Derren Brown: Archive
| Message ID: 03881 | [ Previous ] [ Next ] [ Up Thread ] |
From: Blue Chip
Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:44am
Subject: Re: [Derren Brown] The art and science of taking fiction and making it non-fiction - modelling.
Holmes and Watson, whilst on a more rural case, are out camping. Looking
up at the sky, Holmes turns to Watson and enquires
"Watson, my good man, look up and tell me what you see."
Watson, ever vigilant in the desire to understand the psychology of his
Coke addict friend looks up and replies quite confidently
"The stars!"
"Indeed" confirm Holmes "and what do you understand from them?"
"Well, astrologically, I note that Mars is entering Capricorn, suggesting
that there is trouble ahead for the winter babies"
"uh huh..."
"and meteorologically, I note that there is a light cumulus nimbus
suggesting that the weather will be quite fine tomorrow"
"What else Watson?"
"hmmmm, horologically the moon is passing Pisces, making it a little after
two a.m."
After a brief pause Watson turns to Holmes and asks
"So then Holmes, what do you YOU understand from the sight of the night stars?"
"Elementary my dear Watson. Someone has stolen our tent!"
At 00:06 30/03/03 +0000, you wrote:
>......Do you wonder how Derren Brown does most of his stunts? ....
>
>....More specifically do you wonder how you might create YOUR OWN
>stunts? ....
>
>..Yeap, me too, anyway...lol :oP (pace, pace, lead nowhere) :oP
>
>The art and science of taking fiction and making it non-fiction -
>modelling.
>
>Although Sherlock Holmes is fictional - his cognitive patterns were
>modelled from Doctor Bell. Holmes' methods and the value he placed on
>observing details are revealed in various parts of text...
>---------------------------------
>
>"Then, what clue could you have as to his identity?"
>
>"Only as much as we can deduce."
>
>"From his hat?"
>
>"Precisely."
>
>"But you are joking. What can you gather from this old battered
>felt?"
>
>"Here is my lens. You know my methods. What can you gather yourself
>as to the individuality of the man who has worn this article?"
>
>I took the tattered object in my hands and turned it over rather
>ruefully. It was a very ordinary black hat of the usual round shape,
>hard and much the worse for wear. The lining had been of red silk,
>but was a good deal discoloured. There was no maker's name; but, as
>Holmes had remarked, the initials "H. B." were scrawled upon one
>side. It was pierced in the brim for a hat- securer, but the elastic
>was missing. For the rest, it was cracked, exceedingly dusty, and
>spotted in several places, although there seemed to have been some
>attempt to hide the discoloured patches by smearing them with ink.
>
>"I can see nothing," said I, handing it back to my friend.
>
>"On the contrary, Watson, you can see everything. You fail, however,
>to reason from what you see. You are too timid in drawing your
>inferences."
>
>"Then, pray tell me what it is that you can infer from this hat?"
>
>He picked it up and gazed at it in the peculiar introspective fashion
>which was characteristic of him. "It is perhaps less suggestive than
>it might have been," he remarked, "and yet there are a few inferences
>which are very distinct, and a few others which represent at least a
>strong balance of probability. That the man was highly intellectual
>is of course obvious upon the face of it, and also that he was fairly
>well-to-do within the last three years, although he has now fallen
>upon evil days. He had foresight, but has less now than formerly,
>pointing to a moral retrogression, which, when taken with the decline
>of his fortunes, seems to indicate some evil influence, probably
>drink, at work upon him. This may account also for the obvious fact
>that his wife has ceased to love him."
>
>"My dear Holmes!"
>
>"He has, however, retained some degree of self-respect," he
>continued, disregarding my remonstrance. "He is a man who leads a
>sedentary life, goes out little, is out of training entirely, is
>middle-aged, has grizzled hair which he has had cut within the last
>few days, and which he anoints with lime-cream. These are the more
>patent facts which are to be deduced from his hat. Also, by the way,
>that it is extremely improbable that he has gas laid on in his
>house."
>
>"You are certainly joking, Holmes."
>
>"Not in the least. Is it possible that even now, when I give you
>these results, you are unable to see how they are attained?"
>
>"I have no doubt that I am very stupid, but I must confess that I am
>unable to follow you. For example, how did you deduce that this man
>was intellectual?"
>
>For answer Holmes clapped the hat upon his head. It came right over
>the forehead and settled upon the bridge of his nose. "It is a
>question of cubic capacity," said he; "a man with so large a brain
>must have something in it."
>
>"The decline of his fortunes, then?"
>
>"This hat is three years old. These flat brims curled at the edge
>came in then. It is a hat of the very best quality. Look at the band
>of ribbed silk and the excellent lining. If this man could afford to
>buy so expensive a hat three years ago, and has had no hat since,
>then he has assuredly gone down in the world."
