It's basically thinking from observations.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

Oh my God, I've so been trying to learn this too. The other day I went to a cafe on my own for this very purpose and just sort of looked at people. I looked at their shoes, clothes, hair, jewelery, which hands they were using to do stuff etc etc, and then tried to work out things like what they did for a living, what relationship they had with the people they were with, where they'd just been etc. It was very hard and I'm pretty sure I got none of it right! Also, I was staring at people for ages and I'm sure they must have noticed.

I would just love to be able to do it. I think maybe it is a case of practicing but then, you're not going to know if you're right unless you go up to the people you've been deducing and ask them...that's the awkward part.

In order to completely be sure of a deduction,you need to get more evidences that point to the deduction you're about to make... When you leave out the improbable,whatever remains is the truth no matter how impossible it seems.

In the Great Game,Sherlock was able to solve those murders only because Moriarty left him a clue.But it wouldn't have been possible without those right?
I'd like to know how Moriarty concealed all those killings to make them look like accidents.Even when Sherlock solved them,he couldn't prove that it was Moriarty.An now I'm beginning to believe that the guy we saw on TV known as Jim Moriarty isn't actually Moriarty but rather another guy working under the name of Moriarty and the real Moriarty is hiding himself.Or else he wouldn't kill himself on that rooftop.Suicide isn't so simpleHe's basically outsmarting Leopold and Loeb,and even Jack The Ripper...

Anyway,does Graphology actually work?
And coagulation time of saliva after death?What's it?
And study over 144 types of tobacco ashes,does it exist anywhere? It'd be interesting to have so.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

I'd probably get punched. 

And insulted.......

Harriet wrote:

Bixxel wrote:

Harriet wrote:

Well, if things were so easy we wouldn't need any trials

Who said it's easy? It requires critical thinking.One that people hate doing the most.That's why everyone says its so hard.

You said that one can find out if people are lying by observing pupil dilation and the speed at which one speaks... I was referring to that and don't think this can be an exact method to find out the truth about a person. It's a hint that a person is uneasy (or whatever you wish to call it), but nothing more.








 

That's true.But that's a method.I'm only saying.

butterfly grl wrote:

I admit the websites are a bit disappointing.  although a nice side bar to the series.
At least *some of Sherlocks work should be there.  He was in a huff about no one reading his website, Johns being better (!), and took down the tobacco ash bit.  but some of the science he uses to solve the cases would be nice.  Although - they'd have to GET IT RIGHT! 
(as a scientist myself, it annoys the bleep out of me when shows do things that are downright impossible for convenience sake, or laziness).

He learned those tobacco ash thing by testing and experimenting on things himself.Out of the book knowledge.Like the coagulation time of saliva after death-can you find it anywhere on the internet? No.Because it's never been discovered...

Biggles86 wrote:

But if they were both poisoned and Sherlock took one then there'd be no more Sherlock. They wouldn't take the risk that Sherlock would inadvertently kill himself would they?!?

Because Moriarty expected Sherlock to figure that out.

Did any of you "actually" try deducing from simple facts? It's really fun when you get the hang of this.
I successfully did some.Not that great but above average(though it''ll improve over time...):
 Identified a left handed person(my classmate):
By observing three things:
1)Position of his cell phone-It was on his right coat pocket.So he probably uses his left hand to draw his cell phone easily from the opposite side.
2)Fingernails:I bumped intentionally on his shoulders and shot a quick glance at his fingernails-the ones on the left hand was rougher in comparison to the ones on the right hand,meaning-he can trim his nails better with the left hand than that with the right hand.
3)His handwritten words tended to drift leftwards.
Deduced from my classmate's wrist watch:
His wristwatch was of older model,seemingly quite genuine,dirt accumulated near the edges of the back surface,plenty of light scratches on the glass.And his jaw hit the floor when I asked him about when his father gifted him that watch.
He's shortsighted???!!
He didn't wear glasses.I saw his handwriting on his class notes-they're larger than the average handwriting.He always sat on the front desk,or at least the one of the first three.Weird thing was he didn't wear glasses.I asked him about it.He gave a weird answer-he wants his eyes to adjust themselves slowly to reacquire his better eyesight...

Both Mycroft and Moriarty are apparently smarter than Sherlock.Mycroft already defeated him in deduction,twice at least and Moriarty knows how to hide away the evidences from Sherlock and fooled him by a very simple trick....
But between Mycroft and Moriarty,who's smarter? I personally think it's Mycroft as he figured out Moriarty's plan of killing Sherlock in Reichenbach Fall and came up with a solution,prevented Moriarty's assassins from killing Watson and also he almost outsmarted Moriarty in the terrorrist attack on the Jumbo jet by putting dead people there on the plane until Sherlock ruined everything by revealing the truth.