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

My Barnum Effect Test

Dear reader,

well, it's not mine. The experiment is old, of course. The magicians Penn & Teller did their version in their series "Bullshit" (season 7, episode 2: Astrology). Derren Brown shows this experiment as part of an episode of his series "Trick of The Mind" (season 3, episode 1). Which are only two that come to my mind right away, which I've seen myself. Others have done that experiment, too and towards the end of my studies at uni, I did as well.

I talked to the professor of a psychology class. The class was, at least in theory, about doing things and not just teaching and theory. The right course for my experiment, I thought. So I asked the professor if it was okay if I did a little experiment I had thought of doing for a while already. She agreed, so the week before easter holidays, I came in with yellow index cards I told others that over the course of the semester holidays, I had worked on creating a personality test program and would like to test its accuracy with them. I told them to write down: on the left top corner the day of birth, should they know it, also the time. But it wasn't necessary for me to have the time. On the right top corner they were to write a code of any combination of numbers and letters. Just so they knew theirs. In the middle they should write one short sentence that described them. (I should give Penn & Teller credit for that one. In their Bullsh!t episode on astrology, they let a psychology professor do exactly that. Since I couldn't come up with anything else as a basis for information.)

Then the easter holidays came and then the first day after the holidays came and the seminar was later that afternoon. So plenty of times for fellow students to approach me and ask about the test. Well, two came up to me right after the first seminar that day. One saying that she changed courses, but should I have the results, she'd like to know hers. I gave her her index card. The "result" I had stuck on the back of it with a paper-clip. I told her the truth right away that the twist to this wasn't so much the text, nor the test, but how they reacted. Another girl approached me saying she had an appointment at the doctor's. She'd try to change it, but couldn't. I desperately hoped the wouldn't tell the others about my text!

Anyway, I came into the room where the seminar would be held. One girl came to me and asked me about three times, "Are you going to tell us now?" She was really eager.

A short break time during the seminar was my time. I said, "Last time I asked you to fill out index cards for me for a personality test. I've got the results now. Please, pick your card and read it quietly for yourself. Don't share it with others. I want to ask you for quick judgment about how well it fits you." They went and read their card. I asked, "On a scale from 1 to 5, 1 meaning doesn't fit and 5 means it fits, how many think it sucked? 1?" No one. "How many say: a bit? 2?" Still no one. "How many say: so and so? Kind of half half? 3?" Two or three raised their hands. "How many say 4?" I didn't count, a good deal of people. "5?" The rest of them. One half joked, "Mine's like 4.5." That got a laugh. I said, "Of those, who say it's 5, would any of you care to read like the first two or three sentences for us? Just to show how a well done one would have looked like?" One started reading hers. The others started smiling and looking at each other. The reader asked me, if she should go on. I thanked her and said, it was enough and that the reason why the others smiled was, because they had the same text.

"You all have the same text", I said. "And here's another truth: that program I told you about doesn't exist." I could feel the relief that spread in the room. "I didn't even write the text. The text is from the wikipedia entry to 'Barnum effect', which is what happened here: if you have a bunch of information, you pick the things you think fit and make them fit to yourself. Barnum was a circus director, who had that motto of: a little bit for everyone." I went a bit on and then told them about, also that fortune tellers and the like use this technique.

I told them that my mom had told me about an aunt, who had went to a fortune-teller. She told that aunt that she was about to die in a car within the next 1 to 3 months. I said, "She lived longer than 3 months. But can you imagine - and we're right into the topic of this seminar here - the mental stress she would be in, every time she had to go into a car? This could be the one, she'd die in." I said, "So maybe you say: well, that's fortune-telling. I don't believe in that anyway. But you did believe me."

I was about to leave it at that, but one girl raised her hand and asked me something I don't remember anymore. It got us into a quite relaxed, but interested and interesting discussion (probably for 10 to 15 minutes, in any case longer than the teacher intended for that break) about fortune tellers, cold reading and the like. I felt good. It's one thing watching videos of Derren Brown or others doing it or reading about it. It's another to be able to feel that they believe you and knowing you cheated on them. I knew they wouldn't like strangle me or something. But I was quite nervous as to how they would react. I was very pleased how they reacted. Even surprised to find that they actually had questions and were really interested in knowing and discussing more!

Until next blog,

sarah

What a hoot

Dear reader,

after holding forth about Sherlock Holmes, let's go back to Milton Erickson and hypnosis. Erickson liked owls and carved some of them out of wood himself. For some reason there's this cliche that that hypnotist have a pocket watch and use it to wave it in front of their subject's eyes. Well, on the internet I found both: a pocket watch in the shape of an owl. The special thing about this watch is that the wings hide the watch. You have to push the ears together. This way the wings move to the sides and reveal the watch. If you want one yourself, eBay and amazon have them for a cheap price and different colours. Just such for "owl pocket watch".

Several years ago, I found a video with Harlan Kilstein, in which he told an Erickson owl story. In his later years, Erickson was physically very sick. But he had a reputation of being a sharp observer and he still gave lessons in a small room on the grounds where he lived. Once a group of students wanted to test Erickson's ability to observe. In the room where he used to teach, there were many small figures. The plan was to take one of them, lay it down on its side and see, if Erickson noticed and how he'd react. They decided on an owl figure and then waited for Erickson's wife to bring him in in his wheelchair. The figure was positioned in a way that Erickson wouldn't be able to see it from where he was teaching. Erickson came into the room. No reaction. He gave his usual lessons and then let his wife take him back. As she was at the door, he cried, "Stop!" Everybody froze. Erickson said, "That thing that you were wondering, whether I'd notice... well, I don't give a hoot about it." The last part of course is an ambiguity of "I don't care" and a "hoot" being the shout of an owl. Erickson knew very well not only what they had done, but also why, that it has been a test and what kind of test and his comment on it is short, but right to the point and beautiful ambiguity.

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

Pain control

Dear reader,

it seems fitting to write a blog entry on the topic of pain control when I'm sitting here with a sore throat.

I was born handicapped. I don't like that word much, because I'm independent and "handicapped" for me means a limitation. In the end all people are in one way or another helpless or limited or at least a bit inapt.

Anyway, I was born with my right foot missing. I have a prothesis and with it I can walk and ride a normal bike on a regular basis. Many people don't know I have a prothesis and are surprised when they find out about it. They don't see it. It had happened a couple of times in the past that the bone in the leg has grown faster than the rest of the leg. The bone had to be cut off. I know I have taken pain killers they have given me the first time. The next two times I didn't take them. I don't like being numbed and didn't want to sleep with meds. I didn't want to sleep. I wanted to be pain free! I know that the third and (to date) last time I had deliberately slept through the following one or two days after the operation.

I don't quite remember if it was the first or second time. But I remember that my grandmother had been visiting me in the hospital with my dad and my sister. My mom had been there in the hospital with me anyway. I don't remember what my grandma hat told me. The others had gone out of the room and she told me something. Something that made me forget my pain. As soon as the others came back, the spell was broken. I have no idea what she did exactly or how. I'm also not sure she was conscious of what she did. The important thing was, that it helped.

Pain is a messenger. Normally it wants to tell us, "Take better care of yourself!" or "Change something! The way it is now is not good for you." These are important signals, which shouldn't be ignored like that under any circumstances. This is why I suggest to everybody not to shut down all the pain. That's often not necessary anyway. We all can go on pretty good with a certain amount of pain and ignore that. But please not for long! That would be unhealthy and unreasonable. A messenger wants to be heard and requires that something has to be done, changed. This should be respected under all circumstances!

Hypnosis Salad is an organisation, which gives hypnosis seminars. On youtube there's a video with Michael Watson, where he talks with lots of humor about an effective method of pain control a friend of his used. Here are two of the main points of the video about pain:

• Pain is so uncomfortable, because we think of it as uncontrolable.


• At the given moment pain seems endless.

The method Michael Watson describes is so simple and clever. You take the pain and turn it into a symbol (maybe also a colour) and hold this symbol in your hand. Then you throw it into a bin or flush it down the toilet or whatever. Why is it a clever method? Well, by turning the pain into a symbol, you change the sensory perception. It's a feeling changed into something visual. By placing the symbol in your hand it's away from the original place. (Except it's pain in the hand of course. Although even if that's the case it would be a change from a feeling actually in a part of the body to a symbol you can see and hold in the hand.) What did you do there? Taking control through giving a shape and change of location and change of sensory perception! The endlessness stops when we throw away the symbol.

I personally placed a symbol in my hand only one or two times. What I do is my own variation. Let's assume it's a headache. I imagine a geometrical shape with edges or spikes, which could give me the kind of pain in my head that I have at that moment. Often it's something like a polygon or something thorny. A colour may or may not come with the symbol for everyone. For me the shape often comes with a sort of yellow or green. The colour is there without me thinking about one. I keep the shape in my head and imagine it go change into a ball. A ball has no edges, so they can't cause pain. Because of Erickson the colour purple is special for me and has a calming effect. So the ball turns purple. Often what I do is imagine my whole head in a light purple, transparent ball. Like my head is in a gold fish bowl.

Simply by having to concentrate on something, which you have to see in your head, is distraction by itself and changes the intensity. One advice if you're working with colours, too: pick a colour that's far enough away from the pain colour. For example if your pain colour is blue, purple will be rather close to that colour. One time I told my dad about this method and he suggested to take the complementary colour. I never did that. I keep forgetting about it, because purple is my colour of choice automatically or sometimes blue. Also one needs to know which colour the complementary colour is. (Interestingly enough it fits for me with yellow-green and purple already.)

Like I said, you should keep a little bit of pain. It happens for me that at one point I don't have to concentrate on the purple ball anymore and I just keep doing what I do at that moment. The headache is gone by itself then. So it often is enough to make the pain less, but not delete it all together.

Richard Bandler, one of the founders of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) knows a lot about hypnosis. When asked what he does against a toothache, he said he goes to the dentist. And with a headache? He takes aspirin then. The people are surprised about his reply then. With an expert in hypnosis they seem to expect some sort of hypnosis. The method Michael Watson describes or my variation are possible methods. Richard Bandler's way of dealing with a toothache or headache is important anyway: if there are ways and methods to get rid of the pain in an easy way, we should use them, too.

I mentioned Charlie Chaplin in my blog entry about my room of motivation. But the quote fits here once again, too: "Nothing is permanent in this wicked world - not even our troubles."

Until next blog,

sarah

The Memory Palace

Dear reader,

I'm don't remember exactly in which book I read about this first, the thought of a memory palace. Either it was Stephen King's "Duddits" (probably better nown as the movie "Dreamcatcher") or Thomas Harris' "Hannibal". The memory palace is a way to remember and recollect things that are connected at any time.

Some of you may know this idea of connecting a list of words to a story and by retelling that story also remembering the individual words in their set order. The memory palace works similar. Only that the memory palace, as the name suggests, is a set of rooms, which play a role in this. You start with one room and then expand with other rooms and at the end you have many rooms: a palace.

You start it like this: You take one room you know well. It makes little sense to go to this room now and look for certain aspects in it. If you can't recall them and have them in your head already now, it will probably be difficult to remember the aspects later when you have to and when they're linked to information you want to remember. You use this room to place things in it. Things you want to remember later. It could be a picture of a friend on the door of the fridge, to remind you that you wanted to call him. Cupboards, shelves, tables, chairs can be used to put objects on them to remind you of something.

To create a palace like that is very much connected with the so called loci method. Loci deriving from latin locus a "place" or "location". In a sense the memory palace is the loci method in its most beautiful way.

To see what wikipedia had on the topic of the mind palace, I looked it up there. Thinking back I'd have to rewise my first paragraph here. Many years back I read the Sherlock Holmes books by Arthur Conan Doyle. In the book "A Study In Scarlet" Doyle mentions that Holmes uses his memory palace, to remember certain things.

Three moies are also mentioned on the german wikipedia page (I didn't bother to check the english one, too, but suspect there are listed there as well). In an episode of "Mind Control" Derren Brown shows, how he created a room that helps him count cards and remember in a Black Jack game which card were dealt. In a new, modern BBC version of Sherlock Holmes, the series "Sherlock", in the episode "The Hound of Baskerville", Holmes uses the method to recall associations. Here's the scene for you to watch. In the second episode of the american, modern Holmes version, the series "Elementary" (episode "While You Were Sleeping"), Holmes describes to Watson why he hypnotises himself in support group meetings to take a break. He has what he calls "attic theory": in an attic there is only a finite amount of space. The brain is the same. This space should be consciously used to fill with things and only useful ones. Unuseful things will be thrown out again.

Which may be an explaination why Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes as well as the BBC-Sherlock-Holmes both don't know how the sun, the moon and the earth relate to each other and which revolves around which planet. There's no space for something like that in Holmes' head.

Also Jonsey in "Dreamcatcher"/"Duddits" explains to his friends that for new information, like for example how to use a computer, he had to throw out other old information. Here is Jonsey's explaination for what he calls his memory warehouse.

The german wikipedia page also mentions the series "The Mentalist" in which Patrick Jane also uses the method to help witnesses to recall things. But right now I can't remember a certain episode or scene that would show this. Sherlock Holmes is more familiar for me these days, because I'm currently watching the two series I mentioned.

More on Sherlock Holmes some time later... I'm not sure, if I described the memory palace well enough so that others know what to do and how to use it. For me this is something like describing only with words to someone how to tie a shoe lace. Like you may find, it's way more difficult and takes endlessly longer than showing it and actually doing.

Doing! I don't really use the rooms I created to explicitly remember a list of tasks or a string of numbers or something like that. Strictly speaking I don't use them to remember anything as such. They're places to relax or to be in good company. Sometimes they're rooms and scenes of movies with the persons of that scene in it or I take the position of one of the persons involved. I won't tell you the movies. I think those of you, who are interested in movies will find and have your own movies and scenes.

One room is dark and only a small, square table with a drawer is visible. In the drawer there's a note with 20 words on it, the words Derren Brown listed in his book "Tricks Of The Mind" to explain how one can remember this (one) list of words in a set order forwards and backwards. I have to admit, I only take out a sheet of paper. I don't actually see the 20 words then. I think in those moments to take a break and just focus on this string of words is creating a distance for a while. At least as long as it takes me to recite a list of 20 words forwards and then backwards. I read that book in 2008. I still remember the list forwards and backwards. The only thing I didn't do yet, is remembering the position of the words. Like when someone called out a number, I'd know which word was on that position. It would make for a neat, little magic trick.

In recent time I realised I half consciously, half unconsciously go to a supermarket around the corner from where I live. It's a big shop. Take a walk there to check if I know where to find which things. But it's more for fun and pleasure than to actually checking facts.

Until next blog,

sarah