Motivation

Dear reader,

some of you may be able to do what others admire: being awake before the alarm goes off or maybe being awake at a certain time without an alarm clock all together.

All of that has to do with one thing especially: motivation. In the pilot episode of "Elementary" Watson sets the alarm for her to alarm clocks. One right beside her bed, the other one she has by the door plugged to an electrical socket. As she's in the hall way, she realises that honey is dripping through the ceiling. So she goes up to the roof and finds Holmes busy with his bees. He asks her why she hates her job so much. She denies that, but Holmes tells her that, "No one with two alarm clocks loves their job. Two alarm clocks mean it's a chore for you to get up in the morning." He also realised that even after such a short time of knowing Watson, she obviously likes his work.

Unnoticed by Watson Holmes unpluggs the clock at the door and takes the battery out of the other one. Watson is shocked when she wakes up in the morning and notices that she has been sleeping until 10 a. m. Holmes meanwhile is wide awake checking files at the police station.

In episode 10 (The Leviathan) we get to know the Watson family a bit more. At first Holmes says he's busy, but in the end he's even earlier than Watson at the restaurant and does Watson a favour explaining to her family and especially her mother just what it is she's doing and how important her work is. At last the family understands and respects her work.

This goes so far that at the end of this episode Watson's mother comes to Holmes' house to talk to Watson. The mother finds unique words for her daughter. Because although, thanks to Holmes' explanations, she now understands what Watson does, she still doesn't like it and yet:

"I know you think that I don't like your new career. To put it mildly. You're right, I don't like it. But not for the reasons that you think. I'm not happy that you're a sober companion, because it never seems to make you happy." Watson asks her, how she knows what makes her happy. To which the mother replies, "I know because you're my daughter. After you left medicine, after what happened with Liam, I've always thought that this job was something that you picked out of... I don't know, out of a sense of duty. When you came to dinner the other night, when the two of you talked about Sherlock's work, I saw something in you. There was a spark. A sense of excitement. I haven't seen that in you in a long time. You like what he does."

"Yes, okay, I enjoy it", Watson says. "But I'm not a detective, Mom. And I'm almost done working with Sherlock, and then it's on to another client." There and then her mother asks her an important question, "Will the next client make you happy? People find their paths in the strangest of ways."

At this moment Holmes interrupts the two to turn on the tv and show them a certain news report. And you can see the consequences Watson takes from working with Holmes yourself in the following episodes. No idea, how much the talk with her mother plays a role in that. (In the end it's just tv script anyway... ;-)) What the mother has to say however, I think, is important - today more than ever: finding something that gives us a spark, excites us. Then work will not so much be work anymore, but fun and easier to do than work, we do, because we have the feeling of having no other choice but this work. In moments like this we're less dependent on alarm clocks, too. When we have fun and joy and expectantly dream on to another day.

What activities or work ignite the spark within you?

Until next blog,

sarah

My Barnum Effect Test

Dear reader,

well, it's not mine. The experiment is old, of course. The magicians Penn & Teller did their version in their series "Bullshit" (season 7, episode 2: Astrology). Derren Brown shows this experiment as part of an episode of his series "Trick of The Mind" (season 3, episode 1). Which are only two that come to my mind right away, which I've seen myself. Others have done that experiment, too and towards the end of my studies at uni, I did as well.

I talked to the professor of a psychology class. The class was, at least in theory, about doing things and not just teaching and theory. The right course for my experiment, I thought. So I asked the professor if it was okay if I did a little experiment I had thought of doing for a while already. She agreed, so the week before easter holidays, I came in with yellow index cards I told others that over the course of the semester holidays, I had worked on creating a personality test program and would like to test its accuracy with them. I told them to write down: on the left top corner the day of birth, should they know it, also the time. But it wasn't necessary for me to have the time. On the right top corner they were to write a code of any combination of numbers and letters. Just so they knew theirs. In the middle they should write one short sentence that described them. (I should give Penn & Teller credit for that one. In their Bullsh!t episode on astrology, they let a psychology professor do exactly that. Since I couldn't come up with anything else as a basis for information.)

