Table of Contents:

i. Introduction/Synopsis

PART I: AN INTRODUCTION TO HOLMESIAN THINKING

1. The Two Modes of Thinking: The Watsonian Mode and the Holmesian Mode

2. The Holmesian Method as the Scientific Method in Action

PART II: THE HOLMESIAN METHOD

3. A Robust and Well-Organized Knowledge-Base: Commandeering Memory-Formation

4. Maximizing Perceptiveness: Focused, Mindful and Objective Observation

• a. Stay Focused

i. Cut out the Multitasking
ii. Be Selective: Goal-Directed Observation

• b. Be Objective: Cut Out the Shortcuts and the Bias

i. Stereotyping
ii. Environmental Biases

• c. Don’t Jump to Conclusions

5. A Lively (but Disciplined) Imagination

6. Incisive Deduction

PART III: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

7. Putting it All Together

8. Conclusion: When Holmesian Thinking Becomes Habitual

i. Introduction/Synopsis

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s character Sherlock Holmes is as popular today as when he was created back in the late 19^th century. This comes as no surprise, of course, since there is just something about Holmes’ peculiar qualities—his keen observation, clever imagination, and incisive reasoning capabilities—that is both awe-inspiring and inspirational. We admire Holmes for cutting through the errors of thought that are so common to us in our daily lives (and that are reflected in Holmes’ sidekick, Watson). And yet we recognize that there is nothing in Holmes’ thought that is entirely out of reach for us. Indeed, his qualities are not so much superhuman as human plus: human qualities taken to their extreme. Still, human qualities taken to their extreme are intimidating enough, and we may find ourselves doubting whether we could ever really think like Sherlock—even if we put our minds to it. But for cognitive psychologist Maria Konnikova, we should think again.

Holmes’ prowess, Konnikova argues, rests no so much in his mental powers as in his mental approach. Specifically, Holmes has succeeded in making his thought methodical and systematic—essentially bringing the scientific method and scientific thinking to his detective work. This is an approach to thinking which, Konnikova argues, we can all learn. More importantly, it is an approach to thinking that can extend well beyond sleuthing. Indeed, it is a general approach that can help us get at the truth in virtually any matter, as well as help us solve virtually any problem. It is simply a matter of bringing a little science to the art of thinking—and it is this very thing that Konnikova aims to help us achieve in her new book Mastermind: How to Think like Sherlock Holmes.

Konnikova breaks down Holmes’ method into 4 parts: 1. Background knowledge; 2. Observation; 3. Imagination; and 4. Deduction. To begin with, Holmes keeps an extensive and well-organized knowledge base to help him solve new cases. What’s more, he is vigilant in ensuring that he is ever assimilating new and important information that could help him in the future. Second, Holmes uses careful, mindful, and unbiased observation to glean what is important about the various characters and circumstances of each case. Next, Holmes uses the evidence that he has gathered—in conjunction with his far-reaching (though disciplined) imagination—to formulate multiple scenarios that could explain the mystery. Finally, Holmes uses his acute powers of reasoning to cut away the scenarios that just don’t hold up, until ultimately there is but one scenario left: the only one that is possible, however improbable.

While this approach seems straightforward enough, it is easier said than done. Indeed, our minds can and often do go wrong at any one of the steps. Konnikova construes it like this: our minds have two distinct modes of thought. The first of these modes operates quickly and automatically. It is our default mode, in that it is the one that we rely on as a matter of course. While it may be quick and effortless, it is also very error-prone. Our second mode of thought is slower and more deliberate. It has the potential to be far more accurate than our default mode, but it takes effort, and this is effort that we often aren’t willing to expend. Still, Konnikova contends that activating the second mode is worth the effort. What’s more, the more we employ this second mode of thought, the more habitual and the less effortful it becomes. (These modes of thought correspond to System 1 and System 2 in Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow, though Konnikova refers to them here as our Watsonian and Holmesian systems).

At each step of Holmes’ method, Konnikova points out the errors of thought that our Watsonian system is want to draw us into (as exemplified by a series of psychological experiments). In addition, she points out numerous tricks and pointers that can help us use our Holmesian system to best advantage in order to overcome these errors (exemplified by still other psychological experiments). In the end, it is really a matter of being ever mindful and careful in our thinking, and this is something that we could all certainly do more of.

Here is Maria Konnikova discussing Sherlock Holmes and her new book:

*To check out this book at Amazon.com, or purchase it, please click here: Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes

The following is a full executive summary of Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes by Maria Konnikova.

PART I: AN INTRODUCTION TO HOLMESIAN THINKING

1. The Two Modes of Thinking: The Watsonian Mode and the Holmesian Mode

In order to get where we want in life we need an accurate picture of the world before us, as well as the ability to solve the problems that we face. Now, our minds naturally work at these things as a matter of course. Indeed, the brain is constantly surveying the environment, and forming quick impressions and judgements of what it takes in; which impressions and judgments influence our understanding and decisions (loc. 298-302). However, our brains are not always so rigorous in how they operate. Indeed, the mode of thinking that we normally work under is full of shortcuts and biases that often run at cross purposes to the goals we want to achieve (as we shall soon see). Ultimately, while this default mode of ours may be quick at forming impressions and judgments, and handles our day to day affairs well enough, it often sacrifices accuracy in the process—and this can lead to less than ideal results (loc. 305).

