The sheer number of publications and their breadth make it impossible to keep up and to know a little bit about everything. We are forced to be selective or to read scantly.
Sherlock Holmes a creation of Conan Doyle is an uptight, conceited and humourless sleuth who had inhibited in crime-ridden streets of London in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The film industry made him even lovable.
In the story of “the adventure of the noble bachelor” he says:
‘I read nothing except the criminal news and the agony column’
He was exaggerating since he clearly had a significant breadth of reading and was able to pluck out just the right fact at the most needed moment.
The above quote about reading only the gossip columns is an indication of his ability to focus on the material most useful to his job. There is no indication in any of Sherlock Holmes stories that he has restricted his reading. Conan Doyle doesn’t say how Holmes managed to gain so much knowledge and recall them at the right moment.
The question is: how can we can emulate Sherlock Holmes?
Dear Colleagues,
In this digital age there is obviously no problem with the quantity of information available. There is however a new factor that comes into play in our selection of the material to read. In these times of fake news, how much of the information can we actually trust? I am not sure that this was an element of the problem that even Holmes would have found to be elementary!
Best Regards
Radoica Luburic
I think it is more logical to pose the question: How to emulate Conan Doyle?
On the pro side, he wrote a landmark paper of the regional distribution of talent and intelligence; did medical work in the Boer War; scored a century at Lords and even had one first class bowling wicket (that of W G Grace!).
On the other hand, he believed in fairies and spiritualism (arguing against Houdini).
It is not easy to reconcile all this.
Dear Anthony,
Thank you for your answer which has many notable points. Here is my thoughts on your answer. I welcome your reaction to it.
Of course, Holmes is the figment of Canon Doyle’s imagination. He has given him qualities which can be achieved with many years of practice.
One of Holmes is being aware of what is going around him. In the story of A Scandal in Bohemia, He says
‘You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear’
This is Doyle said this before the birth of situational concept awareness which is attributed to the pilots in the Second World War. This is Doyle’s genius.
Holmes could scan a scene and tell you in minute details that most of us would miss. In another story Boscombe valley Mystery he said it as much
‘You know my method. It is founded upon the observation of trifles’
Some people are more observant than others but I believe it is an ability that can be developed by hard work.
There is a lesson here. Nurture the habit of being observant and remember details. Absorb into your brain data provided by your eyes. As Holmes said in The Hounds of Baskerville
‘World is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes’
Curiously, Sanders does not consider the simplest explanation for Holmes' autism, that Doyle himself was autistic. This would explain CD's attention to detail and rigid adherence to odd views.
"Hidden Clues
Diagnosis
By LISA SANDERS, M.D. DEC. 4, 2009...
See how this article appeared when it was originally published on NYTimes.com
... I couldn’t help looking at Sherlock Holmes with the eyes of a doctor. What I saw was what any doctor would see: a patient. The question for me was, Could the strange behavior of Sherlock Holmes be diagnosed?...
He does have symptoms. He appears oblivious to the rhythms and courtesies of normal social intercourse — he doesn’t converse so much as lecture. His interests and knowledge are deep but narrow. He is strangely “coldblooded,” and perhaps as a consequence, he is also alone in the world. He has no friends other than the extremely tolerant Watson; a brother, even stranger and more isolated than he, is his only family. Was Arthur Conan Doyle presenting some sort of genetically transmitted personality disorder or mental illness he’d observed, or was Sherlock Holmes merely an interesting character created from scratch?...
Others, Klinger adds, have suggested that Sherlock Holmes may have had a mild form of autism, commonly known as Asperger’s syndrome. This disorder was reported in the medical literature in 1944 by an Austrian pediatrician, Hans Asperger. He described four bright and articulate boys who had severe problems with social interaction and tended to focus intensely on particular objects or topics. The paper languished in obscurity for more than 40 years, but by 1994 Asperger’s was part of the official psychiatric lexicon. The diagnosis may be folded back into autism in the coming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but there is no doubt that Asperger’s description of these socially awkward, intensely focused young men resonated with parents who recognized their own children in it.
Could Conan Doyle have described this syndrome some 70 years before Asperger? According to Ami Klin, director of the autism program at the Yale Child Study Center, part of the medical school, the fundamental quality that defines all forms of autism is “mind-blindness”: difficulty in understanding what others feel or think and thus in forming relationships. Unaware of how others see them, those with Asperger’s often behave oddly. In addition, they tend to develop extensive knowledge of narrowly focused subjects.
