3 ingredients cookies

“Mm. Smells good. What's wrong? You only make those when you need to calm down.” Joan Watson in “Elementary” (Season 2, episode 16) when she enters the kitchen in the morning and Sherlock Holmes is just about to get the Yorkshire pudding out of the oven.

Sherlock Holmes is someone you wouldn't call normal. Naturally he's got some weird traits and characteristics. Cooking and baking is not my passion, although I can do some things that others actually like. So it's very strange for me that Sherlock Holmes in Elementary seemingly is baking to calm down and I now started to do the same, preferably using one recipe when I am frustrated, namely the following:

Ingredients:

1 cup Nutella (or other chocolate spread)

1 cup flour (or maybe a bit more)

1 egg

Directions:

Pre-heat oven to 330 ° F (160 ° C)

Put all the ingredients in a bowl, mix with a spoon or hand-held mixer. (Those of you who use a spoon, you can easily make the recipe in the middle of the night without disturbing your room-mates or neighbours at all.) Take a small piece of the mass, make a ball out of that. Squish it flat and put it on a baking sheet with baking sheet. Repeat until dough is all used. Should make about 16 bits.

The cookies will rise a bit, so really keep it rather small and flat with a bit of distance between each.

Baking in the oven for about 5 to 10 minutes, until the cookies aren't that much wet and shiny anymore as they will be the first minutes. A bit shiny is absolutely fine.

Afterwards let them cool a bit. When they're right out of the oven the cookies are not only hot, but also fall apart fairly easily. Cooled down a bit they're harder.

The original recipe is with Nutella spread, which is available everywhere here in Germany. I have made the recipe already with white spread (which needs considerably more dough). My favourite cookies are with a caramel sea salt spread I was lucky to find at Edeka. I also used dark brownie spread and peanut butter as well (with and without peanut bits). For that one however I probably have used too much flour, because the cookies were rather dry for my taste. I personally don't like the Nutella-cookies as much as I do the Nusspli-cookies, a different kind of chocolate spread, which is available here.

Try it out. Let the spreads that are available in the shops in your area inspire you. You're welcome to write in the comments which spreads you tried and how you liked the cookies.

Brain attic vs. memory palace

Dear reader,

this here is my blog, my thoughts. No idea whether this matches what scientists think as well.

I believe that there is a difference between a brain attic and a memory palace. Both store things, but in different ways. Sherlock Holmes says that we store all kinds of things in our head. Like in an attic. An attic has got many boxes in which all sorts of things can be kept. Maybe an attic has several different spaces, but it's limited, a defined space. A memory palace on the other hand is a complex of buildings with many rooms. A palace can be enlarged and rooms can be attached to it.

In The memory palace I mentioned different examples of people and their way to remember things. Jonesey's memory warehouse seems to be much like an attic. He explains to the others that for new information to store, he's got to delete other information.

Many years ago I have started writing certain things on index cards. They're separated with separation cards in alphabetical order and sometimes lined with one another with arrows and keywords. I wanted to have information to specific topics sorted and kept in a short way. Index cards seemed to be a good way to me. The good thing about index cards is that I can use them to look things up and the loose card system allows me to add new ones, should I feel like that. I've still got the cards. By now there are other topics added to them than that of the original one.

Although I've still got the cards, I don't as such use that system anymore. The memory palace is a system I know better now than I did then when I started the index card system. I seem to store information in my head much like index cards these days anyway, short information like index cards or newspaper clippings. Single words, images, fragments. I'm not aware of having a whole set of information stored in a single room for certain information. At least not yet. I'm sure that Derren Brown for example does have rooms created for specific things and does use the whole room. I do have single rooms, but I use them more for the atmosphere they have. Much like someone might for example go to church to do some reflective thinking.

When I waiting for the third "Sherlock" season was at times too long and unbearable for me, I was able to keep scenes, dialogue and images of the episodes so far together and in one room. I walked out of the room, the door had a tag "Sherlock" on it. I closed the door. Sometimes I sat in front of the door with my back against the door. Those are rooms that I can create, but not in a sense that I use the room and its content. It's not consciously forgetting. Naturally the information is still there. But they're behind a door and not close anymore. Distant to information also creates emotional distant. I'm not saying it's easy. I closed the door several times and more than once did I sit with my back against it to forget that I had to wait an unbearable long time for a new episode of "Sherlock". Mind control in that way is possible though. If you're not waiting for the next episode of "Sherlock", which seems to be a lifetime away, those kind of thought experiments can also be fun.