Now, it is certainly possible for us to go beyond this default mode of ours, and to be more conscious of how we engage with the world, and more rigorous in our thinking. In other words, in addition to our default mode of thought, we have access to a second mode of thinking with which to negotiate the world. As Konnikova explains, “most psychologists now agree that our minds operate on a so-called two-system basis. One system is fast, intuitive, reactionary—a kind of constant fight-or-flight vigilance of the mind. It doesn’t require much conscious thought or effort and functions as a sort of status quo auto pilot. The other is slower, more deliberative, more thorough, more logical—but also much more cognitively costly” (loc. 302).

While this second mode of thinking is slower and more effortful than our default mode, it has the potential to be far more accurate. Indeed, it is able to cut out the shortcuts and biases that plague our default mode, and so stands to yield great gains as a result. However, activating our second mode of thinking is not something that many of us do as much as we could (or should). The latter part of the quote above helps explain why: our second mode of thinking takes more effort than our default mode, and the simple fact of the matter is that we tend to be lazy. As Konnikova explains, “because of the mental cost of that cool, reflective system, we spend most of our thinking time in the hot, reflexive system, basically ensuring that our natural observer state takes on the color of that system: automatic, intuitive (and not always rightly so), reactionary, quick to judge” (loc. 305).

Also complicating the issue here is that we often don’t realize just how askew and error-prone our default mode of thinking is. That is, our default mode tends to allow us to get by well enough, thank you very much; and therefore, we may often see little reason to move beyond it. For Konnikova, though, when we look at the matter objectively, and weigh all the evidence, we should come to the conclusion that making more use of our second mode of thinking really is worth the effort. In fact, the author argues that we would do well to spend all of our time (or as much as possible) with mode two firmly in the ‘on’ position.

This may sound like a monumental effort indeed. However, Konnikova contends that it is not really so bad as it sounds. This proves to be the case since the more we make use of our second mode of thinking, the more habitual it becomes; until, finally, with enough practice, mode two becomes our default mode (loc. 295, 358-62, 3033). As the author explains, “just like a muscle that you never knew you had—one that suddenly begins to ache, then develop and bulk up as you begin to use it more and more in a new series of exercises—with practice your mind will see that the constant observation and never-ending scrutiny will become easier… It will become… second nature. You will begin to intuit, to deduce, to think as a matter of course, and you will find that you no longer have to give it much conscious effort” (loc. 365).

It is this, effectively, that Sherlock Holmes has been able to do: thinking in mode two has become second nature to him (loc. 365). Watson, on the other hand, remains firmly rooted in mode one (loc. 307). Of course, both Holmes and Watson are fictional characters; however, we should in no way conclude from this that they are unbelievable, or that Holmes’ methods are unattainable. Indeed, to begin with, Conan Doyle based his Sherlock Holmes on a real-life acquaintance. As Konnikova explains, Holmes’ “character… was modeled after another mentor, Dr. Joseph Bell, a surgeon known for his powers of close observation” (loc. 215).

The following is a very good documentary about Dr. Joseph Bell, the inspiration behind Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes:

And regardless, Konnikova insists that what holds for Holmes and Watson (fictional though they may be) holds for us as well. In other words, while all of us are equipped with both modes of thinking, one or the other will dominate in each of us; and it is up to us to decide which one it will be.

Since Watson remains stuck in the original default mode of thinking, while Holmes has managed to elevate himself to mode two, Konnikova refers to the different modes of thinking as Watsonian and Holmesian respectively (loc. 308) (readers of Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow will recognize the Watsonian and Holmesian modes described here as System 1, and System 2 (loc. 1178). Those interested in pursuing this topic further may be interested in my Summary of Thinking, Fast and Slow).

Now, when we take rigorous, methodical and rational thinking to its extreme, this is really nothing more nor less than the scientific method in action (loc. 210). And indeed, when Conan Doyle created Sherlock Holmes, this is precisely what he had in mind. As Konnikova explains, “In Arthur Conan Doyle’s own estimation, Sherlock Holmes was meant from the onset to be an embodiment of the scientific, an ideal that we could aspire to” (loc. 211; see also 198-229). Elsewhere, Konnikova writes that “what Sherlock Holmes offers isn’t just a way of solving crime. It is an entire way of thinking, a mindset that can be applied to countless enterprises far removed from the foggy streets of the London underworld. It is an approach born out of the scientific method that transcends science and crime both and can serve as a model for thinking, a way of being, even, just as powerful in our time as it was in Conan Doyle’s” (loc. 198).

Given that Holmes’ approach is based on the scientific method, then, before we turn our attention specifically to Holmes’ approach, it will help to get a brief refresher of the scientific method.

2. The Holmesian Method as the Scientific Method in Action

The scientific method is very simple really. Here it is in plain terms: “make some observations about a phenomenon; create a hypothesis to explain those observations; design an experiment to test the hypothesis; run the experiment; see if the results match your expectations; rework your hypothesis if you must; lather, rinse, and repeat” (loc. 278).

These are, essentially, the very steps that Holmes practices as he goes about solving a crime. Specifically, Holmes begins by way of making observations about the case (including the cast of characters involved) (loc. 236, 255-62); he then moves to forming a hypothesis about what has happened (actually, Holmes forms several such hypotheses, each of which is consistent with the evidence that he is able to glean from the get go) (loc. 265-69); in the experimental phase, Holmes continues to collect evidence and subjects his hypotheses to the cold hands of reason, cutting out those that run afoul of the new evidence (he may also, at this point, form new hypotheses, if the evidence calls out for it) (loc. 268-71); When this experimental process is finally complete, Holmes is left with but one hypothesis that is up to standard: the truth. And voila, he is able to draw his conclusion (loc. 268-71).

