Free Handouts
A persons hand’s can tell us much about them. What they have been doing, there general habits or there personality. If we look for the right features, we can be enlightened.
The fingernail
- looking at the edge of the nail, for men we see that the nail is neat lets say almost perfect (a smooth semi circle rather then a edgy straight line cut) we can deduce that he is perhaps using a file rather then a clipper (there has to be a better word than that). Now just because a man uses a nail file does not mean he is a flaming homosexual, looking at the rest of his oeuvre, we see that he is wearing a blue bedazzled tank top, has a brown afro and he keeps streaming 1,2,3,4.
- cuticle’s on a persons fingers are visible, they have little care about there less important hygiene
- the color of a persons nails can tell you about there personality, when was the last time you saw a emo kid with rainbows and unicorns sprawled across there nails? Using that information we can say with some confidence that if a person has: black nails they are lugubrious (yes you can use that one tomorrow), bright colors say happy. More detailed nails say the same things, news print says they are into literature, a bat symbol says they are a poser.
Hands
- more marks and cuts are mainly on the dominant hand
- ink marks on the hand suggests they where just writing something
- dark stained hands could suggests someone who works on machines (stained form the oil)
- blood stained hands suggests murder
- larger hands suggests blue collar worker
- yellow on the fingers suggests a smoker
- damaged knuckles says fighter
Hands Part II or Scars
- a scar near the middle of the wrist on the bottom of the palm is perhaps from a surgery to reverse carpal tunnel syndrome
- a scar on the back of the hand would suggest a wound from self defence
- a straight cut across the hand is caused by a knife nine out of ten times
A closing note, there is a general misconception about determining a persons dominant hand, many people say that wile holding your own hand crossed in front of your self the hand that is on top is your dominant hand however this is untrue. To show this if you cross your hands now take note of what hand is on top, now clasp your fists together and you will find that the same hand (in this case your thumb) is on top. If you have your parents do this same thing you will see that this is hand test is genetic rather than independent.
RW
A persons hand’s can tell us much about them. What they have been doing, there general habits or there personality. If we look for the right features, we can be enlightened.
The fingernail
- looking at the edge of the nail, for men we see that the nail is neat lets say almost perfect (a smooth semi circle rather then a edgy straight line cut) we can deduce that he is perhaps using a file rather then a clipper (there has to be a better word than that). Now just because a man uses a nail file does not mean he is a flaming homosexual, looking at the rest of his oeuvre, we see that he is wearing a blue bedazzled tank top, has a brown afro and he keeps streaming 1,2,3,4.
- cuticle’s on a persons fingers are visible, they have little care about there less important hygiene
- the color of a persons nails can tell you about there personality, when was the last time you saw a emo kid with rainbows and unicorns sprawled across there nails? Using that information we can say with some confidence that if a person has: black nails they are lugubrious (yes you can use that one tomorrow), bright colors say happy. More detailed nails say the same things, news print says they are into literature, a bat symbol says they are a poser.
Hands
- more marks and cuts are mainly on the dominant hand
- ink marks on the hand suggests they where just writing something
- dark stained hands could suggests someone who works on machines (stained form the oil)
- blood stained hands suggests murder
- larger hands suggests blue collar worker
- yellow on the fingers suggests a smoker
- damaged knuckles says fighter
Hands Part II or Scars
- a scar near the middle of the wrist on the bottom of the palm is perhaps from a surgery to reverse carpal tunnel syndrome
- a scar on the back of the hand would suggest a wound from self defence
- a straight cut across the hand is caused by a knife nine out of ten times
A closing note, there is a general misconception about determining a persons dominant hand, many people say that wile holding your own hand crossed in front of your self the hand that is on top is your dominant hand however this is untrue. To show this if you cross your hands now take note of what hand is on top, now clasp your fists together and you will find that the same hand (in this case your thumb) is on top. If you have your parents do this same thing you will see that this is hand test is genetic rather than independent.