>
>"Well, that is clear enough, certainly. But how about the foresight
>and the moral retrogression?"
>
>Sherlock Holmes laughed. "Here is the foresight," said he putting his
>finger upon the little disc and loop of the hat-securer. "They are
>never sold upon hats. If this man ordered one, it is a sign of a
>certain amount of foresight, since he went out of his way to take
>this precaution against the wind. But since we see that he has broken
>the elastic and has not troubled to replace it, it is obvious that he
>has less foresight now than formerly, which is a distinct proof of a
>weakening nature. On the other hand, he has endeavoured to conceal
>some of these stains upon the felt by daubing them with ink, which is
>a sign that he has not entirely lost his self-respect."
>
>"Your reasoning is certainly plausible."
>
>"The further points, that he is middle-aged, that his hair is
>grizzled, that it has been recently cut, and that he uses lime-
>cream, are all to be gathered from a close examination of the lower
>part of the lining. The lens discloses a large number of hair-ends,
>clean cut by the scissors of the barber. They all appear to be
>adhesive, and there is a distinct odour of lime-cream. This dust, you
>will observe, is not the gritty, gray dust of the street but the
>fluffy brown dust of the house, showing that it has been hung up
>indoors most of the time, while the marks of moisture upon the inside
>are proof positive that the wearer perspired very freely, and could
>therefore, hardly be in the best of training."
>
>"But his wife -- you said that she had ceased to love him."
>
>"This hat has not been brushed for weeks. When I see you, my dear
>Watson, with a week's accumulation of dust upon your hat, and when
>your wife allows you to go out in such a state, I shall fear that you
>also have been unfortunate enough to lose your wife's affection."
>
>"But he might be a bachelor."
>
>"Nay, he was bringing home the goose as a peace-offering to his wife.
>Remember the card upon the bird's leg."
>
>"You have an answer to everything. But how on earth do you deduce
>that the gas is not laid on in his house?"
>
>"One tallow stain, or even two, might come by chance; but when I see
>no less than five, I think that there can be little doubt that the
>individual must be brought into frequent contact with burning tallow -
>- walks upstairs at night probably with his hat in one hand and a
>guttering candle in the other. Anyhow, he never got tallow-stains
>from a gasjet. Are you satisfied?"
>
>"Well, it is very ingenious," said I, laughing; "but since, as you
>said just now, there has been no crime committed, and no harm done
>save the loss of a goose, all this seems to be rather a waste of
>energy."
>
>-------------------------
>
>Sherlock Holmes limits are concluded by Dr Watson (in "The Study in
>Scarlet") as below: (you can do something like this yourself. Also
>the various areas of knowledge can help you organise your
>studies.) :o) ...you see, the cognitive patterns are non-fiction.
>
>Knowledge of Literature --Nil.
>Knowledge of Philosophy --Nil.
>Knowledge of Astronomy --Nil. Knows nothing of the Copernican Theory
>and the composition of the Solar System.
>Knowledge of Politics --Feeble.
>Knowledge of Botany --Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium and
>poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening.
>Knowledge of Geology --Practical, but limited. Tells a glance
>different soils from each other.
>Knowledge of Chemistry --Profound.
>Knowledge of Anatomy --Accurate, but un-systematic.
>Knowledge of Sensational Literature --Immense. Appears to know every
>detail of every horror perpetrated in the century.
>Plays the violin well. Can play difficult piece like Mendelssohn's
>Lieder, and know something about Stradivarius violins.
>Is an expert singlestick player, boxer and swordsman.
>Has a good practical knowledge of British law.
>
>----------------
>
>site with stories... http://www.bakerstreet221b.de/
>
>----------------
>
>By looking at the prinicples behind the various quotes (deep
>structure in NLP), you can develop models. Below are some quotes by
>holmes on deduction etc. These quotes (and quotes made by anyone)
>reveal many things - presuppositions, strategies (ie, sense words),
>value and so on.
>----------
>
>
>Detection is, or ought to be, an exact science and should be treated
>in the same cold and unemotional manner.
>
>It is impossible as I state it, and therefore I must in some respect
>have stated it wrong.
>
>Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the
>truth.
>
>You may not be aware that the deduction of a man's age from his
>writing is one which has been brought to considerable accuracy by
>experts. In normal cases one can place a man in his true decade with
>tolerable confidence.
>
>There is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes
>against you.
>
>The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever
>observes.
>
>We approached the case, you remember, with an absolutely blank mind,
>which is always an advantage. We had formed no theories. We were
>simply there to observe and to draw inferences from our observations.
>
>You know my method. It is founded upon the observation of trifles.
>
>It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly
>one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to
>suit facts.
