not or where they might be. I went back to my room. Purposefully I stood in front of a commode where the guinea pigs and their cage were sitting on. There is only one drawer there where the glasses might be, in which I keep necklaces and earrings and also a big magnifying glass with a horn grip, too. If the glasses were there at all, it would be in that drawer. The other drawers had paper, note books and notes. I really pulled out the drawer this time and in the back of a corner there really was the small blue paper box in which I kept the blue tinted eyeglasses. I thanked my unconscious for guiding me to them that way.

Many scientists agree now that our brain never forgets and in theory we could remember everything that happened once. The individual information gets displaced by other information and new information and with that they fade into the background so much that we seemingly forgot them. Methods like the memory palace can help to organise and sort through thoughts and memories and find them faster, have them more “handy”.

Dr. John Watson gives a quite good description of how the memory palace works in “The Hounds of Baskerville” (Sherlock season 2, episode 2). Sherlock Holmes knows that he's got important information in his head “somewhere buried deep”. He tells John and Dr. Stapleton to get out, he'd go to his mind palace now.

“His what?”, asks Stapleton confused.

John explains to her, “Oh, his mind palace. It's a memory technique, a sort of mental map. You plot a map with a location, it doesn't have to be a real place. You deposit memories there. Theoretically, you never forget anything. All you do is find your way back to it.

“So this imaginary location could be anything?”, asks Stapleton. “A house or a street?”

“Yeah”, confirms John.

“But he said "palace"”, bursts out Stapleton. “He said it was a palace!”

“Yeah, well, he would, wouldn't he?”, says John almost a bit bored and maybe a bit annoyed that his friend has to boast with a palace in his head.

The way to information or memories is in fact important, too and doesn't have to be a mental walk or visual, seen in your mind. In “Dynamic Learning” by Robert Dilts and Tod Epstein, Epstein describes his work with an old lady. With her eyesight fading, she also had difficulties remembering certain things, which didn't cause problems before. Epstein noticed that the lad was visualising and thinking in pictures to retrieve memories. With fading eyesight, it became more difficult for her to see in hear mind. Epstein helped her getting back to memories through other senses. Which helped her memory getting better again, too. Before reading “Dynamic Learning” I only read in Thomas Harrison's books about the memory palace and after Derren Brown's “Tricks Of The Mind” I started creating a sort of system for myself. The suggestion that the way we retrieve information and that the senses we use for that are relevant as well, was new and an important aspect. It didn't change anything for me personally, not that I'm aware of anyway. Nevertheless it is something especially people working with other people, old people specifically, should keep in mind. Apparent memory loss doesn't necessarily have anything to do with not remembering.

Until next blog,

sarah

Am I pretty?

Dear reader,

Sherlock Holmes can sometimes get on people's nerves a lot with his analytic ways. Or when he doesn't want to admit that he doesn't have a clue. In "The Sign of Three" (The 2nd episode of the 3rd season of "Sherlock") quite certainly both apply. Sherlock and John are both drunk for John's stag night and play "Who Am I?" For that you get a piece of paper stuck to your forehead and have to guess the name on it. Usually a quite entertaining game. Though probably not with Sherlock. John should have known by now that Sherlock is not the man for trivia and chitchat and doesn't care about what would commonly be considered famous or interesting people.


John: "Am I pretty? This." (John points to the paper on his forehead)
Sherlock: "Beauty is a construct based entirely on childhood impressions, influences and role models."
John: "Yeah, but am I a pretty lady?"
Sherlock: "I don't know who you are, I don't know who you're supposed to be."
John: "You picked the name!"
Sherlock: "But I picked it at random from the papers."
John: "You're not really getting the hang of this game, are you, Sherlock?"


Sherlock is right with his argument though. It's exactly the factors Sherlock lists and more, which make us divide unknown people into nice or unlikeable, intelligent or stupid or any of the other many other pigeon-holes we have. A totally normal reaction. Routine and familiar situations, things and people are what help us making our life easier. We could not constantly react to each situation as if it was totally new to us. Something like real objectivity doesn't exist.

