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.

The mysterious small package

Dear reader,

the other day I watched an episode of "Sherlock" again in which Sherlock Holmes gets a small envelope. "We've X-rayed it. It's not booby-trapped", explains Inspector Lestrade. "How reassuring", comments Sherlock Holmes dry and takes the envelope.

That reminded me again of an experience shortly before Christmas. I was at my dad's and had just brought him the post from the mail box up to the kitchen. Among them he had received a small package. I was curious and asked, if I should open it. "No, better let me do it", he said and suddenly seemed very insecure. He didn't have a clue who had sent him the package. He didn't know the sender at all and even more important than the sender: what was in the small package?

My dad went to the knifes and took one. That way I was standing across from him at the other end of the table and I gave the package to him. Carefully he opened it with the knife, took out mostly newspaper and finally then... a couple of small sort of sticks out of dark wood.

Now I was the one looking insecure and stupid. I had to ask him what those sticks were. Small spoons for jam for example, he explained to me. I asked him, what he had expected to find in that package really, because he had been so insecure. "A bomb?", I asked him. But apparently at that moment then, that had actually been on his mind. Whatever the reason for sending him a bomb might have been. I remember thinking: even if it had been a bomb, whether I had opened it or not, most likely I would have been hurt either way, since we had been standing together quite close, even with the table between us.

That was the mysterious small package before Christmas. Suffice to say that my dad is still not quite used to getting small or larger packages from strangers. Until recently my mom had done stuff like that and my dad usually only buys from amazon mainly, which is known to everyone.

Until next blog,
sarah

Only a job part 2

Dear reader,

this goes to show, how little I take notice in some things. Or maybe it shows exactly the selective perception typical for Sherlock Holmes, too. After all, he too wouldn't care about trivialities and gossip. Some people are fans of actors and watch just about everything they could get their hands on with them in it. And some fans, mostly late ones, are especially odd. Mark Gatiss, portraying the older brother, Mycroft Holmes, in the BBC series “Sherlock” is consequently seen as Mycroft and not Mark Gatiss. Before “Sherlock” he was known for being one of the four creative forces of The League of Gentlemen. Noticing Mark Gatiss as Mycroft Holmes though, you'll find comments to The League of Gentlemen clips on Youtube like “Mycroft!!!!” or “So this is what Mycroft is doing in his spare time.” (Never mind my doubts that Mycroft actually takes some time off work...) I can actually sort of understand it somehow. I am, after all, one of those sad fans, who finally noticed him really with “Sherlock”. But for me Mycroft Holmes is Mycroft Holmes and Mark Gatiss is Mark Gatiss. He plays Mycroft Holmes, but nothing more. He also played many other characters, especially in the three seasons of The League of Gentlemen. An extremely creative group they are!

Stephen Fry is another actor, at least equally creative and versatile like Mark Gatiss. He too played Mycroft Holmes, namely in Guy Ritchie's second Sherlock Holmes movie Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. I needed even longer than it took me for the first one, of which I wrote in Price and prejudice, to finally watch it. I like Stephen Fry a lot, but I can't stand Hans Zimmer and as a soundtrack fan, I'm probably more aware of the music than others. Also I thought the story as a whole was somehow confusing this time. I didn't like the movie. Stephen Fry was good and fitting and I did like some scenes. But I'm sorry to say, that's about it.

Maybe I'm just an atypical fan. But I found a picture of Mark Gatiss with Stephen Fry and Mark Gatiss' caption "The two Mycrofts! A two pint problem..." (referring to Sherlock Holmes' “three pipe problem”), before my mind actually made that connection. Of course! The two Mycrofts! Others were head exploding and fainting just seeing that picture of the two Mycrofts, as you can read from the comments, when my first reaction was, “Oh, Stephen Fry and Mark Gatiss together.” I like the two of them really a lot and I liked to see them together. But obviously my mind just doesn't make certain connections or at least not as fast as would be normal for others. Whatever. It seems that I'm just not ordinary.

Until next blog,

sarah

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

Showing feelings

Dear reader,

German readers are probably still remembering Arno Funke, who under the name “Dagobert” (the German name for Scrooge McDuck) extorted big stores between 1988 and 1994. He worked as a painter of motorcycles and sport cars. To finance a start as self-employer, he extorted money from the stores. Later he said that the fumes from the workplace damaged his brain and lead to depression. In his autobiography (only available in German as “Mein Leben als Dagobert” (My life as Dagobert)), he writes that he wasn't aware of the slow process to depression and the numbness at that time. His arrest and therapy lead him to gain access to his feelings again. Only then was he able to paint again and be creative.