When it comes to getting at the truth of a matter, or solving a problem, this is roughly the procedure that most of us follow as well. That is, we begin by way of considering certain bits of information; we then come up with a way of explaining the phenomenon, or a way of solving the problem we are faced with; and then we try as best we can to fit the hypothesis or solution to our conundrum. Of course, the difference between us and Holmes is that Holmes is far more regimented and rigorous (i.e., scientific) in his thinking. So, how does he do it? Let’s find out.

Here to get us in the mood is a fine presentation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s very own favorite Sherlock Holmes story: The Speckled Band.

PART II: THE HOLMESIAN METHOD

3. A Robust and Well-Organized Knowledge-Base: Commandeering Memory-Formation

To begin with, Holmes’ observations of a case don’t just begin with the evidence that he sees before him. Rather, it begins with the extensive background knowledge that he keeps, and which allows him to perceive what he sees in an insightful way (loc. 489-99, 512). Of course, we too keep a vast store of knowledge in our minds. Indeed, the brain continually processes information, and selects certain pieces to be stored away in our long-term memory, while it discards others (loc. 470, 522). As Konnikova explains, “today, it is commonly accepted that memory is divided into two systems, one short- and one long-term… When we see something, it is first encoded by the brain and then stored in the hippocampus—think of it as the attic’s first entry point… From there the stuff that you either actively consider important or that your mind somehow decides is worth storing… will be moved to a specific box within the attic, into a specific folder, in a specific compartment in the cortex—the bulk of your attic’s storage space, your long-term memory. This is called consolidation” (loc. 525).

Now, the difference between how most of us stock our brain attic (that is, how we file information into long-term memory), and how Holmes does this, is that most of us allow our brains to do it automatically, whereas Holmes does this consciously and deliberately, and based on his own goals—which can be very different from that of the brain on auto pilot. Indeed, when it comes to the criteria that the brain uses to determine whether or not to long-store the information that it encounters, it comes down to this: the brain tends to store “topics of general interest; things we can’t help but notice; things that raise some emotion in us; or things that capture us by some aspect of novelty or note” (loc. 544).

Holmes, on the other hand, makes a conscious effort to remember those aspects of each case that will help him with future cases (loc. 450, 506-12), and the final result can be very different from the things that his brain would store otherwise (499). As Holmes himself explains to Watson “‘a fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic’” (loc. 450).

The research agrees: the brain stores information automatically, but this process can be commandeered (and altered) by conscious intention (loc. 522, 540-44). Of course, we should never expect to wrest control of our memory-formation system entirely. As Konnikova explains, “inevitably, junk will creep into the attic. It’s impossible to be as perfectly vigilant as Holmes makes himself out to be… But it is possible to assert more control over the memories that do get encoded” (loc. 565).

In order to take more control of our memory-formation system, it really begins with being consciously aware of the purposes that we have, and making an explicit effort to remember those things that may mesh with these purposes (loc. 575). However, there are other tricks that can help us here.

To begin with, it helps to describe and/or explain something that we want to remember to someone else (or even back to ourselves) (loc. 577-81). For instance, “in one study… students who explained mathematical material after reading it once did better on a later test than those who repeated that material several times” (loc. 581). In addition, it helps to play with and manipulate the information in some way, say by “making it come alive through stories and gestures” (loc. 578). Finally, remembering new knowledge is also aided by making an explicit effort to connect it to our existing knowledge-base (loc. 584). For example, if we are trying to remember the details of a particularly gruesome crime scene (work with me here), it may help to explicitly bring to mind the details of other gruesome crime scenes (loc. 584).

The reason why this works seems to have to do with the fact that memory works according to a system of associations, such that each memory is connected to other memories that are similar to it in some way, or have been connected to it through experience (loc. 901, 916, 2084, 2285-96). By bringing up related information in the context of information we are trying to remember, we effectively link up the new information to the old (the linking occurs right down to the level of physical connections forming between neurons [loc. 2296, 2300]). Now, activating any one memory tends to trigger others that are connected to it (in a process called ‘priming’ [loc. 893-905]); thus when we try to remember a particular detail at a future date, the more memories that are connected to it, the better are the chances that we will be able to activate it through priming (loc. 586). Essentially  then, by connecting new information to old, we are taking control of how our brain organizes the information that it keeps, thus making it easier to retrieve the information stored therein in the future (loc. 484).

By making a conscious effort to direct what information our brains store, and how this information is organized, we can greatly enhance both our knowledge-base and our ability to retrieve our memories. But what about the ability to make the most of what we perceive? Can we really become as perceptive as Holmes, and if so How? Let us find out.

4. Maximizing Perceptiveness: Focused, Mindful and Objective Observation

One of Holmes’ most impressive qualities is his ability to glean much truth from the observations that he makes: Holmes is exquisitely observant and perceptive. This is especially true when it comes to Holmes’ ability to read people. To take the most famous example, Holmes is able to tell, just by looking at the man upon first meeting him, that Watson is a military doctor, freshly come from Afghanistan. Watson is astonished at the insight, and inquires into how Holmes could possibly have deduced this. Here is Holmes’ response: “‘I knew you came from Afghanistan. From long habit the train of thoughts ran so swiftly through my mind that I arrived at the conclusion without being conscious of intermediate steps. There were such steps, however. The train of reasoning ran, “Here is a gentleman of a medical type, but with the air of a military man. Clearly an army doctor, then. He has just come from the tropics, for his face is dark, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone hardship and sickness, as his haggard face says clearly. His left arm has been injured. He holds it in a stiff and unnatural manner. Where in the tropics could an English army doctor have seen much hardship and got his arm wounded? Clearly in Afghanistan.” The whole train of thought did not occupy a second’” (loc. 1021).