Even Sherlock Holmes' way of thinking is nevertheless not impeccable though. In "The Great Game" (season 1, episode 3 of "Sherlock") John can't believe it at first that Sherlock doesn't know the earth goes around the sun. Detective Inspector Lestrade and other police men also make fun of that. Sherlock doesn't care. His head is important to him and the fact that the earth goes around the sun is not important enough for him to keep it in mind for long. Though at the end of the episode even Sherlock has to admit that a little more knowledge about the solar system would have helped him solve the case faster.


Until next blog,
sarah

Why I'm not Sherlock Holmes

Dear reader,

I see things others overlook and think about things, others take for granted and think of as common. Some who know my interest in Sherlock Holmes, even start drawing parallels. I know that some admire that I know certain things others do not. On the other hand I'm very clueless about some day to day things others take to be given. Much like Sherlock doesn't even know how the sun, the moon and the earth are related to each other.

I'm currently reading Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes by Maria Konnikova. It was only yesterday that I read a bit on how we judge strangers on an unconscious level to be likable or not based on similarities of person we do know and like or not. Dr. John Watson falls for that unconscious trap in "The Sign of Four", where he meets Mary Morston, who he thinks is beautiful and he likes her instantly. Sherlock Holmes however is aware of those thought processes. Even though Mary Morstan is good looking, he doesn't conclude that she's a nice person, much less an innocent lamb. John thinks of Mary Morstan as a good person right away. Sherlock does notice her physically good looks, but doesn't judge her character in any way based on that for starters. John doesn't know that he has similar looking woman in his mind and projects the positive characteristics of those on to the for now strange Mary Morstan. Maria Konnikova writes that the magic will disappear as soon as you're aware of those processes.

I'm still far away from being like Sherlock Holmes. Although by now I rarely step on stairways that don't work these days. Everything else is too much John Watson still, I noticed. I was at a new orthopaedic technician for my prosthesis. In came an older man, thin, grey, curly hair. In other words: very much like Peter Capaldi, the 12th Doctor, who we'll see from next year on. Too much like him. I noticed how my face got warmer. Oh no! Only when I was out again, I was aware of what had happened. The connection to Peter Capaldi wasn't obvious to me right away. I will continue to like that man still. If he makes me a new good working prosthesis, even better.

Until next blog,
sarah

Stairway to observation: it's elementary

Dear reader,

Tuesday, a couple of weeks ago. I'm visiting a friend of mine at work. As I make my way up from the underground, I step on the first step of the escalator. It's broken. I have to walk up. Darn.

Wednesday that same week. I'm again visiting that friend of mine at work. As I make my way up from the underground, I step on the first step of the escalator. It's still broken. I have to walk up again. Stupid!

 Thursday that same week. I'm again visiting that friend of mine at work. I am finally remembering that maybe the escalator is still broken. I peek around the corner to check if the lights are green. They're red. I walk on it to take the stairs. I finally learned.

Months ago I spend many days watching both the series "Sherlock" and "Elementary". As Sherlock likes to say, "You see, but you don't observe." The first step to see and observe and deduce the way Sherlock Holmes does is to actively engage in seeing things.

 Last week on Thursday. I'm visiting that friend of mine at work. I peek around the corner to check the lights of the escalators. They're red. It's broken again. I wonder what all the old people at my friend's work are doing. The escalators are broken a lot of times at that underground station. As I walk alone to the stairs, I'm thinking about Sherlock Holmes, too. Thank you, Sherlock.

Until next blog,
sarah

Motivation

Dear reader,

some of you may be able to do what others admire: being awake before the alarm goes off or maybe being awake at a certain time without an alarm clock all together.

All of that has to do with one thing especially: motivation. In the pilot episode of "Elementary" Watson sets the alarm for her to alarm clocks. One right beside her bed, the other one she has by the door plugged to an electrical socket. As she's in the hall way, she realises that honey is dripping through the ceiling. So she goes up to the roof and finds Holmes busy with his bees. He asks her why she hates her job so much. She denies that, but Holmes tells her that, "No one with two alarm clocks loves their job. Two alarm clocks mean it's a chore for you to get up in the morning." He also realised that even after such a short time of knowing Watson, she obviously likes his work.

Unnoticed by Watson Holmes unpluggs the clock at the door and takes the battery out of the other one. Watson is shocked when she wakes up in the morning and notices that she has been sleeping until 10 a. m. Holmes meanwhile is wide awake checking files at the police station.