RW
The Elusive Cross Check
This is perhaps one of the most simplistic concepts to grasp wile practising the art of deduction. Its simple, you think of a person as a cypher (or perhaps a sudoku puzzle). In order to solve the cypher (or come up with an apt detection) you need to cross check every letter you think you have solved to insure yourself that that is infact the correct letter (you following me?). Looking at a person lets say starting with there shoes, we see that she is wearing some bright pink kitten heels, alright so we know that she is perhaps a person looking for glamour of heels without the actual hight, so would this mean that she is a person attempting to make a screaming impression on others, but do we know this for sure? The only way to know is to cross check this hypotheses is to observe the rest of our victim. So lets just go over some other points, fingernails march the loud colour with some gold moving in a horizontal direction, her hair is dyed hair and done up, she is wearing heavy pink eye shadow, large ear rings, and a matching pink shirt, we can then conclude that this person has a rather brazen attitude. Cross checking a person will give you a more refined deduction.
RW
This is perhaps one of the most simplistic concepts to grasp wile practising the art of deduction. Its simple, you think of a person as a cypher (or perhaps a sudoku puzzle). In order to solve the cypher (or come up with an apt detection) you need to cross check every letter you think you have solved to insure yourself that that is infact the correct letter (you following me?). Looking at a person lets say starting with there shoes, we see that she is wearing some bright pink kitten heels, alright so we know that she is perhaps a person looking for glamour of heels without the actual hight, so would this mean that she is a person attempting to make a screaming impression on others, but do we know this for sure? The only way to know is to cross check this hypotheses is to observe the rest of our victim. So lets just go over some other points, fingernails march the loud colour with some gold moving in a horizontal direction, her hair is dyed hair and done up, she is wearing heavy pink eye shadow, large ear rings, and a matching pink shirt, we can then conclude that this person has a rather brazen attitude. Cross checking a person will give you a more refined deduction.
RW
Pumped Up Kicks
I do believe that the one item on a person that divulges the most about them is there shoes. There is a short list of what to look for when observing a individuals shoes, mostly it is the amount of dirt on them, the amount of wear, and a several acute details that shall be mentioned later. Rather than rant about it for two paragraphs I shall give you a mock chart
- You see a significant amount of dirt on the article, not too much wear, and its a walking or running shoe. what can we see from this? The person is walking around where there is lots of dirt, so this person can’t live in many cites, (you will need to know how much dirt is in the area that you are in and the areas around you but that is not that hard to observe) and he is not walking a lot due to the fact that the shoes are not new but in good condition, if this person lives in the country he will need to take a car to most places- too far to walk
- You see little dirt and lots of wear. not a lot of dirt where he is walking, city and there is a lot of wear form walking to places nearby.
Using both of the former arguments (for that is all this really is) you can tell where a person may live (will change between people- having two shoes, cleans his shoes, et cetera). After we make that deduction the rest is just guess work, for every hypotheses you make you will need to cross reference with something else about that person.
- Bright shoe (not just new but with the obnoxious laces screaming look at me), new (no dirt or wear), we can perhaps conclude that this person is conscience about his or her fashion statement, and not concerned with the actual function of the shoe
- Casual black work shoe (that not quite dress shoe and not quite water slipper), using his clothes (ex dress shirt, black pressed pants) we can conclude that this person needs to look proper but is perhaps in a cubicle all day and also needs shoes for comfort.
- sandals, they are Jesus
- Old shoes new laces, really likes the shoes (depending on how much wear is on the bloody things (he may just be cheep (I think I’m using too many of these things)))
You can also (by also I mean not all the time) tell the general income of that person
- If they always have new nikes or asics they may have some money (or just concerned about there health (by concerned I mean they understand the importance of these kinds of things (sun glasses, good shoes (damn I’m doing it again))))
You can also tell some of the persons habits
- A broken counter can tell that he slips his shoes on and does not untie them
- A double knot can tell that he slips them on
- wear on the front of the shoe can tell about there a person’s gait (wear on the front and on the inside) if a person drags there shoes they could have pes planus
I could go on with this but truth be told I don’t know how much I can write on this thing. Using you inner narrating look at someone’s shoes, tell yourself what you see and cross compare your hypothesis with perhaps what they are cloths are or what type of glasses they have (I will cover that on perhaps the next post).