Sherlock Holmes and his brother Mycroft are portrayed as rather cold. In the BBC series “Sherlock” there is a scene in “A Scandal in Belgravia” (Season 2, episode 1) in which Sherlock and Mycroft stand together at the morgue of St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London. Sherlock just identified a corpse as Irene Adler. In the hallway he hears crying people pass by. “They all care so much. Do you ever wonder if there's something wrong with us?”, Sherlock asks his brother. Because although Sherlock has met Irene Adler earlier and was somewhat fascinated by her, her death at Christmas Eve doesn't seem to move him or Mycroft at all. “All lives end. All hearts are broken. Caring is not an advantage. Sherlock”, is Mycroft's reply. He does show some feelings for his little brother though, because he gives him a cigarette, although Sherlock endeavours to quit smoking.

Sherlock Holmes is certainly a fictional character. So it's questionable how realistic such a cold person actually is. Although sociopaths indeed have no empathy for others, are in a way cut off from their feelings, especially feelings for others.

Hard and annoying as it may be sometimes, to be overwhelmed by our own feelings. In the end it's probably better still and more human, to have feelings and to show them. There is a German saying literally “An Indian knows no pain.” Meaning that one must be brave and not be over-sensitive to pain. It's totally absurd. Girls and women are probably more emotional generally. They, after all, are mainly responsible to take care of the children. So it makes sense that they can show feelings easily and read them in others, in the children and react accordingly. That doesn't mean that consequently the boys and men have to be “tough” and mustn't show any feelings at all. Feelings are part of life. Feelings are part of being human. Whether we like it or not. In the long run, it's not good to hide feelings or swallow them. As shown in the case of Arno Funke, something like that is likely to lead to something negative and we lose something. Even though feelings sometimes keep us from doing things and overwhelm us and we can't think straight, although we wish we could. Feelings are like a river, they change. A situation totally wears us out at one point, but in time we'll get over it and we move on.

In case you do want to feel down or depressed once, follow Charlie Brown's lead:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqTeUoxESw_oxFbTBn55jRstKMrG9z1PsQrZJHeEmF3ZYEKHJK_Z6Dvjj_FBOZa_1tyN6cXTs7Og5lGMGnefUDTPlww5proAa6qdQjXpXshGu7khPNcKq90i1eWMtBMXWWbBOk-vpKNLM/s400/snoopy.gif

Until next blog,

sarah

WWSHS

Dear reader,

when I was in school there was a time when students used many abbreviations. Widely known were HDL (Hab dich lieb – Love you) and HDGDL (Hab dich ganz doll lieb – Love you very much). I don't know how up to date those abbreviations are today. It has been many years since I've seen them used. Now chat abbreviations are more common.

The comprehensive school I went to was a christian one with more or less believing students. One of my class mates had a bracelet bearing the letters WWJD. One of our teachers explained to us eventually that it wasn't half of an internet address or a sort of “broken” one, but the abbreviation for: What would Jesus do?

A while ago I was in the garden and got dandelions and grass for the guinea pigs. It wasn't the first time that I cut myself with the grass. A couple of weeks ago I also cut myself twice with the knifes my father has when I didn't watch out enough cleaning them. Because of that my hands show several marks more or less healed for several weeks now. Thinking about Easter I also made my first ever marmelade (or jam as some of you may call it): daisies-dandelion and the second time only dandelions, but twice the amount. The dandelion flowers have to be pulled for that. The juice of the peduncle is rather bitter and therefore has to be pulled. You want exactly the bitter taste for the dandelion tea, which is supposed to be very healthy. Because of all the cutting and pulling my hands for a while looked rather yellow and brown, even after washing them.

I wonder what Sherlock Holmes would see? The hands of a person would be important to him and insightful. A person for whom well-groomed appearance is important would at least not use their bare hands to work in the dirt or do the gardening without gloves. Depending on their job, women probably would have longer fingernails and maybe have beautifully varnished nails. Someone playing for example the violin or guitar needs rather short fingernails and certain fingers would have calluses from the strings. Kids usually are not that careful eating something. The hands show that quite well. And if a child secretly ate something sweet and forgot to wash their hands after that... The hands of a person are very revealing. If we care to look.

It should be WWSHO – What would Sherlock Holmes observe (or deduce?) not see. Because as he told his friend Dr. John Watson and others so many times: he doesn't see, he observes. Indeed he would not just notice my cut and dirty hands, but deduce that I have been outside having something to do with earth. What else would he specifically be able to tell and correctly deduce?