In episode 10 (The Leviathan) we get to know the Watson family a bit more. At first Holmes says he's busy, but in the end he's even earlier than Watson at the restaurant and does Watson a favour explaining to her family and especially her mother just what it is she's doing and how important her work is. At last the family understands and respects her work.

This goes so far that at the end of this episode Watson's mother comes to Holmes' house to talk to Watson. The mother finds unique words for her daughter. Because although, thanks to Holmes' explanations, she now understands what Watson does, she still doesn't like it and yet:

"I know you think that I don't like your new career. To put it mildly. You're right, I don't like it. But not for the reasons that you think. I'm not happy that you're a sober companion, because it never seems to make you happy." Watson asks her, how she knows what makes her happy. To which the mother replies, "I know because you're my daughter. After you left medicine, after what happened with Liam, I've always thought that this job was something that you picked out of... I don't know, out of a sense of duty. When you came to dinner the other night, when the two of you talked about Sherlock's work, I saw something in you. There was a spark. A sense of excitement. I haven't seen that in you in a long time. You like what he does."

"Yes, okay, I enjoy it", Watson says. "But I'm not a detective, Mom. And I'm almost done working with Sherlock, and then it's on to another client." There and then her mother asks her an important question, "Will the next client make you happy? People find their paths in the strangest of ways."

At this moment Holmes interrupts the two to turn on the tv and show them a certain news report. And you can see the consequences Watson takes from working with Holmes yourself in the following episodes. No idea, how much the talk with her mother plays a role in that. (In the end it's just tv script anyway... ;-)) What the mother has to say however, I think, is important - today more than ever: finding something that gives us a spark, excites us. Then work will not so much be work anymore, but fun and easier to do than work, we do, because we have the feeling of having no other choice but this work. In moments like this we're less dependent on alarm clocks, too. When we have fun and joy and expectantly dream on to another day.

What activities or work ignite the spark within you?

Until next blog,

sarah

Abductive, Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

Dear reader,

I can't help myself but making this blog entry today a scientific one.

Before I start I want you to know three things

1) I wasn't very scientific in my last post. I forgot to mention the names of the series I mentioned. The BBC production is called "Sherlock". The american series goes under the title of "Elementary".

2) It may surprise some of you that although Holmes was so analytical and scientific, his creator was quite unscientific and gullible. Doyle believed very much in the existence of fairies. It's also difficult to believe that Harry Houdini and Arthur Conan Doyle have been friends for a while. Because their point of view on spiritism was so contrary however, that friendship didn't last long.

3) The producers of "Sherlock" really took great care in creating that show. Sherlock has his own homepage The Science of Deduction. You can also read Dr. John Watson's Blog, which includes comments by Holmes and others!!! Other characters of the series also have their websites: Molly Hooper's blog and the forum of Connie Prince. The last two however may only be of interest to people, who know the series and the persons.

In a way even Sherlock Holmes' homepage is only for people who know the series or fans. Also the title of the page is sort of wrong. Sherlock Holmes is not using deduction in his investigations. This is a mistake not only from the series, but also wrong in Doyle's books. On imdb.com you can find a note on that mistake.

To be honest, each reasoning: abductive, deductive and inductive - are tricky and separating each of them from the others is not quite easy. The differences are very small.

The differences between inductive and deductive reasoning are relatively simple to explain.

In deductive reasoning you set up a general rule. From that rule you set up another rule, of which you can be certain, too. If or rather because both are true, the conclusion will be certain at the end. This kind of reasoning can be found in mathematics, for example in equations with variables:

if x = 2

and if y = 3,

then 2 x + y = 7

Maths is often very much just theory. So let's put it another way:

If chaos is increased in a system, unless you feed it with energy,

and if my flat is a system,

then I should feed my flat with energy and keep it tidy and clean, unless I want to drown in a chaotic mess.

With inductive reasoning you take one single thing and take it to be true. From that you make a general rule that applies to other similar things. A conclusion is likely, but not certain. There is this thought experiment about a white swan. If we see many white swans, we can conclude that there exist white swans. It would be wrong however to conclude that all swans are white, or that there only exist white swans. In science, which is about gathering information, you can find this way of thinking.

Abductive reasoning is about observing something and looking for a possible explanation that would make the observed probable as an outcome. The theorist Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of abductive reasoning, explained it this way:

"The surprising fact, C, is observed. But if A were true, C would be a matter of course. Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true."

Finding a conclusion is taking your best shot and not very satisfying. The conclusion you come up with may or may not be true. In medicine you find this way of thinking. The patient tells about his symptoms and the doctor has to think of an illness that would lead to those symptoms, to treat the patient accordingly. Also in court you'll find abductive reasoning: does the prosecution or the defense the better arguments that fit and explain the given situation?

So indeed Holmes doesn't use deduction, but abduction. He cannot be certain to see all the facts of a crime scene that lead to the crime. So Holmes' conclusion are likely to be incomplete and with that nothing more than taking your best shot.

Arthur Conan Doyle used Dr. Joseph Bell as a model for Holmes, as I mentioned already in my last post. Another doctor was very good in observing and making conclusions: Dr. Milton Erickson. Sidney Rosen describes a story in his book "My Voice Will Go with You: The Teaching Tales of Milton H. Erickson", which is a good example to show how good Erickson was in observing and making conclusions. The story is called "The Right Psychiatrist":

A young, beautiful woman came to Erickson. She was very desperate. She wasn't pleased with either of the psychiatrist she had seen so far. So she was uncertain about Erickson and whether he was able to help her. He wrote down some things about the young woman and then said to her that he was the right psychiatrist. He could prove it by asking a question. But the woman won't like that question. The woman wanted to hear the question anyway. So Erickson asked her, "How long have you been wearing women's cloths?" Erickson had seen the woman pick a lint off her sleeve in a straight, direct move, without a "detour" around the breasts, like a woman would.

There's also a video with Tim Minchin, where he talks about the human logic, which addresses another aspect of logic.

Until next blog,

sarah

Perception Is Everything

Dear reader,

in "A Scandal in Bohemia" there's a moment between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson, where Watson shows surprise how much Holmes sees all the time. Holmes then asks him how often he walked the stairs to their rooms. Hundreds of times, Watson replies. And how many stairs are there then? Watson has no idea. That's the difference between seeing and observing.

I was probably about 14 years old when I read the Sherlock Holmes books. Naturally we had to visit the Sherlock Holmes museum then when we went on holidays in London. The hat, which we so often connect with Sherlock Holmes, was never mentioned in the books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930) by the way. Only once he writes about a "flapped traveling hat. The famous "Sherlock Holmes hat", the deerstalker, derives from the illustrations provided by Sidney Pagets.

The modern Sherlock Holmes of the current BBC series then has every right to roll his eyes about this hat. Which by the way is introduced at a rather late time, namely the 1st episode of season 2 (A Scandal in Belgravia). Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are in a theatre in that one, investigating a murder. It's obvious to them that outside the reporters are likely to be waiting for them. So Holmes grabs a hat for himself and throws another one to Watson. But the reports are not only waiting, but also recognising the two of them. So the inevitable happens: Pictures get taken of Holmes and this way he is forever connected with that hat. So the famous deerstalker gets even more famous and becomes the "Sherlock Holmes hat". Originally it was a hat used for hunters, probably not exclusively for deer hunters. The flap at the front and back exist for practical reasons: at the front it shields like every other hat, too. The flap at the back is against rain, so the rain would not drip down the neck, but further back on the jacket or coat.

Back to Holmes and Watson. Many movies show the two of them together and that's taken for granted. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, who play Holmes and Watson in the BBC version once stated in an interview that it only occurred to them during the filming what people may think about two men living together. Holmes and Watson get to know each other the first time in the story "A Study in Scarlet". Both are looking for cheap accommodations. Holmes found a flat, but it's too expensive for him alone. Watson is wounded and back from the Afghanistan war and also has not much money. But a friend who knows them both brings them together. The first time they met, a single look reveals to Holmes that Watson is a soldier and was in Afghanistan. Watson is naturally speechless.

It's interesting that in the BBC series Watson is wounded and back from Afghanistan, too, just like in the book. Suddenly the possibility of a story involving an invalid soldier from Afghanistan is very much up to date and real. Holmes and Watson have a landlady, Mrs. Hudson. I almost wrote "housekeeper", but like she keeps telling in the BBC series time and again, "I'm not your housekeeper!" and still she takes care of their flat of the two of them. Mrs. Hudson is played by Una Stubbs. Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays Sherlock Holmes, and Una Stubbs know each other in real life. His mother and Stubbs are friends. So the friendly relationship we see in the series also exists in real life. Maybe many fans prefer the British series, because they're closer to the books, with some changings and adaptations to a modern time.