RW
I do believe that the one item on a person that divulges the most about them is there shoes. There is a short list of what to look for when observing a individuals shoes, mostly it is the amount of dirt on them, the amount of wear, and a several acute details that shall be mentioned later. Rather than rant about it for two paragraphs I shall give you a mock chart
- You see a significant amount of dirt on the article, not too much wear, and its a walking or running shoe. what can we see from this? The person is walking around where there is lots of dirt, so this person can’t live in many cites, (you will need to know how much dirt is in the area that you are in and the areas around you but that is not that hard to observe) and he is not walking a lot due to the fact that the shoes are not new but in good condition, if this person lives in the country he will need to take a car to most places- too far to walk
- You see little dirt and lots of wear. not a lot of dirt where he is walking, city and there is a lot of wear form walking to places nearby.
Using both of the former arguments (for that is all this really is) you can tell where a person may live (will change between people- having two shoes, cleans his shoes, et cetera). After we make that deduction the rest is just guess work, for every hypotheses you make you will need to cross reference with something else about that person.
- Bright shoe (not just new but with the obnoxious laces screaming look at me), new (no dirt or wear), we can perhaps conclude that this person is conscience about his or her fashion statement, and not concerned with the actual function of the shoe
- Casual black work shoe (that not quite dress shoe and not quite water slipper), using his clothes (ex dress shirt, black pressed pants) we can conclude that this person needs to look proper but is perhaps in a cubicle all day and also needs shoes for comfort.
- sandals, they are Jesus
- Old shoes new laces, really likes the shoes (depending on how much wear is on the bloody things (he may just be cheep (I think I’m using too many of these things)))
You can also (by also I mean not all the time) tell the general income of that person
- If they always have new nikes or asics they may have some money (or just concerned about there health (by concerned I mean they understand the importance of these kinds of things (sun glasses, good shoes (damn I’m doing it again))))
You can also tell some of the persons habits
- A broken counter can tell that he slips his shoes on and does not untie them
- A double knot can tell that he slips them on
- wear on the front of the shoe can tell about there a person’s gait (wear on the front and on the inside) if a person drags there shoes they could have pes planus
I could go on with this but truth be told I don’t know how much I can write on this thing. Using you inner narrating look at someone’s shoes, tell yourself what you see and cross compare your hypothesis with perhaps what they are cloths are or what type of glasses they have (I will cover that on perhaps the next post).
RW
You See But Don’t Observe.
The only way to master the science of deduction is to be able to observe, not just see. But how do we go about observing and not just seeing. A simple way of mastering this is simple: walk into a room and narrate to yourself everything you see, leave that room and try to write down everything you recall. Once this is done go back into the same room and see all of the items you have missed. This is purely to show you all of the small details that you have missed (not that you need to rememberer every little thing) , because wile making a deduction it is the small details that show you the most. This exercise can be done everyday all day, you could do it on some down time or when you are bored. Just list off everything you see.
The former exercise will help you see and recall small details that may be missed, however if your memory is not adequate it may be pointless. Strengthening your short term memory is rather a basic thing, one exercise you could try is a ‘Mind Room’ technique, visualizing a room or a building to store all of your information you may want to remember (it works quite well with lists). For example if you want to start with something simple like a grocery list here is what you do: first pick a room or a building that you are familiar with, then for every item on your list picture where it would be in that situation, (apples may be in a bowl, milk will be in the fridge, soup will be in a pantry) you must, however, visualize the precise location of that item and you must be able to see it there. After you have gone through the list once or twice terry some time and see if you can get all the items on the list, it does not take that long to master. Getting a good understanding on both of these techniques you will be able to make stronger deductions, and more reliable.
RW
The only way to master the science of deduction is to be able to observe, not just see. But how do we go about observing and not just seeing. A simple way of mastering this is simple: walk into a room and narrate to yourself everything you see, leave that room and try to write down everything you recall. Once this is done go back into the same room and see all of the items you have missed. This is purely to show you all of the small details that you have missed (not that you need to rememberer every little thing) , because wile making a deduction it is the small details that show you the most. This exercise can be done everyday all day, you could do it on some down time or when you are bored. Just list off everything you see.
The former exercise will help you see and recall small details that may be missed, however if your memory is not adequate it may be pointless. Strengthening your short term memory is rather a basic thing, one exercise you could try is a ‘Mind Room’ technique, visualizing a room or a building to store all of your information you may want to remember (it works quite well with lists). For example if you want to start with something simple like a grocery list here is what you do: first pick a room or a building that you are familiar with, then for every item on your list picture where it would be in that situation, (apples may be in a bowl, milk will be in the fridge, soup will be in a pantry) you must, however, visualize the precise location of that item and you must be able to see it there. After you have gone through the list once or twice terry some time and see if you can get all the items on the list, it does not take that long to master. Getting a good understanding on both of these techniques you will be able to make stronger deductions, and more reliable.
RW
False Dichotomy
The idea of false dichotomy is one of the most stupidest mindsets a person can be in, however that is beside the point I feel that in order for you to make a right proper deduction you need to remain ambiguous. lets say you love the environment, and you live the proper environmentalist life (you eat sprouts that you grew, have a compost thing, and you love animals and have a dog or three) but oh no you have just viewed a man in a big shiny ‘my name is Tony’ SUV. “Using my powers of deduction” you begin “I can tell that that man hates the environment because he is spewing toxins from his big bad SUV into my air”. If only you remained on the fence on this matter, in reality your dog has a bigger carbon footprint than a SUV, looks who loves the environment now.
I am not saying that if you want to master the science of deduction than you must live the rest of your life with out any opinion or ideals, nay opinions are one of the greatest things on earth I am just suggesting that in order for you to make an apt deduction you must not put your personal feelings into it. What you really should have done in that constance is think, ‘new SUV, (+ $20,000) rich? or large family?, look at his clothing (new or old), any rings (just a graduation one or is there more?), what type of shoes is Slick Back Lamar wearing (little ware, lots, new old). once you have all this information you can make a more accurate deduction (like he is a gentleman who wears flamboyant cloths and lives up town…wink wink)
RW
The idea of false dichotomy is one of the most stupidest mindsets a person can be in, however that is beside the point I feel that in order for you to make a right proper deduction you need to remain ambiguous. lets say you love the environment, and you live the proper environmentalist life (you eat sprouts that you grew, have a compost thing, and you love animals and have a dog or three) but oh no you have just viewed a man in a big shiny ‘my name is Tony’ SUV. “Using my powers of deduction” you begin “I can tell that that man hates the environment because he is spewing toxins from his big bad SUV into my air”. If only you remained on the fence on this matter, in reality your dog has a bigger carbon footprint than a SUV, looks who loves the environment now.