In Conan Doyle’s portrayal, Sherlock Holmes at times exhibits all of these qualities. His interactions with others are often direct to the point of rudeness. And even when Holmes is speaking to Watson, his closest friend, his compliments are often closer to a rebuke. In “The Hound of the Baskervilles,” when Watson, pleased with his own detective abilities, reports to Holmes the results of his investigation, Holmes tells him that he isn’t a source of light but a conductor of light, a mere aid in solving mysteries only Holmes himself can untangle.
As for his interests, Holmes brags frequently of his detailed knowledge of all kinds of strange phenomena. He is said to have written a monograph on the differences among 140 cigar, pipe and cigarette ashes. He demonstrates what Asperger called “autistic intelligence” — an ability to see the world from a very different perspective than most people, often by focusing on details overlooked by others. Indeed Sherlock Holmes boasts that he is able to see the significance of trifles and calls this his “method.”
So where did this picture come from? Biographers have identified a number of individuals Conan Doyle may have drawn on for the character of Sherlock Holmes, but none with all these traits. Was it a patient? A family friend? A schoolmate who didn’t make it into the biographies? We may never know, but clearly Holmes’s peculiarities have a persistent appeal. Just look at Temperance Brennan of “Bones,” Adrian Monk of “Monk,” and, of course, Gregory House of “House,” who exhibit at least a few Asperger-like symptoms and owe much to Sherlock Holmes."
Very precise selective observations, specific frame of knowledge occasionally but generally broader knowledge from different discipline with intuition and logical apprehension plays a crucial role in thinking like sherlock homes.
Dear Colleagues,
In this digital age there is obviously no problem with the quantity of information available. There is however a new factor that comes into play in our selection of the material to read. In these times of fake news, how much of the information can we actually trust? I am not sure that this was an element of the problem that even Holmes would have found to be elementary!
Best Regards
Radoica Luburic
Dear Syed Zafar,
Than you for your contribution. It is right that knowing a little of everything is better than knowing one thing in depth. Knowing more certainly makes us better in what we do, but may not turn us into Sherlock Holmes.
Dear Sirous Yasseri,
In this digital age there is obviously no problem with the quantity of information available. There is however a new factor that comes into play in our selection of the material to read. In these times of fake news, how much of the information can we actually trust? I am not sure that this was an element of the problem that even Holmes would have found to be elementary!
Best Regards
Radoica Luburic
Dear Dmytro,
Thank you for your answer. It is very useful for me.
Canon Doyle gave Sherlock Holmes all those quality you have listed above and many more. His ability to speed read, for example, made him a highly informed person who had every knowledge he needed at his finger tip. Amazingly he could recall all of them.
Dear Sirous Yasseri, this is a fascinating question that I have been grappling with for the past two years - not with specific reference to Sherlock Holmes though (albeit great example), but more along the lines of navigating the proliferation of scholarly work and information 'out there'. As an ‘investigator’ with a police / organised crime background myself, I try to find the almost elusive balance between being a ‘specialist’ and a well-informed ‘generalist’. I try to make meticulous and contemporaneous dated notes of important conversations and observations in my field. Together with literature and my own research, this has proven to be a helpful method when providing testimony / opinion evidence in criminal cases I am called upon to assist with. I must admit though, that uttering the words ‘I don’t know’ does become a bit easier in a world where there is just sooooo much information. Also, I agree with Radoica Luburic that the element of fake news presents another layer of complexity and, something not spoken about enough, the lack of explication by social scientists of their own embedded biases, ideologies and prejudices that has a tendency to distort ‘evidence’. Sherlock Holmes was brilliant, but I am sure he would be the first to sign up for advanced detective training in the VUCA environment we are findings ourselves in. Great comments Syed Zafar Sultan Rizvi Dmytro Leshchenko Anthony G Gordon Best wishes from South Africa!
Thank you sir Sirous Yasseri for you question, it a worth pondering area
In continuation to what Dmytro Leshchenko said
We need to be selective & objective orientation + have to develop an ability to "Connect the Dots" coupled with high degree of knowledge of psychology & fine observation skill to catch tiny things.
Dear Ajay,
Thank you for your contribution. I am try to find the right skill to be selective and wade through the ocean of irrelevant information. What this question.
Dear Marcel,
This is just to thank you for your answer. I need time to ponder on what you have said. It is also encouraging that you have read answers by others. I suggest also read Dr Gordon's reaction to my question. I hope I will be at least one step forward after the dust has settled.
I will comment on your answer at a later date.
Everyone is a suspect until proven the opposite... i am a forensic analyst from 2008 till present and this rule is a golden one...
