Your final deduction is that this Elderly gentleman is a long-time friend of your fathers, who is an adamant fisherman, with a good nature, but also a bit absent minded. In addition the long hours he has likely put into fishing are indicative of a man who can detach his mind from the cares of the world around him, and get in the zone. You take a look at his cloths you are meeting at a nice restaurant, and though he is dressed the part, wearing a suit and bow-tie, you notice the shoulder of his suit jacket has a piece of thread sticking out unchecked, and unnoticed by the man, you also notice his bow-tie is crooked and not tied correctly one side of the bow-tie being slightly larger than the other side, you can conclude that he is not the analytical type. You want to be sure that your deduction is correct, and that he truly is a bit of an absent minded man. You can conclude based on this additional observation that he is not ill tempered or impatient, but rather kind hearted, and likely absent minded based on the number of scars on his hand.
#LEARN THE ART OF DEDUCTION FULL#
He is an elderly gentleman, in his late 60s you look at the wrinkles on his face, you see that he has downward curved lines stemming from his eyelid, and upward curving lines stemming from the edges of his mouth, these are examples of laugh lines, and they are well defined on the features of this gentleman, this indicates that he has had a life full of laughter and happiness this doesn’t necessarily mean he is rich, but it indicates a man who has the gift of seeing the sunny side of things.
To make a sound deduction, you must rule out the foolish answers, but to do that you need more evidence you look up at his face. However it could just as likely be absent mindedness, and or frequent fishing. You pose the answer that he could be ill tempered, and be a bit impatient, which would lead you to believe that fishing was his profession and he had been through an economic crisis. You want to deduce further, you have already made your observations (the callused hands and the fish hook scars) now you want find out why he has so many scars from fish hooks on his hands. One more example let us continue with the scenario above. You know that your father used to take you fishing when you were a child, thus you can logically conclude that this man is a friend of your fathers who had a common interest in fishing. Obviously distinctive scars like that are a result of getting cut by a fishhook, thus you make the deduction that he is a fisherman. You then use process of elimination by again asking “why” and ruling out foolish answers, you now mentally match up what you see with what you know, by trying to figure out what could make such scars repeatedly in those particular places.
As you finish shaking his hand you notice distinct scars on his knuckles and fingers. You then ask yourself why are his hands so callused? You then began to make inferences and conjectures, perhaps he was a blue collared worker of some kind, or perhaps he had a hobby that callused his hands, such as rock climbing. As you shake hands with him you notice that his grip is firm and his hands are callused you have made your observation, now you want to decipher something about him based on that observation. Let’s say that you are being introduced to an old friend of your parents.
Now you must exclude all answers to your question that don’t fit the “-foolish answers,” part after the parenthesis can be substituted with several “if, then” statements (I have already explained “if, then” statements, if you need reference, read Entry 1 “the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning”). The first part, the part in the parenthesis, when you look around and make an observation you couple that with the simple age old question “why/ how” “why does that man have a grease stain on his shirt?” “How did it get on the bottom of his shirt specifically?” After asking these questions begin to give answers to these questions, this is the inductive reasoning part. I have boiled the art of making deductions into a simple, equation. In the future I will label any posts that deal with the specifics of making deductions as “Things to look for” before the title of the posts. Until now all I have done is given you vague pointers, to help prepare your mind to be able to make these deductions. Finally I begin to get to the nitty-gritty of what you all want to learn, “how in the world do I interpret the data I’m observing to make deductions?” Thus far I have harped consistently on observations, and only briefly touched on interpreting that data you collect.
0 kommentar(er)