Holmes’ explanation makes the feat sound easy enough, and yet we know it is not. Indeed, Watson himself—who knows Holmes’ ways as well as anyone—tries to match Holmes’ feat at a future time, and falls woefully short (loc. 3372-3406). So what’s Holmes’ secret?

a. Stay Focused

i. Cut out the Multitasking

The first trick to sound observation, Konnikova argues, is giving our full and undivided attention to the situation at hand. This sounds obvious, of course, but unfortunately, it is not so easy to do. The fact is that our brains naturally love to wander; and this applies no matter what we are doing. As Konnikova explains, “not only do people think about something other than what they’re doing about as often as they think about what they are doing—46.9 percent of the time, to be exact—but what they are actually doing doesn’t seem to make a difference; minds wander about equally no matter how seemingly interesting and engaging or boring and dull the activity” (loc. 1765). Examples of our divided attention and wandering minds will be familiar to us all: “we listen to our headphones as we walk, run, take the subway. We check our phones when we are having dinner with our friends and family. We think of the next meeting while we are in the current one” (loc. 1759).

It is often thought that wandering minds have popped up as a product of our modern, ever-connected, distraction-filled world; but as Konnikova points out, wandering minds are nothing new. Indeed, it turns out that our minds have always been prone to distraction. It is true that our modern world has far more to distract us, thus making the problem worse than it’s ever been, but the phenomenon is one that has been ever with us: it seems it is just deeply a part of our default mode of thinking to flit from object to object (loc. 1095-1104).

Nevertheless, it is possible to put an end to this mind-wandering of ours, and Holmes provides us with an excellent example of doing just this (loc. 1178). Indeed, Holmes remains ever immersed in the moment, and this always helps him with his observations (loc. 1178-88). So, how can we be more like Holmes?

There are several things we can do here. To begin with, we can stop with the multi-tasking; that is, trying to do several things at once. As Konnikova points out, multitasking is really a misnomer: it is only possible for the brain to pay close attention to one thing at a time; trying to pay attention to more than one thing just limits the amount of attention payed to each. As the author explains, “we cannot allocate our attention to multiple things at once and expect it to function at the same level as it would were we to focus on just one activity. Two tasks cannot possibly be in the attentional foreground at the same time. One will inevitably end up being the focus, and the other—or others—more akin to irrelevant noise, something to be filtered out. Or worse, none will have the focus and all will be, albeit slightly clearer, noise, but degrees of noise all the same” (loc. 1119). Numerous experiments have in fact borne this idea out (loc. 1119-56). So if you need to get several things done, it is best to tackle them one at a time, and give your full attention to each in turn.

ii. Be Selective: Goal-Directed Observation

Once we have given our full attention to the single task in front of us, we must now refine our attention still more. Indeed, the second trick to sound observation, Konnikova argues, is to make our observation goal-directed. There is simply too much information streaming in at us at any given moment to take it all in (loc. 1235, 1256). In order to properly process anything about the environment, then, we must focus in on particular aspects of it (loc. 1235). But unless we have a consciously chosen goal in mind, the information that our brain focuses in on will, once again, accord with its own rules—and again, these rules may not mesh at all well with what we really want to take away from the situation. As Konnikova explains, “in the usual course of things, our brains pick and choose where to focus without much conscious forethought on our part. What we need to learn instead is how to tell our brains what and how to filter, instead of letting them be lazy and decide for us, based on what they think would make for the path of least resistance” (loc. 1238).

In order to take control of our attention and focus, we must begin by way of consciously determining our goals in any given situation. As the author explains, “whatever the situation, answering the question of what, specifically, you want to accomplish will put you well on your way to knowing how to maximize your limited attentional resources. It will help direct your mind, prime it, so to speak, with the goals and thoughts that are actually important—and help put those that aren’t into the background” (loc. 1280). Keeping our eyes on the prize will also help us in focusing in on just the environment in front of us, and so will also aid in keeping us from becoming distracted by extraneous affairs.

b. Be Objective: Cut Out the Shortcuts and the Bias

With our goals firmly in mind, and our attention focused, we are now ready for the next essential step in sound observation. This step involves remaining objective, and unbiased in what we are observing. Again, this is easier said than done. The fact is that our Watsonian system is full of shortcuts and biases that skew how we see the world.

i. Stereotyping

To begin with, when it comes to reading people, our Watsonian system is very susceptible to falling for stereotypes. While many of us may consider ourselves immune to consciously stereotyping others, studies indicate that much of it goes on at a subconscious level regardless. Take the Implicit Association Test (IAT), for instance. As Konnikova explains, “the measure can test for implicit bias toward any number of groups (though the most common one tests racial biases) by looking at reaction times for associations between positive and negative attributes and pictures of group representatives” (loc. 637). (You can take the IAT here: IAT Test).