Until next blog,
sarah

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

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

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

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

Better Be Many

Dear reader,

before the movie "The Silence of The Lambs" there was the same-titled book by Thomas Harris and before that book was the book "Red Dragon". (The latter being filmed twice, by the way, once in 1986 with the title "Manhunter" and William Petersen as the lead role of the investigator and Brian Cox as Dr. Hannibal Lecter. The movie from 2002 has Edward Norton as the investigator and Anthony Hopkins in his staring role as Dr. Hannibal Lecter.) "Red Dragon" is about the former FBI agent Will Graham. He became famous after helping identifying Lecter as the offender and then catching him.

The former supervisor visits Graham and seeks his help in the brutal murder of two families. He notices that during the intense conversation, Graham uses more and more of the rhythm and syntax of his dialogue partner. Graham doesn't do that intentionally to build a good connection between them, but unconsciously.

I noticed that and it happened to me, too. Once I was at my aunt's in Hamburg for about a week and after two or three days, I noticed, that I was talking in a different way. Back home I was talking my own usual way again.

Budding people of the social field, such as therapists, are told to notice the voice, rhythm, speed and use of words of their clients and adjust their own way of speaking accordingly. It creates sympathy on an unconscious level and a connection between the people talking to each other.

There's this saying that dogs often look like the owner. Which is no surprise, especially if they had been living together already for a long time. Adjusting doesn't only happen on a verbal level, but also with looks or gestures and body posture. Sometimes consciously, more often unconsciously.

Trends are set that way, too. We like a person and we like what he or she is wearing or how they are wearing it, so we start to do as they do. For many years I used to wear my wrist watch with the face on the inner side of my wrist. I had seen Bruce Willis wearing his wrist watch that way in many movies and also Matt Smith in his portrayal of the 11th Doctor in "Doctor Who" in at least two episodes, checks his wrist watch with the face on the inner side of his wrist. For some weeks, also analog to the 11th Doctor, I'm wearing a pocket watch. I don't wear my wrist watch anymore at this moment. No, it's not the owl wrist watch I have bought in april. It's a proper pocket watch with clipper to clip it to the brim of the pocket and a chain. I was especially thinking of Derren Brown and hypnotists generally, of whom you'd almost expect to waggle a pocket watch in front of your eyes to make you go into a trance. So my pocket watch has nothing to do with the Doctor!!!

Such things can work like little lucky charms or nervers. At least they do for me. Wearing a scarf the way Benedict Cumberbatch does as Sherlock Holmes for example. Maybe a purple scarf, purple being Milton Erickson's favourite colour...

David Calof was a student of Milton Erickson. In his audio set "Hypnotic Techniques", he starts by saying that "I'm one of those people, who believe that Ericksonianism died in 1980, when Erickson died and that we're actually in a post Erickson era." So he wouldn't stand here saying he was Ericksonian. Although he had the privileg of studying with him. He isn't Ericksonian. He is Calofian, he supposed. For starters, that's a funny thing to say and maybe a bit arrogant, too. One might argue whether or not Ericksonianism could have been done only by Erickson himself and indeed died with Erickson. The most "absolute" form of it certainly did. Erickson as a human and therapist was unbelievably complex and multilayered. Not one single person alone will completely "get" him and internalise it for themselves. To be like him for the sake of his genius and to act like he did, would only be a copy. Erickson was very creative and revolutionised the psyotherapy and hypnotherapy of his time. It's certainly worth checking out his way of working and how he did things. In the end however, everybody should find their own way of doing therapy. It would be sad, only to be a cheap copy of somebody else. Especially since there isn't just Erickson, who did good works with his approaches. Calof said it, too, that he learned the limitations of Erickson's model. (Sadly, for me anyway, he doesn't go on about what those limitations are. I would like to know, where he thinks the limitations are.)

Also, as much as you as a therapist might prefer one therapy over another or one method within a certain therapy over another, not every person responds to this one method the same positive way. That would be boring for therapists, too, because then they would all only learn this one kind of therapy and then treat everyone this same way and heal and help them that way. That would be boring, wouldn't it? As Betty Alice Erickson, one of Milton Erickson's daughters, put it in an interview with Paul Anwandter, " You can't have a rule of psychotherapy that applies to everyone."

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "Insist on yourself; never imitate. Your own gift you can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life's cultivation; but of the adopted talent of another, you have only an extemporaneous, half possession." That same way we should respect the other person's individuality and not want to be like one single other person. At its worst, we'll be a "cheap copy" quite literally and at best people would still talk about as as some one like xy.

When I was a kid I had a blanket with all sorts of squared samples sewed together. One beautiful, colourful patch work blanket. That's what I wold wish for us all, that we become a colourful patch work person in the things we do, our way of thinking and the way we look. Taking individual aspects of many, different people and utilise them in a useful way. Everything else would be boring, cheap copies. Nobody needs those.

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