Then the easter holidays came and then the first day after the holidays came and the seminar was later that afternoon. So plenty of times for fellow students to approach me and ask about the test. Well, two came up to me right after the first seminar that day. One saying that she changed courses, but should I have the results, she'd like to know hers. I gave her her index card. The "result" I had stuck on the back of it with a paper-clip. I told her the truth right away that the twist to this wasn't so much the text, nor the test, but how they reacted. Another girl approached me saying she had an appointment at the doctor's. She'd try to change it, but couldn't. I desperately hoped the wouldn't tell the others about my text!

Anyway, I came into the room where the seminar would be held. One girl came to me and asked me about three times, "Are you going to tell us now?" She was really eager.

A short break time during the seminar was my time. I said, "Last time I asked you to fill out index cards for me for a personality test. I've got the results now. Please, pick your card and read it quietly for yourself. Don't share it with others. I want to ask you for quick judgment about how well it fits you." They went and read their card. I asked, "On a scale from 1 to 5, 1 meaning doesn't fit and 5 means it fits, how many think it sucked? 1?" No one. "How many say: a bit? 2?" Still no one. "How many say: so and so? Kind of half half? 3?" Two or three raised their hands. "How many say 4?" I didn't count, a good deal of people. "5?" The rest of them. One half joked, "Mine's like 4.5." That got a laugh. I said, "Of those, who say it's 5, would any of you care to read like the first two or three sentences for us? Just to show how a well done one would have looked like?" One started reading hers. The others started smiling and looking at each other. The reader asked me, if she should go on. I thanked her and said, it was enough and that the reason why the others smiled was, because they had the same text.

"You all have the same text", I said. "And here's another truth: that program I told you about doesn't exist." I could feel the relief that spread in the room. "I didn't even write the text. The text is from the wikipedia entry to 'Barnum effect', which is what happened here: if you have a bunch of information, you pick the things you think fit and make them fit to yourself. Barnum was a circus director, who had that motto of: a little bit for everyone." I went a bit on and then told them about, also that fortune tellers and the like use this technique.

I told them that my mom had told me about an aunt, who had went to a fortune-teller. She told that aunt that she was about to die in a car within the next 1 to 3 months. I said, "She lived longer than 3 months. But can you imagine - and we're right into the topic of this seminar here - the mental stress she would be in, every time she had to go into a car? This could be the one, she'd die in." I said, "So maybe you say: well, that's fortune-telling. I don't believe in that anyway. But you did believe me."

I was about to leave it at that, but one girl raised her hand and asked me something I don't remember anymore. It got us into a quite relaxed, but interested and interesting discussion (probably for 10 to 15 minutes, in any case longer than the teacher intended for that break) about fortune tellers, cold reading and the like. I felt good. It's one thing watching videos of Derren Brown or others doing it or reading about it. It's another to be able to feel that they believe you and knowing you cheated on them. I knew they wouldn't like strangle me or something. But I was quite nervous as to how they would react. I was very pleased how they reacted. Even surprised to find that they actually had questions and were really interested in knowing and discussing more!

Until next blog,

sarah

What a hoot

Dear reader,

after holding forth about Sherlock Holmes, let's go back to Milton Erickson and hypnosis. Erickson liked owls and carved some of them out of wood himself. For some reason there's this cliche that that hypnotist have a pocket watch and use it to wave it in front of their subject's eyes. Well, on the internet I found both: a pocket watch in the shape of an owl. The special thing about this watch is that the wings hide the watch. You have to push the ears together. This way the wings move to the sides and reveal the watch. If you want one yourself, eBay and amazon have them for a cheap price and different colours. Just such for "owl pocket watch".

Several years ago, I found a video with Harlan Kilstein, in which he told an Erickson owl story. In his later years, Erickson was physically very sick. But he had a reputation of being a sharp observer and he still gave lessons in a small room on the grounds where he lived. Once a group of students wanted to test Erickson's ability to observe. In the room where he used to teach, there were many small figures. The plan was to take one of them, lay it down on its side and see, if Erickson noticed and how he'd react. They decided on an owl figure and then waited for Erickson's wife to bring him in in his wheelchair. The figure was positioned in a way that Erickson wouldn't be able to see it from where he was teaching. Erickson came into the room. No reaction. He gave his usual lessons and then let his wife take him back. As she was at the door, he cried, "Stop!" Everybody froze. Erickson said, "That thing that you were wondering, whether I'd notice... well, I don't give a hoot about it." The last part of course is an ambiguity of "I don't care" and a "hoot" being the shout of an owl. Erickson knew very well not only what they had done, but also why, that it has been a test and what kind of test and his comment on it is short, but right to the point and beautiful ambiguity.