The IAT reveals that even those who resist stereotypes at the conscious level do often experience them at the subconscious level. As the author explains, “the findings are robust and replicated extensively: even those individuals who score the absolute lowest on self-reported measures of stereotype attitudes… often show a difference in reaction time on the IAT that tells a different story. On the race-related attitudes IAT, about 68% of over 2.5 million participants show a biased pattern. On age (i.e., those who prefer young people over old): 80%. On disability (i.e., those who favor people without any disabilities): 76%. On sexual orientation (i.e., those who favor straight people over gay): 68%. On weight (i.e., those who favor thin people over fat): 69%. The list goes on and on” (loc. 649).

Here is a ‘Dateline’ segment on racial stereotyping and the IAT:

The good news here is that we are able—by consciously recognizing and resisting the stereotypes that we have—to minimize and even negate them. As Konnikova explains, “even the IAT, as it turns out, can be bested—after interventions and mental exercises that target the very biases it tests, that is” (loc. 659).

What’s more, even in those cases where our impressions and judgments are subconsciously colored by stereotypes, this needn’t mean we must succumb to treating others in a biased way. For example, in one study that looked at racial bias in doctors, it was discovered that doctors do tend to stereotype others just as much as the rest of us, but that this did not necessarily translate into discriminatory treatment. Here is Konnikova to explain: “most doctors showed some degree of bias on the IAT. But then, an interesting thing happened: bias on the test did not necessarily translate into bias in treating the hypothetical patient. On average, doctors were just as likely to say they would prescribe the necessary drugs to blacks as to whites—and oddly enough, the more seemingly biased physicians actually treated the two groups more equally than the less biased ones. What our brains do on the level of instinct and how we act are not one and the same” (loc. 669).

Having said that, there is always the threat that the stereotypes that we keep (even subconsciously) will influence how judge and/or treat others; and therefore, it is always best to acknowledge these stereotypes, and to do our best to consciously counteract them (loc. 673-79). It is this that Holmes shows himself to be very adept at (as exemplified, for instance, in the The Sign of Four) (loc. 679-94).

ii. Environmental Biases

Beyond the biases that we carry towards the objects of our attention, there is also the matter of our observations (and judgments and actions) being swayed by entirely extraneous factors in the surrounding environment. For example, it is well established that the weather can deeply affect mood, and that mood can affect how we read and react to a situation. For example, it has been found that “on rainy days, students looking at potential colleges pay more attention to academics than they do on sunny days—and for every standard deviation increase in cloud cover on the day of the college visit, a student is 9 percent more likely to actually enroll in that college. When the weather turns gray, financial traders are more likely to make risk-averse decisions; enter the sun, risk-seeking choice increases” (loc. 872).

Essentially, the weather affects our judgments by way of priming certain ideas in our brains, which primed ideas then affect how we behave (loc. 852-55, 868-78). However, the power of priming does not end with the weather. Indeed, any number of things in the surrounding environment can prime all sorts of things in our brains, thus influencing our behavior in any number of ways.

For example, in one experiment, researchers had subjects create sentences from lists of individual words, where a number of the words in the lists were ones we often associate with old age, such as “lonely, careful, Florida, helpless, knits and gullible” (loc. 893). The subjects were completely unaware of the geriatric theme among the lists (loc. 894), and yet this did not stop the exercise from unconsciously influencing their behavior. As Konnikova explains, “if you’re like one of the hundreds of people on whom this particular priming task has been used since it was originally introduced in 1996, several things will have happened. You will walk slower now than you did before, and you may even hunch just a bit (both evidence of the ideomotor effect of the prime—or its influence on actual physical action). You’ll perform worse on a series of cognitive ability tasks. You’ll be slower to respond to certain questions. You may even feel somehow older and wearier than you had previously. Why? You’ve just been exposed to the Florida effect: a series of age-related stereotypes that, without your awareness, activated a series of nodes and concepts in your brain that in turn prompted you to think and act in a certain fashion. It’s priming at its most basic” (loc. 900).

The good news is that the effects of priming can be counteracted simply by recognizing that certain stimuli in the environment are in fact priming you. As Konnikova explains, “a prime stops being a prime once we’re aware of its existence… bring any attention at all to the priming mechanism, and you’ll likely find the effect go down to zero. When we are aware of the reason for our action, it stops influencing us” (loc. 928).

Of course, we may not always be aware of the things in the environment that are priming us, or in what way we are being primed. Therefore, the best approach here is simply to try to question what it is that is leading us to have the impression or intuition that we are having. As the author explains, “our intuitions are powerful even when entirely inaccurate. And so it is essential to ask, when in the grip of a profound intuition (this is a wonderful person; a beautiful house; a worthy endeavor; a gifted debater): on what is my intuition based? And can I really trust it—or is it just a trick of my mind?… In that realization—that oftentimes it is best not to trust your own judgment—lies the key to improving your judgment to the point where it can in fact be trusted” (loc. 979).

Holmes, for instance, is always careful to identify just what it is that is causing him to have a certain impression (loc. 938). And, as such, he is able to avoid the possibility of being misled by incidental information (loc. 938-51).

c. Don’t Jump to Conclusions

Even when our impressions and intuitions are based on facts and not on bias, there is still the threat that we may jump to our conclusions too quickly. This becomes apparent when it comes to judging character. Indeed, we tend to form impressions of people very quickly and on the basis of very little evidence. For example, it has been shown that “interviewers tend to make up their minds about a candidate within the first few minutes—and sometimes less—of meeting them” (loc. 771). And things are no different in the strictly personal realm (loc. 620-30).