Dear Paula,
Interesting answer. I always thought the hypothesis is the other way round i.e. everybody is innocent until proven guilty. The British system is based on this principle.
But, you are talking about 'suspect' which a different rule applies. In a dictatorship everybody is a suspect even if she/he proven innocent beyond shadow of a doubt.
I have to go back and read Sherlock Holmes's book again to see if he shared your view.
Thanks and Kind regards
Sirous
Dear Sirous, thanks for your reply... and let me say that huge difference do exist between Hypothesis and Application... especially in the crimes investigation field...
"I always thought the hypothesis is the other way round i.e. everybody is innocent until proven guilty. The British system is based on this principle."
True, but in practice in the UK at the moment the media does not abide by this principle.
Dear Anthony,
Thank you for the pearl of wisdom.
Your observation and the statement made by Radoica Luburic regarding the quantity of information (true or fake) complicate the issue. Holmes was operating in an era when professional ethic carried some weight. We need to factor in "what you see is not what you think".
"As an ‘investigator’ with a police / organised crime background myself"
I assume the background is in investigating organised crime! However, I have been impressed by the efficiency of organised crime in the UK in running prostitution, immigrant smuggling, drug dealing, etc. In contrast, the reaction of the authorities is confused, incoherent and handicapped by political correctness. I am interested in criminology, but find I learn far more from discovering the views of the criminals than of the professionals.
Dear Dr Luburic
belated reaction to your post. I hope you would react to my post.
Holmes in ‘Silver Blaze’ story says
“It is of the highest importance in the art of detection to be able to recognize out of number of faces which is incidental and which is vital”
Holmes was subject to misinformation and had to kiss many frogs to find his handsome ‘princess’ - I am surmising.
According to the above quote Holmes used myriad of sources to glean information. Once the data was gathered then he had to decide which is true and which fake( is 'true lies' a good term). In other word which is useful and which would lead him down the wrong path. According to Cannon Doyle Holmes was a master of separating the wheat from the chaff, and retaining knowledge which would aide his work.
There is a lesson for us. In modern time we are drowning in a sea of useless and fake data. Fifty years ago we were buried under a mountain of papers, now we have computers to sift through data. I am hopeful one day computer software- i.e. AI, would be able to sift through data and churn out the useful which can be used to come up with a sensible decision.
Sherlock Holmes in modern Hollywood movies has every modern gadget, but still relies on his own intellect for his defective work.
A confession: Since my obsession how to think like Sherlock Holmes I read his stories and watch films about him differently. The story doesn't attract me anymore, but it unfolds and the great detective unleashes his intellect.
Hi Dr Gordon,
I am not considering the context of crime fighting, but how to use everything we have intelligently and be smart. Crime solving is, of course, the most complex puzzle to handle.
My reaction to your statement is this: Criminal are working for themselves while police and others are salaried people. Police performance needs on average good to be acceptable and there is so many crime perpetrated by stupid criminal which are easy to solve, which brings up the police force average. Thus, the clever criminals would get away, since it is costly to catch them.
A greedy and ruthless criminal without conscious and willing to take the risk, then it is very difficult to stop him/her. The element of chance helps the police to catch the careless or stupid criminals. This is the limit of performance of salaried personnel.
But if we say whatever a police person discovers is his/hers to keep then we change the rule of the game altogether. If the reward for law enforcement people is on par with the reward for criminals then, you will see the game will be played differently.
The reward could also be praise, a worthless medal or promotion. Recognition is a powerful incentive.
Dear Sirous,
I completely agree with you. Unfortunately not everyone has the intellect of Sherlock Holmes. Although we can all learn from him.
Best Regards,
Radoica
Holmes has three major advantages which are
· Observation
· Memory
· Deduction
Holmes style of thinking requires accumulation of masses of data which one can be recalled quickly and correctly (only the relevant pieces of it). This requires a good memory and Holmes has no problem with memory.
In The adventure of the ‘Lion’s Mane’ Holmes says
“My mind is like a crowded box-room with packets of all sorts stowed away therein- so many that I may well have but a vague perception of what was there”.
Holmes remembers tiny trivial details of conversation from long time ago which he has read or heard somewhere. Cannon Doyle doesn’t say how Holmes retains all of these.
I don’t know how memory encodes all this information and then makes it available to use. Can we train our memory to work like Holmes? If yes does it worth the pain?
Holmes answer to question is yes. Holmes in ‘The Five Oranges Pips’ says
“A man should keep his little brain attic stocked with all the furniture that he is likely to use”
This is a tall order which requires dedication, or obsession, to store a lot of trivia and remember them.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications