Friday, January 8, 2016

Sherlock: The Method of Sherlocking

I am quite the fan of mysteries. Perhaps it runs in my family's blood. Since seven, I've read The Famous Five (Lima Sekawan) and The Secret Seven (Sapta Siaga) by Enid Blyton as well as The Hardy Boys by Franklin W. Dixon (Or by another person who also use the pseudonym), plus others. Except those by Agatha Christie, which were banned by my parents on the premise of being too adult-themed, and I still haven't read it as I have many things in mind.

One of them is BBC's Sherlock. I've marathoned the three seasons last year, and Sherlock's personality does captivate me, so does the setting--modern times as opposed to Victorian, where I read in the books. So, what better time to discuss one of his abilities, the deduction master, then now, about a week after the release of Sherlock's New Year special, which I finished several days ago. A fascinating episode that was, by the way.

So, could anybody really deduce like Sherlock? 

First of all, talking about deduction, the thing that Sherlock does best. What is it? In logic and reasoning, there is the inductive (bottom-up) approach, where we formulate a more general theory based on our observations. Deduction (top-down) is the complete opposite, where one such Sherlock come up with several hypotheses on how something--in his case, a murder--might happen, then search for clues by observing the scene to narrow down and support a hypothesis (or, disprove it). If the observations match our theory, then the conclusion, however uncanny or strange it is, must be true.

I can't possibly summarize all about deductive reasoning in one paragraph. If you haven't, do see how Sherlock does it for yourself. However, I could discuss more about his methods. To put it simply: he observes, then memorizes, and finally makes connections.

After Sherlock came up with at least some idea of how something might have happened--after he looked at the scene, as it is a mistake to judge before knowing anything--he observes for clues of how something may have came to be. He's a master, no doubt, but actually, we could learn something from his observations. 

The most important thing is to observe every minute detail, with all of your senses. Observation, also applicable in scientific research conditions, is not just using one's eyes--we see Sherlock sniffing and knocking around all the time. Listening is another part Sherlock does well. Eccentric attitude aside, he does, indeed, listen to his clients, eyes closed, fingertips joined; no distractions other than listening to--and observing the person.

Anybody already want to know how he could manage those impressive deduction trains of his? Well, the next step is that those observations must be neatly stored first in the brain.

Think of our brain like a house. If that house is untidy, then countless items will get lost inside. Now, if our memories could be arranged properly, tidily, then there'll be no problem in extracting them at a moment's notice. Sherlock borrows the Greek and Roman technique of the Mind Palace, famously used by notable people such as the Roman politician, Cicero, to memorize his orations.

Sherlock's brain is indeed very tidy, as he throws away unimportant facts--such as those about our solar system--to make room for other, more relevant stuff. Perhaps that fact is still important to students, however the main trick here is to visualize those memories, storing them in a palace of hallways and rooms, perhaps labeled so he could pick them up when needed.

Well, funny, I could memorize random facts quite effortlessly, but I seem to be unable to pay attention to people.

Observing done, memorizing done, all that is left is to simply connect the facts.

Deduction goes like this. Let us take the case of my parents' case of not letting me read Agatha Christie.:
1. If a book is too adult-themed, then I am not to read it.
2. Agatha Christie's books are too adult-themed.
3. I am not to read Agatha Christie's books.

Number one is a premise, the theory or hypotheses. Sherlock observes to find number two, the facts (well, technically the example is an opinion, but you should get the idea). If the facts prove the original theory--once again, however strange--then the conclusion, number three, must be made and done. If Sherlock knew my parents won't let me read adult-themed stuff (which all parents should), then by knowing that Agatha Christie's books are exactly that, he'll know that I've never read her books.

That's the basics. Sherlock's key was the amount of information he managed to gather, a data bank large enough to draw from and make logical connections from. By simple processes such as the simple one above, eliminating possibilities as he go, he'll arrive at the stunning conclusion, through the fascinating thought train he spews at the end of each case.

Elementary, was it not?

Well, perhaps not. At the end, once again it may return to our brain's processing power. Whether the intelligence quotient truly exists or not, many brains are not creative enough to come up with such theories and connect them up with all the facts.

So, we're back to being normal humans, are we not? At the very least, we could learn better how our brains work from this magnificent piece of literature and cinematography. Until next time.

___
References. Read further about this in the following sites:
[1] Trochim, William M. K. 2006. Deduction & Induction. Retrieved 10:05 AM, 8 January 2016, from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php
[2] Baer, Drake. 2014. 9 Ways to Observe and Deduce Like Sherlock Holmes. Retrieved 10:07 AM, 8 January 2016, from http://www.businessinsider.co.id/9-ways-to-observe-and-deduce-like-sherlock-holmes-2014-7/?r=US&IR=T#.Vo9pTvl9601
[3] Zielinski, Sarah. 2014. The Secrets of Sherlock's Mind Palace. Retreived 3:03 PM, 8 January 2016, from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/secrets-sherlocks-mind-palace-180949567/?no-ist

___
Sherlock is a series by BBC, with characters originally made by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

No comments:

Post a Comment