Forming an impression of someone based on such little evidence is already problematic enough, for it is quite likely to be erroneous (loc. 774-80). But the bigger problem comes from the fact that we tend to have a great deal of difficulty overcoming, and moving beyond our first impressions. That is, we tend to hold on to them regardless of what we learn later, even if what we learn later flat out contradicts what we learned early on (loc. 771-79).

Much of this has to do with what psychologists call the confirmation bias. As soon as we’ve formed a judgment or opinion, we tend to want to hold onto that judgment or opinion through thick and thin (loc. 2929). It’s an ego thing. As Konnikova explains, “we like being consistent and we don’t like being wrong. And so, our initial impressions tend to hold an outsized impact, no matter the evidence that may follow” (loc. 793). Indeed, since we do not want to be shown wrong, we are inclined to look out for evidence that supports our initial opinion, and to discount evidence that contradicts it (loc. 1376, 2940-43). (This is the exact opposite of the scientific method, which calls upon the scientist to do their all to disprove their original hypothesis. This is the only sound way to proceed, for no amount of confirmatory evidence will ever prove an hypothesis, while the least bit of contradictory evidence immediately disproves it, or at least throws it deeply into question.)

Connected to the confirmation bias is our tendency to see what we expect or want to see in a situation. With regards to the former, as Konnikova explains, “we let our own personal past experience guide what we perceive to be possible. Our repertoire becomes an anchor of sorts; it is our reasoning starting point, our place of departure for any further thoughts” (loc. 2881). This is a significant error, of course, for it is entirely possible that we may be encountering something we have simply never seen or experienced before (loc. 2895). And interpreting a scenario in such a way that it meets with our desires is also a significant error; but who among us has not fallen prey to this brain bug?

Sherlock Holmes, by contrast, does not jump to conclusions. Rather, he stands back and collects all the evidence before he begins his analysis (1380, 1394-1431). So, how can we be more like Holmes here? The first thing we must do is to acknowledge that we are indeed susceptible to jumping to conclusions. This will ensure that we are ever vigilant, and more likely to catch ourselves in the act. The most important thing is to be patient: “while we may still be tempted to act first and think later, to dismiss options before we’ve even considered them, we can at least recognize the general concept: think first, act later, and try our utmost to approach every decision with a fresh mind” (loc. 2963).

We must remember that there is, rightly, a whole step between collecting information and coming to our conclusions; and that is imagination, which is where we shall turn next.

5. A Lively (but Disciplined) Imagination

Once we have collected our evidence and made our observations, it is time to go beyond the here and now (loc. 1839). If we are trying to discern the truth of a matter, the underlying truth may not be apparent, so we must formulate hypotheses that might explain it; if we are trying to solve a problem, on the other hand, we must formulate possible solutions. This requires some imagination (loc. 1839). Our goal at this point is not to come to a conclusion. Rather, it is to explore the possible conclusions. We want to make sure that we don’t miss any of the potential winners. Opening up all of the possibilities ensures that we won’t fall into the trap of just going with what is most apparent, or easiest (since what is most apparent or easiest is often wrong [loc. 2023]). This is a step that Holmes is always certain to take, and it virtually always pays dividends (loc. 2026).

It is important to note here that the imagination we are after is not the unhinged imagination of the artist. Rather, our imagination must remain firmly within the confines of what is possible, given the evidence we have gleaned thus far. As Konnikova explains, “never is it simply a flight of fancy; you can’t think of imagination in this context as identical to the creativity of a fiction writer or an artist. It can’t be. First, for the simple reason that it is grounded in the factual reality that you’ve built up, and second, because ‘it must be definite and not a vague proposition.’ Your imaginings have to be concrete. They have to be detailed. They don’t exist in reality, but their substance must be such that they could theoretically jump from your head straight into the world with little adjustment” (loc. 1864).

While we may think of imagination as something that we either have or don’t have, and not something that can be taught or consciously teased into existence, it turns out that this is not at all the case (loc. 1875). As Konnikova explains, “creativity can be taught. It is just like another muscle—attention, self-control—that can be exercised and grow stronger with use, training, focus and motivation. In fact, studies have shown that creativity is fluid and that training enables people to become more creative” (loc. 1878).

The biggest key to spurring imagination, it seems, is to create some distance between ourselves and the problem we’re trying to solve. And we mean distance here in multiple senses of the word. As the author explains, distance “can come in many forms: temporal, or distance in time…; spatial, or distance in space (how physically close or far you are from something); social, or distance between people (how someone else sees it); and hypothetical, or distance from reality (how things might have happened)” (loc. 2110).

Creating distance between ourselves and the problem we are trying to solve (in any one of the ways mentioned above) allows us to gain access to a broader range of perspectives than we otherwise would. It’s as though we’re looking at our problem from above, free from the personal perspective that we would normally occupy. As Konnikova explains, “the further we move in distance, the more general and abstract our perspective and interpretation become; and the further we move from our own perspective, the wider the picture we are able to consider” (loc. 2113). And, indeed, the research confirms that the strategy works (loc. 2116-26)

If at all possible, then, we should try to resist coming up with all our imaginings in the moment, as soon as the question or problem comes up. Rather, we should try to make sure that we leave the issue for a bit before concluding this imagination process—even if it means coming back to the issue before bed, or the following morning (temporal distance). In addition, considering the problem afresh in different settings may help (spatial distance), as “a change in location cues us, so to speak, to think differently” (loc. 2299; see also 2271-2302).