Until next blog,

sarah

Abductive, Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

Dear reader,

I can't help myself but making this blog entry today a scientific one.

Before I start I want you to know three things

1) I wasn't very scientific in my last post. I forgot to mention the names of the series I mentioned. The BBC production is called "Sherlock". The american series goes under the title of "Elementary".

2) It may surprise some of you that although Holmes was so analytical and scientific, his creator was quite unscientific and gullible. Doyle believed very much in the existence of fairies. It's also difficult to believe that Harry Houdini and Arthur Conan Doyle have been friends for a while. Because their point of view on spiritism was so contrary however, that friendship didn't last long.

3) The producers of "Sherlock" really took great care in creating that show. Sherlock has his own homepage The Science of Deduction. You can also read Dr. John Watson's Blog, which includes comments by Holmes and others!!! Other characters of the series also have their websites: Molly Hooper's blog and the forum of Connie Prince. The last two however may only be of interest to people, who know the series and the persons.

In a way even Sherlock Holmes' homepage is only for people who know the series or fans. Also the title of the page is sort of wrong. Sherlock Holmes is not using deduction in his investigations. This is a mistake not only from the series, but also wrong in Doyle's books. On imdb.com you can find a note on that mistake.

To be honest, each reasoning: abductive, deductive and inductive - are tricky and separating each of them from the others is not quite easy. The differences are very small.

The differences between inductive and deductive reasoning are relatively simple to explain.

In deductive reasoning you set up a general rule. From that rule you set up another rule, of which you can be certain, too. If or rather because both are true, the conclusion will be certain at the end. This kind of reasoning can be found in mathematics, for example in equations with variables:

if x = 2

and if y = 3,

then 2 x + y = 7

Maths is often very much just theory. So let's put it another way:

If chaos is increased in a system, unless you feed it with energy,

and if my flat is a system,

then I should feed my flat with energy and keep it tidy and clean, unless I want to drown in a chaotic mess.

With inductive reasoning you take one single thing and take it to be true. From that you make a general rule that applies to other similar things. A conclusion is likely, but not certain. There is this thought experiment about a white swan. If we see many white swans, we can conclude that there exist white swans. It would be wrong however to conclude that all swans are white, or that there only exist white swans. In science, which is about gathering information, you can find this way of thinking.

Abductive reasoning is about observing something and looking for a possible explanation that would make the observed probable as an outcome. The theorist Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of abductive reasoning, explained it this way:

"The surprising fact, C, is observed. But if A were true, C would be a matter of course. Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true."

Finding a conclusion is taking your best shot and not very satisfying. The conclusion you come up with may or may not be true. In medicine you find this way of thinking. The patient tells about his symptoms and the doctor has to think of an illness that would lead to those symptoms, to treat the patient accordingly. Also in court you'll find abductive reasoning: does the prosecution or the defense the better arguments that fit and explain the given situation?

So indeed Holmes doesn't use deduction, but abduction. He cannot be certain to see all the facts of a crime scene that lead to the crime. So Holmes' conclusion are likely to be incomplete and with that nothing more than taking your best shot.

Arthur Conan Doyle used Dr. Joseph Bell as a model for Holmes, as I mentioned already in my last post. Another doctor was very good in observing and making conclusions: Dr. Milton Erickson. Sidney Rosen describes a story in his book "My Voice Will Go with You: The Teaching Tales of Milton H. Erickson", which is a good example to show how good Erickson was in observing and making conclusions. The story is called "The Right Psychiatrist":

A young, beautiful woman came to Erickson. She was very desperate. She wasn't pleased with either of the psychiatrist she had seen so far. So she was uncertain about Erickson and whether he was able to help her. He wrote down some things about the young woman and then said to her that he was the right psychiatrist. He could prove it by asking a question. But the woman won't like that question. The woman wanted to hear the question anyway. So Erickson asked her, "How long have you been wearing women's cloths?" Erickson had seen the woman pick a lint off her sleeve in a straight, direct move, without a "detour" around the breasts, like a woman would.

There's also a video with Tim Minchin, where he talks about the human logic, which addresses another aspect of logic.

Until next blog,

sarah