In the American series there's some diversity that has to do with Holmes and Watson: Watson is played by Lucy Liu. Yes, Dr. Joan Watson is a woman! With this there are some exciting new possibilities regarding their relationship. Time will tell what actually happens for both of them. In the American version Holmes is played by Jonny Lee Miller. He and Benedict Cumberbacth are friends. A while ago both played together in a theatre production of Frankenstein. In it both alternated playing the monster and Dr. Frankenstein. On youtube you can watch samples of that. I would have loved to see the two of them together live.

A typical thing with Sherlock Holmes is that he often comes across as a bit snotty and rough. Er sees... sorry... observes... far too much than sometimes is good for him. He analyses everything and constantly, can't turn it off. That's why he sometimes seems unfeeling. Most of all however he needs to work on something all the time. Boredom is like poison for Sherlock Holmes. That's why in the books he sometimes takes drugs. For the BBC version Sherlock Holmes has nicotine patches to help him quit smoking. The more or less known "three pipe problem" from the books turns into a "three patch problem" and Watson finds Holmes with 3 nicotine patches on one arm. The American series goes even further. Because there Watson is his sober companion after a detoxification. This is where Watson comes in. Holmes' mind is so sharp, he often lacks sense for what's socially accepted behaviour and he also doesn't take care of himself and bodily needs and doesn't eat for some time. Watson takes care for both of them then, with the help of Mrs. Hudson. I think that Holmes is a fascinating character, because he sees so much and his mind is so sharp. But in the end, I believe that seeing everything all the time and not being able to turn it off is a curse in the long run and not a blessing. Maybe it's a curse of genius and not just Sherlock Holmes: they are very good at a few limited things and fail at certain daily things, which others take for granted.

Many people, even today, believe that Sherlock Holmes was a real person. It's impressive how Sherlock Holmes worked and dealt with problems. He's a model for investigators at the police even today, rightly so! But the person Sherlock Holmes never existed. Arthur Conan Doyle, a doctor himself, had a model for Sherlock Holmes namely a certain Dr. Joseph Bell. Much like Sherlock Holmes, Bell had a great power of observation. He showed that often by deducing the occupation and recent activities of strangers. This lead to the fact that in court they started to care less about witness statements and instead developed forensic science.

Doyle, by the way, wasn't very happy with Sherlock Holmes. He wanted to put an end to it with the story of "The Final Problem" in 1893 when he killed him. It's the final of a set of several short stories that can be read in "The Memoires of Sherlock Holmes". In it he and his arch-enemy, Professor James Moriarty fall into the Reichenbach falls. Moriarty is the only person, who's intellect equals that of Holmes. Maybe excluding the rather unknown brother of Holmes: Mycroft. Huge protests and an outrage broke out among the readers. In 1901 Doyle heard the story of a mysterious ghost hound. He used that legend and brought Holmes back to life in "The Hound of The Baskervilles". The explanation of how Holmes survived can be read in the story "The Empty House", where Holmes comes back and tells Watson what happened.

Speaking of which: the final episode of season 2 of the BBC series took "The Final Problem" as the model. Which means Holmes dies. In this case he jumps of a house. The final shot has Watson at the grave of his friend and Holmes is standing far away hiding. So he survived. The question is: how? There are many theories on that on the internet. The revelation will certainly come with the next episode of the new season. Which fans are desperate to watch, of course. What interests me personally more though is something, which people seem to agree more on, which is the question of how Holmes and Watson will meet the first time after. In the story Watson faints. But that doesn't make much sense for the BBC Watson. A stream of curse words seems more fitting. At imdb.com you can read already for the 1st episode of season 3 that parts of how Holmes faked his death was already shot during filming the previous episode and can be seen there, too. We'll have to wait... presumably until spring 2014. Until then we can enjoy watching Benedict Cumberbatch as the necromancer and the dragon Smauch and Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins in "The Hobbit."

Until next blog,

sarah