In connection with this, walking has been found to be an excellent way to increase creativity, and this is especially the case when the walk takes place in a natural setting. As Konnikova explains, “walks have been shown repeatedly to stimulate creative thought and problem solving, especially if these walks take place in natural surroundings, like the woods, rather than in more urbanized environments (but both types are better than none—and even walking along a tree-lined street can help). After a walk, people become better at solving problems; they persist longer at difficult tasks; and they become more likely to be able to grasp an insightful solution” (loc. 2201).

Still, when we are walking, we may find that we are unable to stop thinking about our problem, and yet it is important that we give ourselves the opportunity to do just this. Indeed, it has been found that taking part in activities that take our mind away from a problem help greatly in allowing us to solve it later on (loc. 2169). The activities that work best, it seems, are ones that are complex enough that they take our minds entirely away from the problem, and yet simple enough that they do not exhaust all of our mental energy (loc. 2195). As Konnikova explains, the activity “needs to have several characteristics: it needs to be unrelated to what you are trying to accomplish…; it needs to be something that doesn’t take too much effort on your part…; and yet it needs to be something that engages you on some level” (loc. 2176). To take a few examples from Holmes’ repertoire, he “plays his violin, visits the opera, and listens to music” (loc. 2169).

The reason why these types of activities work, it is thought, is because putting a problem out of our conscious mind allows the subconscious to kick in and make its contribution (loc. 2177). Specifically, the subconscious mind is good at making far-reaching connections and associations between seemingly unrelated things (loc. 2191), and this can be very valuable in creative activities.  As the author explains, “as our inhibition is lowered, the attentional network takes over whatever is bothering us… It makes us more likely to grasp remote connections, to activate unrelated memories, thoughts, and experiences that may help in this instance, to synthesize the material that needs to be synthesized. Our unconscious processing is a powerful tool, if only we give it the space and time to work” (loc. 2212).

Of course, if the activity that we are doing is so complex that it takes up all our mental energy, then the subconscious is not given the opportunity to wrestle with the problem, and so is taken out of the equation (which is not what we want). (For more information on the creative process, you may wish to consult my Summary of Imagine: How Creativity Works by Jonah Lehrer).

6. Incisive Deduction

Once we have our hypothetical scenarios/potential solutions firmly in hand, we are now ready for the final stage of the process. This consists in reasoning out which scenario or solution is best. Holmes refers to this as deduction. While we may think of deduction as formal logic, it is really much more than this. As Konnikova explains, “what Holmes means by deduction and what formal logic means by deduction are not one and the same. In the purely logical sense, deduction is the arrival at a specific instance from a general principle. Perhaps the most famous example:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Socrates is mortal

But for Holmes, this is but one possible way to reach the conclusion. His deduction includes multiple ways of reasoning—as long as you proceed from fact and reach a statement that must necessarily be true, to the exclusion of other alternatives. Whether it’s solving a crime, making a decision, or coming to some personal determination, the process remains essentially the same” (loc. 2543).

The greatest difficulty we run into when it comes to sound reasoning, Konnikova argues, is that we tend to take it rather lightly, and assume that it is but a simple, intuitive process. The danger here is that this may lead us to go with the most obvious or easiest solution at hand. As Konnikova explains, “we like simplicity. We like concrete reasons. We like causes. We like things that make intuitive sense (even if that sense happens to be wrong). On the flip side, we dislike any factor that stands in the way of that simplicity and causal concreteness… Whether we’re explaining why something has happened or concluding as to the likely cause of an event, our intuition often fails us because we prefer things to be much more controllable, predictable, and causally determined than they are in reality. From these preferences stem the errors in thinking that we make without so much as a second thought. We tend to deduce as we shouldn’t, arguing, as Holmes would put it, ahead of the data—and often in spite of the data. When things just ‘make sense’ it is incredibly difficult to see them any other way” (loc. 2604; see also 2650, 2666).

Experiments with split-brain patients (patients who have had their corpus collosum severed) have shown (dramatically) that our minds all too readily come up with stories that seem to make sense in the moment, but, in fact, have no basis in reality (loc. 2631-41). We have a tendency to latch on to seemingly plausible stories that appear to explain what we are seeing, and immediately consider them to be factual (often erroneously). Here is a video outlining the research with split-brain patients (the relevant experiment is discussed at the 5:36 mark, though the first part of the video is necessary for context):

This mental lethargy of ours extends to our more conscious reasoning as well. As an indication of this consider the following questions:

1. A bat and ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

2. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?

3. In a lake there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? (loc. 2674)

For most of us, we intuitively (and almost immediately) come up with the following answers to these questions: 1. 10 cents; 2. 100 hours; and 3. 24 days. A moment’s reflection will show that all of these answers are false (the true answers are 1. 5 cents; 2. 5 minutes; and 3. 47 days), but most of us do not take a moment to reflect. Indeed, even those who are supposed to be the brainiest among us often answer these questions incorrectly. For example, “when the[se] questions were asked of Harvard students, the average score was 1.43 correct (with 57 percent of students getting either zero or one right). At Princeton, a similar story: 1.63 correct, and 45 percent scoring zero or one. And even at MIT, the scores were far from perfect: 2.18 correct on average, with 23 percent, or near to a quarter, of students getting either none or one correct” (loc. 2677).

