Yeah, that's exactly my problem: Not being able to know if I'm right or not (and I'm definitely not brave enough to go up and ask a stranger if I AM right haha). Also, it does get a bit awkward at times, staring at people. Especially if they happen to look over and you have to turn away quickly to avoid being caught haha. ;P

I've tried to observe stuff about my friends, because obviously I wouldn't mind asking THEM if I was right. But then there's the problem of being biased -- of course I already know so much about my friends that anything I observe about them I would subconciously look at under the preconceived notions and ideas that I have about them, their habits, and their personality. So it just makes it more complicated really. ;(

42_and_221B wrote:

You can observe all you want but still not understand how to put the pieces together. :/ I've been trying to be more observant and have found out that I'm not half bad at it, but the problem comes down to this: I don't know what the things I am observing MEAN in the context that they are in.

For example: Just because I observe, say, a scuff mark on the wall, doesn't mean I automatically know what put it there. Just because I see a bruise on someone's arm, doesn't mean I can instantly figure out what caused it.

Basically, I'm just wondering how I can get better at being able to put the things I observe together in my head to come to a conclusion. It seems like it would be a hard sort of thing to practice -- is it even something that you CAN practice?

Observation is more than just looking.
Your examples are still just 'seeing'.

Let's take the first one.
I observe, say, a scuff mark on the wall

To observe, you take note of all details:

How high up is it? - eg. If it is at adult eye level then a small child didn't make it.

What colour is the mark? - this could lead you to look around for things of that colour that are mobile and able to be moved at the same height to the mark.

Is the mark just on the surface or has the wall been dented in anyway? - this tells you how hard the object connected with the wall (and all the implications that go with the answer to that)

What is the texture of the mark? - is it rough or smooth or oily , etc . Leads to telling you the type of article it could be from also.

And so the list goes on with a multitude of possible questions that could be asked including shape, surrounding area, etc etc.


Now you are thinking 'well yeah I see all that at first glance' and yes you DID SEE all that. But you didn't OBSERVE those points. The trick is to notice those points & instantly start deciding the answers to all those questions.


THAT is the difference between seeing and observing.

The thing is, and something that Conan Doyle points out all the time is that it is NOT that remarkable to do really.

Think of all the deduction scenes in the BBC version and in the Canon stories. Once explained, they are all common sense little facts that are strung together in one long deduction.
It's not necessary to know obscure facts really. Most things are quite basic.
I guess that is what annoys me at the moment with the wild theories. They are NOT things that Sherlock Holmes stories are based on. The whole idea is to take simple facts & string them together to form a deduction. The end result is a fascinating deduction, all made of of tiny simple facts, nothing more.
Sherlock Holmes doesn't need Wikipedia!

Haha, sorry, didn't catch your last post before I posted. I totally agree with what you're saying - maybe I just need to stop making it so complicated in my mind. ;P

I so don't get out often enough to do this. There's only so much you can observe about your own living room.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

I so don't get out often enough to do this. There's only so much you can observe about your own living room.

pffffttt. Don't tell me you have no dust?
Dust ... is eloquent!

Hmmm. Maybe I should spend more time analysing the dust. It sounds more fun than cleaning it anyhow.

I've got a little suggestion too,which I use when I'm feeling kinda "sherlocky", if you know what i mean! ;)
Observe stuff about yourself, that way you will make the connections much more easier and you'll always know if you're right.then you can use those little details about yourself to observe others.
for example your state of nails, what you are wearing and how you look can say a lot about you.make that connection as what each sign is saying about your character and then you have a list of details about it in your mind.
Anyway, that's how I "deduce", and if I'm very very lucky sometimes I get it right about others too.

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.