>
>How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
>impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
>
>The most difficult crime to track is the one which is purposeless.
>
>When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever
>remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
>
>We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other
>contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the
>truth.
>
>n solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to
>reason backwards. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very
>easy one, but people do not practise it much. In the everyday affairs
>of life it is more useful to reason forward, and so the other comes
>to be neglected. There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one
>who can reason analytically. Improbable as it is, all other
>explanations are more improbable still.
>
>It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts.
>
>I should prefer that you do not mention my name at all in connection
>with the case, as I choose to be only associated with those crimes
>which present some difficulty in their solution.
>
>Have you tried to drive a harpoon through a body? No? Tut, tut, my
>dear sir, you must really pay attention to these details.
>
>One should always look for a possible alternative and provide against
>it. It is the first rule of criminal investigation.
>
>Here is my lens. You know my methods.
>
>One the contrary, Watson, you can see everything. You fail, however,
>to reason from what you see. You are too timid in drawing your
>inferences.
>
>Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point
>very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a
>little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner
>to something entirely different.
>
>There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.
>
>There is no part of the body which varies so much as the human ear.
>
>There is nothing so unnatural as the commonplace.
>
>It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are
>infinitely the most important.
>
>Never trust to general impressions, my boy, but concentrate yourself
>upon details. My first glance is always at a woman's sleeve. In a
>man, it is perhaps better to take the knee of the trouser.
>
>Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather
>than upon the crime that you should dwell.
>
>What do the public, the great unobservant public, who could hardly
>tell a weaver by his tooth or a compositor by his left thumb, care
>about the finer shades of analysis and deduction!
>
>Always look at the hands first, Watson. Then cuffs, trouser-knees,
>and boots.
>
>There I was stretched, when you, my dear Watson, and all your
>following were investigating in the most sympathetic and inefficient
>manner the circumstances of my death. At last, when you had formed
>your inevitable and totally eroneous conclusions, you departed for
>the hotel, and I was left alone.
>
>It would be difficult to name any articles which afford a finer field
>for inference than a pair of glasses, especially so remarkable a pair
>as these.
>
>We balance probabilities and choose the most likely. It is the
>scientific use of the imagination.
>
>Circumstantial evidence is occassionally very convincing, as when you
>find a trout in the milk, to quote Thoreau's example.
>
>The more bizarre a thing is the less mysterious it proves to be. It
>is your commonplace, featureless crimes which are really puzzling,
>just as a commplace face is the most difficult to identify.
>
>It is true that though in your mission you have missed everything of
>importance, yet even those things which have obtruded themselves upon
>your notice give rise to serious thought.
>
>It is of the highest importance in the art of detection to be able to
>recognize out of a number of facts which are incidental and which
>vital. Otherwise your energy and attention must be dissipated instead
>of being concentrated.
>
>I never make exceptions. An exception disproves the rule.
>
>Winwood Reade is good upon the subject. He remarks that, while the
>individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a
>mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any
>one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average
>number will be up to. Individuals vary, but percentages remain
>constant. So says the statistician.
>
>There is a strong family resemblance about misdeeds, and if you have
>all the details of a thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you
>can't unravel the thousand and first.
>
>One true inference invariably suggests others.
>
>Now, in my opinion, Dupin was a very inferior fellow. That trick of
>his of breaking in on his friends' thoughts with an apropos remark
>after a quarter of an hour's silence is really very showy and
>superficial. He had some analytical genius, no doubt; but he was by
>no means such a phenomenon as Poe appeared to imagine.
>
>It is a mistake to confound strangeness with mystery. The most
>commonplace crime is often the most mysterious, because it presents
>no new or special features from which deductions may be drawn.
>
>When a fact appears to be opposed to a long train of deductions, it
>invariably proves to be capable of bearing some other interpretation.
>
>There are many ciphers which I would read as easily as I do the
>apocrypha of the agony column; such crude devices amuse the
>intelligence without fatiguing it.
>
>By a man's finger-nails, by his coat-sleeve, by his boots, by his
>trouser-knees, by the callosities of his forefinger and thumb, by his
>expression, by his shirt-cuff - By each of these things a man's
>calling is plainly revealed. That all united should fail to enlighten
>the competent inquirer in any case is almost inconceivable.
>
>There is nothing like first-hand evidence.
>
>There is no branch of detective science which is so important and so
>much neglected as the art of tracing footsteps.
>
>The faculty of deduction is certainly contagious.
>
>Any truth is better than indefinite doubt.
>
>I never guess. It is a shocking habit -- destructive to the logical
>faculty.
>
>You see, but you do not observe.
>-------------------------
>
>Time for tea now...Regards TerryrreT
>
>
>[e-mail address removed]>