While these questions may seem contrived, it turns out that how people perform on this test (called the CRT) is highly predictive of how they perform on more formal logic and reasoning tests. As the author explains, “good performance on these three little questions predicts resistance to a number of common logical fallacies, which, taken together, are considered to predict adherence to the basic structures of rational thought. The CRT even predicts our ability to reason through the type of formal deductive problem—the Socrates one—that we saw earlier in the chapter” (loc. 2694).

What this indicates is that much of sound reasoning just comes down to slowing down and putting in the effort to make sure we’re reasoning properly—and this we can all do (loc. 2701). It just takes a little motivation, and this should be easier to come by now that we know how easy it is for us to go wrong.

Towards this end, when it comes time to reasoning through what alternative before us is best, here’s a little checklist that we’d do well to keep in mind: “Are you using all available evidence, and not just what you happen to remember or think of or encounter? Are you giving it all the same weight, so that you are truly able to sift the crucial from the incidental instead of being swayed by some other, altogether irrelevant factors? Are you laying each piece out in a logical sequence, where each step implies the next and each factor is taken to its conclusion, so that you don’t fall victim to the mistake of thinking you’ve thought it through when you’ve done no such thing? Are you considering all logical paths—even those that may seem to you to be impossible?” (loc. 2967).

We should add here that it is very important, when considering each of the alternatives in front of us, to explicitly demarcate both the evidence in favor and the evidence against each. In the normal course of things, as mentioned above, we tend to look only at the evidence that favors a particular proposition or opinion, and this can lead us astray. Weighing the pros and cons forces us to be more objective (loc. 2956).

One strategy that can help us hit all of these elements is to explain the situation to a friend or colleague. This is what Holmes does with Watson (loc. 2838). The strategy is effective because, as Konnikova puts it, “stating something through out loud, forces pause and reflection. It mandates mindfulness. It forces you to consider each premise on its logical merits and allows you to slow down your thinking so that you do not blunder… it allows you to confirm that you’ve actually understood, not just thought you understood because it seemed right” (loc. 2842).

PART III: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

7. Putting it All Together

So there you have it: by consciously directing our memory-formation process; practising careful, mindful and objective observation; exercising directed and disciplined imagination; and employing careful reasoning, we too can think like Sherlock Holmes.

In order to help put all of this together, Konnikova recommends keeping a decision diary: “here’s what I recommend to speed up our learning and help us integrate all of those steps that Holmes has so graciously shown us: we should keep a decision diary. And I don’t mean metaphorically. I mean actually, physically, writing things down… When we make a choice, solve a problem, come to a decision, we can record the process in a single place. We can put here a list of our observations, to make sure we remember them when the time comes; we can include, too, our thoughts, our inferences, our potential lines of inquiry, things that intrigued us… And then, we can revisit each entry to write down how it went. Was I happy? Did I wish I’d done something differently? Is there anything that is clear to me in retrospect that wasn’t before?” (loc. 3591).

(Personally, I can’t imagine writing a decision journal, but I have thought of a similar strategy that captures much of the advice found in the book: just before bed I run through the day’s events [and my own decisions and actions] in chronological order. I think about what is worth remembering from that day, and also whether I could have improved on any of the decisions or actions tha I did make. The temporal distance allows me to up my imagination, and also allows me to evaluate my decisions and actions more objectively, so that I may make them better in the future [or even correct some of the ones that can still be reversed or modified].  This bed-time routine could also be adapted to work with children. I.e., we can ask our children to run through the events of the day, and question them on what is worth remembering about that day, and also challenge them to evaluate their decisions and actions [both what was good and bad about them]. It’s all about finding a little quiet time for self-reflection and self-improvement).

8. Conclusion: When Holmesian Thinking Becomes Habitual

In any event, Konnikova maintains that the more we practice thinking like Holmes, the easier it becomes; until, eventually, it starts becoming habitual—a matter of second nature. When this does happen, it is an excellent thing (loc. 3121). However, it also introduces a whole new danger: the danger that we will become complacent and stop being as mindful in how we operate. That is, when Holmesian thinking becomes habitual and automatic, we may not pay as close attention to the process as we did at the beginning when it was still new and fresh. And this automaticity can compromise how well our Holmesian thinking works. As Konnikova explains, “habit is useful. I’ll even go a step further and say that habit is essential… On the other hand, habit is also perilously close to mindlessness. It is very easy to stop thinking once something becomes easy and automatic” (loc. 3124).

In order to prevent this from happening, again, it is a matter of being ever vigilant: being aware that as soon as we let our default mode operate on automatic, and stop being skeptical, questioning, and mindful, our thinking will suffer. Holmes keeps himself in check by continuing to talk things through with Watson. Explaining his reasoning to Watson forces Holmes to bring it into full consciousness, where he can evaluate it mindfully (loc. 3130-40). We, too, should never stop doing the same thing (loc. 3146).

*To purchase the book at Amazon.com, please click here: Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes

*Thank you for taking the time to read this article. If you have enjoyed this summary of Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes by Maria Konnikova, or just have a thought, please feel free to leave a comment below. Also, if you feel others may benefit from this article, please feel free to click on the g+1 symbol below, or share it on one of the umpteen social networking sites hidden beneath the ‘share’ button. Finally, if you would like to tip me for my efforts, then I second that emotion! I have given you an opportunity to do so below.

Cheers,

Aaron,

The Book Reporter