Probably the brain attic grows to be a mind palace some day, if you're taking care of the attic and work in it and at it. So I guess my headline wasn't quite correct. It's not an either or, no one or the other. Likely the brain attic is more like a possible beginning of a memory palace. Like my index cards were the beginning of more thoughtful remembering things and retrieving them at my leisure.

Until next blog,
sarah

Better be born in a different time?

Dear reader,

from "Sherlock" to "Elementary". Even though I didn't quite like the ending of the first season of "Elementary" that much - apart from the very last scene (bees!) - I did go on watching the second season, as soon as the internet allowed me to. In the 7th episode Sherlock goes to a sobriety meeting. The leader has a question to close the meeting of the day and surprisingly enough Sherlock is the first to say something. It's about crazy thoughts about their disease. Thoughts they know are crazy, but still come up.

Sherlock: "I often wonder if I should have been born in another time." And he goes on in a striking open way, " My senses are unusually-- well, one could even say unnaturally-- keen. And ours is an era of distraction. It's a punishing drumbeat of constant input. This cacophony which follows us into our homes and into our beds and seeps into our souls, for want of a better word. For a long time there was only one poultice for my raw nerve endings, and that was, copious drug use. So in my less prooductive moments, I'm given to wonder if I'd just been born when it was a little quieter out there, would I have even become an addict in the first place? Might I have been more focused? A more fully realized person?"

Someone asks Sherlock, "What, like Ancient Greece?"

Sherlock: "You any idea what passed for dental care in the Hellenic era? No, I'd want some of the wonders of modernity. Just before everything got amplified."

The discussion is interrupted by Sherlock's brother Mycroft, revealing himself with a question. Sherlock is shocked and leaves. Not only Sherlock with his unusual perception is stressed. We mortals are ever more stressed as well and everything around us gets faster and noisier and bigger and brighter. Type into a google images search the words: earth by night. That's how bright the earth is even by night. Does it all have to be that way?

Until next blog,
sarah

Efficient Language

Dear reader,

for a long time, I thought that written language should be "neat and tidy". Written to the best of one's knowledge and belief. Exceptions prove the rule and the exception is always the writer: that's me. My exception is, at least in english writing, my K-PAX way of writing. In chats I use full stop and comma as punctuation mark, but don't necessarily start a sentence with a capital letter. Although I do use capitalisation whenever it would be correct to do so in german spelling. In english chats it's easier to stay with use of small letters all the way through. What I hardly ever do in german or english chats is use abbreviations, except when I'm in a hurry and need to write fast, because I'm about to leave. But even then a written-out "bye" is still short enough.

A couple of years back there was an article in the newspapers and online about a student, who had written a whole essay in text shorthand (like "I C U" for "I see you"). The teacher was so shocked by this, that she wanted to remain anonymous. I still don't understand that even today. The teacher, in my opinion, had nothing to do with how the student had written her essay. (Here is an excerpt of the girl's essay for those interested.)

At first I was with many teachers and parents. This shorthand is unacceptable for an essay in school. What I think is really important is to know how to write the right way and adjust the writing to the situation.

Is short hand of that kind a degeneration, which especially in english is close to phonetic spelling, we know from first year students and which we would only accept from those? I'm no longer that sure about it as I had been when I first read of that essay.

I know Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character and therefore should not be a model for one's own, real behaviour or belief and yet:

When Watson gets more and more shorthand messages from Holmes in episode 5 of season 1 of "Elementary", she complains to him about that, "Your abbreviations are becoming borderline indecipherable. I don't know why, because you are obviously capable of being articulate."

Holmes explains to her that, "Language is evolving, Watson, becoming a more efficient version of itself. I love text shorthand. It allows you to convey content and tone without losing velocity."

Is he right, because he's Sherlock Holmes and I like Sherlock Holmes? Or is he right, because he's right? Is he right?

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