I am not saying that if you want to master the science of deduction than you must live the rest of your life with out any opinion or ideals, nay opinions are one of the greatest things on earth I am just suggesting that in order for you to make an apt deduction you must not put your personal feelings into it. What you really should have done in that constance is think, ‘new SUV, (+ $20,000) rich? or large family?, look at his clothing (new or old), any rings (just a graduation one or is there more?), what type of shoes is Slick Back Lamar wearing (little ware, lots, new old). once you have all this information you can make a more accurate deduction (like he is a gentleman who wears flamboyant cloths and lives up town…wink wink)
RW
Beginning a Simple Deduction
If you are reading this perhaps it is because you have read some of the exploits of Sherlock Holmes, or just watched an episode of Sherlock and thought to your self ‘ well that seems easy enough but how to start’. The first thing that must be understood is that most of the deductions made in the Sherlock Holmes universe are only made because they are scripted. that is not to say that to make such insinuations is not possible but rather that it was created by somebody stewing over a manuscript for many days or weeks. Meanwhile you only have a window of a few seconds before you receive an exasperated glance from a third party for staring at them for too long. Furthermore when you make a deduction you must tailor your observations to that person, wile key areas on the body may give you clues about the person (hair, hands, shoes et cetera) your customised observations will reveal infinitely more. I think the best part about deductions is that your ‘victim’ does not even need to be in the room, a persons work area, there utensils and even their writing can be a window into that persons lives. A persons body language is also a handy tool at our disposal, not only the kinds of things such as: covering mouth= shocked, but rather eyebrows raised=wants to talk. With the mastering of all tools at our disposal comes a more frequent (and more importantly) more accurate deductions. observing small details, a understanding of graphology, a broad knowledge of everything (but only the things that are important) and a grasp on body language will aid you in your quest
The main reason I am creating this blogg is due to my growing aggravation towards the other ‘crash course on deduction’ bloggs and how-to websites. They consist of one of the two: “This is how you learn how to master the art of deduction, first you need to look at small things or something, next you need to know everything, a study of body language will ‘probs’ help, knowing how to do handwriting analysis might do something. After you do all that stuff you like guess about stuff and you will get it right magically”(now granted I did just say the same thing in the former paragraph but with a lot more elocution, but never fear i shall be expanding on my topics in others posts). Then there is the blogg that says: [must be read in the most omnipotent voice you can muster] “I am amazing, and can look at a piece of paper with a different language on it, then look at another one with one word missing and I can tell you what word…….Oh yea and deductions.[you may now resume regular reading voice] Now there are many good bloggs out there, but you sometimes need to sift through all the gay fan fiction in order to get the real meat and potatoes of the idea. so I created this blogg as a simple guide to the art of deduction. (if you have any questions or comments I would like to hear them, if you have any concerns or negative feedback you can scream them into your pillow)
RW
credit to http://randallwhiteside.wordpress.com/
If you are reading this perhaps it is because you have read some of the exploits of Sherlock Holmes, or just watched an episode of Sherlock and thought to your self ‘ well that seems easy enough but how to start’. The first thing that must be understood is that most of the deductions made in the Sherlock Holmes universe are only made because they are scripted. that is not to say that to make such insinuations is not possible but rather that it was created by somebody stewing over a manuscript for many days or weeks. Meanwhile you only have a window of a few seconds before you receive an exasperated glance from a third party for staring at them for too long. Furthermore when you make a deduction you must tailor your observations to that person, wile key areas on the body may give you clues about the person (hair, hands, shoes et cetera) your customised observations will reveal infinitely more. I think the best part about deductions is that your ‘victim’ does not even need to be in the room, a persons work area, there utensils and even their writing can be a window into that persons lives. A persons body language is also a handy tool at our disposal, not only the kinds of things such as: covering mouth= shocked, but rather eyebrows raised=wants to talk. With the mastering of all tools at our disposal comes a more frequent (and more importantly) more accurate deductions. observing small details, a understanding of graphology, a broad knowledge of everything (but only the things that are important) and a grasp on body language will aid you in your quest
The main reason I am creating this blogg is due to my growing aggravation towards the other ‘crash course on deduction’ bloggs and how-to websites. They consist of one of the two: “This is how you learn how to master the art of deduction, first you need to look at small things or something, next you need to know everything, a study of body language will ‘probs’ help, knowing how to do handwriting analysis might do something. After you do all that stuff you like guess about stuff and you will get it right magically”(now granted I did just say the same thing in the former paragraph but with a lot more elocution, but never fear i shall be expanding on my topics in others posts). Then there is the blogg that says: [must be read in the most omnipotent voice you can muster] “I am amazing, and can look at a piece of paper with a different language on it, then look at another one with one word missing and I can tell you what word…….Oh yea and deductions.[you may now resume regular reading voice] Now there are many good bloggs out there, but you sometimes need to sift through all the gay fan fiction in order to get the real meat and potatoes of the idea. so I created this blogg as a simple guide to the art of deduction. (if you have any questions or comments I would like to hear them, if you have any concerns or negative feedback you can scream them into your pillow)
RW
credit to http://randallwhiteside.wordpress.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment