4 ms·

Thanks for the reply! It's funny that you say it's more Groundhog Day than Sherlock Holmes when your soy milk example, to me, is pretty much as Holmesian as it

Thanks for the reply! It's funny that you say it's more Groundhog Day than Sherlock Holmes when your soy milk example, to me, is pretty much as Holmesian as it gets. I've never intentionally tried the kind of deduction that you describe, but at least for me and my circle of friends, I can see it easily falling apart just a few steps in. Plenty of stores carry soy milk nowadays, not just vegetarian ones. I can't possibly hope to know all the restaurants where my friends live. Most of my friends who cook at home get by with dull knives and ancient cookware. And not only do I have no idea which stores sell kitchen supplies, but it's not always obvious whether someone does their shopping in person or on Amazon. This is especially the case for hobbies and activities I'm less familiar with, such as yoga. I suppose if I had meticulous knowledge of my area and practiced a lot, I could get my guesses above 50%. But it seems like something I'd have to put a lot of effort in, not a skill I would just acquire casually. Do you find that this comes easily to you? (I'm not saying that figuring things out about people is impossible, of course. It makes sense to divide up the probability space and increase your odds. Again with your coffee example, you could probably make a reasonable educated guess that the person is vegetarian, or even that they cook at home. But where they shop? Where they eat? There's so many choices these days, and people like trying new things. Even if I had a hunch, I certainly couldn't outright tell them with specificity about all their consumer habits, like you described with your coworker. The probability of me being right would just be way too low.) I appreciate you posting here, it's pretty interesting to read.

bane 13y ago
Yeah sure, just trying to peel back the layers and have an honest conversation without getting bogged down by layers of social niceties intended to minimize my singular interesting attribute. > Holmesian as it gets Yeah, it wasn't a great example, just sprung to mind. But I think you got the basic gist of how it works. I think the difference is that Holmes deduces his conclusions by following clues, but Groundhog Day aggregates information to find patterns...which can then be used to make deductive guesses. I guess it's more of an inductive approach at the beginning. > Do you find that this comes easily to you? If I don't put effort into turning it off, which I do most of the time these days because I associate doing it with bad feelings, it's just part of the normal process my brain goes through when I'm getting to know somebody. So about as much effort as having a bunch of conversations and remembering a few things. I have a terrible memory so I have to spend some effort reinforcing a few key facts. But I can then usually derive the rest with reasonable accuracy without having to remember it all. Why remember things when I can just figure them out each time? It's actually part of the classic "gifted curse" I personally deal with. I never really bothered to learn good memorization techniques because I can usually figure things out from the few kernels I do remember. But when topics get too complex, or I'm just outright missing data, the jenga pile falls over and I'm rather lost. I'm also slightly dyscalculic and dyslexic (took a few tests and everything for formal and second diagnoses), which provides their own sets of challenges -- this is surprisingly common among the very gifted, but we usually "solve" it ourselves internally and thus the research on it is pitifully poor. I didn't personally find out about it conclusively till I was well into my mid-twenties, though some early childhood tests raised the possibility.

bane 13y ago

Yeah sure, just trying to peel back the layers and have an honest conversation without getting bogged down by layers of social niceties intended to minimize my singular interesting attribute. > Holmesian as it gets Yeah, it wasn't a great example, just sprung to mind. But I think you got the basic gist of how it works. I think the difference is that Holmes deduces his conclusions by following clues, but Groundhog Day aggregates information to find patterns...which can then be used to make deductive guesses. I guess it's more of an inductive approach at the beginning. > Do you find that this comes easily to you? If I don't put effort into turning it off, which I do most of the time these days because I associate doing it with bad feelings, it's just part of the normal process my brain goes through when I'm getting to know somebody. So about as much effort as having a bunch of conversations and remembering a few things. I have a terrible memory so I have to spend some effort reinforcing a few key facts. But I can then usually derive the rest with reasonable accuracy without having to remember it all. Why remember things when I can just figure them out each time? It's actually part of the classic "gifted curse" I personally deal with. I never really bothered to learn good memorization techniques because I can usually figure things out from the few kernels I do remember. But when topics get too complex, or I'm just outright missing data, the jenga pile falls over and I'm rather lost. I'm also slightly dyscalculic and dyslexic (took a few tests and everything for formal and second diagnoses), which provides their own sets of challenges -- this is surprisingly common among the very gifted, but we usually "solve" it ourselves internally and thus the research on it is pitifully poor. I didn't personally find out about it conclusively till I was well into my mid-twenties, though some early childhood tests raised the possibility.