Sherlockian Abduction Master List
Epistemic status: Mostly speculation and anecdotes, feel free to skip to The List once you understand its reason for existence.
tldr: This is a curated list of observable details about a person’s appearance that indicate something useful/surprising about them. Ideally, studying this list will be an efficient way to cultivate more insightful observational/abductive abilities, approaching the fictional example of Sherlock Holmes. Please contribute in the comments section after reading the Rules.
Background
Is it possible to develop observational abilities comparable to Sherlock Holmes?
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s fictional detective has many enviable skills, including mastery of disguise and some expertise at unarmed combat, as well as generally being a genius, but we will focus primarily on his more well known observational power. Though Holmes is often described as a master of logical “deduction,” this power is better described as (possibly superhuman) abduction. That is, Holmes perceives tiny details that many people would miss, then constructs explanations for those details. By reasoning through the interacting implications of these explanations, he is able to make inferences that seem impossible to those around him. The final step is actually deductive, but the first two are perhaps more interesting. Holmes’ ability to perceive more than others does seem somewhat realistic; it is always possible to actively improve one’s situational awareness, at least on a short term basis, simply by focusing on one’s surroundings. The trick seems to be the second step, where Holmes is able to work backwards from cause to effect, often leveraging slightly obscure knowledge about a wide variety of topics.
I spent several of my naive teenage years trying to become more like Holmes. I carefully examined people’s shoes (often I actually requested that the shoes be handed over) for numerous features: mud and dirt from walking outside, the apparent price of the shoe, the level of wear and tear, and more specifically the distribution of wear between heel and toe (hoping to distinguish sprinters and joggers), etc. I “read palms,” studying the subtle variations between biking and weightlifting calluses. I looked for ink stains and such on sleeves (this works better in fiction than reality). I’m pretty sure I even smelled people.
None of this worked particularly well. I did come up with some impressive seeming “deductions,” but I made so many mistakes that these may have been entirely chance.
There were various obstacles. First, it is time consuming and slightly awkward to stare at everyone you meet from head to toe. I think there are real tradeoffs here; you have only so much total attention, and by spending more on observing your surroundings, you have less left over to think. Certainly it is not possible to read a textbook at the same time, so practicing your observational techniques comes at a cost. Perhaps it becomes more habitual and easier over time, but I am not convinced it ever comes for free.
Second, the reliability of inferences decays quickly with the number of steps involved. Many of Holmes’ most impressive “deductions” come from combining his projected explanations for several details into one cohesive story (perhaps using some of them to rule out alternative explanations for the others) and drawing highly non-obvious, shocking conclusions from this story. In practice, one of the explanations is usually wrong, the entire story is base on false premises, and the conclusions are only shockingly wrong.
Finally, correctly constructing explanations for small details of another person’s appearance usually requires shared life experience and context. You might recognize a pin on their backpacking as referencing a particular fandom (how else, but by watching the same show yourself?). You might identify the shoes clipped to that backpack as for climbing (how else, but by going climbing yourself at least once?). You might recognize their accent as Midwestern (how else, but having friends of acquaintances from the Midwest?). So it seems that becoming like Holmes may require accumulating more life experience than others: exploring instead of exploiting, switching careers often, spending time in many different social strata, playing many different sports, rotating your musical and entertainment choices constantly, etc. Perhaps also traveling and living in many different places, though it is perhaps notable that even Holmes confines himself to deep knowledge of life in London. The problem with this strategy is that it is not clearly possible to increase one’s life experience far beyond the norm (at least, for one’s age group; and it seems that older people run some risk of lacking shared context with younger people). Life experience is somewhat limited bandwidth. I do not believe it is like electrical engineering, where one can learn drastically more about it by reading many textbooks and building circuits instead of passively absorbing basic facts about how the outlets on the wall work and what an HDMI cable is from life experience. You cannot really learn what a climbing shoe looks like by reading (non-picture) books (though @jenn has claimed that reading autobiographies specifically has helped her make some surprising observations). And though it is in principle possible to watch many, many more popular shows than an ordinary person, you cannot watch all of them, and it is basically not worth the time. Also, you’d probably be cluttering your mind with largely useless knowledge. Or as Holmes says (thanks to @Shankar Sivarajan for the reference):
“I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. 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 difficulty laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”
-Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, A Study in Scarlet
It is this final problem that I hope to address here, by collecting in one place many observable details that indicate useful (or at least impressive sounding) information about others (the explanations).
Rules
Please add your contributions in the comments. I will impose some basic requirements for what is promoted from the comment section to the post to maintain epistemic rigor and usefulness.
Rule 1: Do not post useless trivia or anything which is likely to become irrelevant in one year (pop culture, fandom symbols, etc.) unless there is a very compelling reason. Generally if it is not worth memorizing the top 10 examples of the general class that the observation/explanation comes from, do not post it. I am not interested in fandom symbols or transient fashion trends. I am interested in common religious symbology/garb and signs of athletic activities, particularly when those athletic activities imply applicable abilities (like competence in a fight or unusual speed on land or in water).
Rule 2: I will not promote anything unless I am reasonably confident it works. Either you should have used it yourself in at least a handful of cases (without a significant fraction of false positives) or you should link highly reliable sources that observation → explanation. In either case, I will generally require at least one other commenter (possibly myself) to confirm that they have successfully applied the inference in real life. If something is particularly interesting, but I am not confident it is true, I will add it with the label [SPECULATIVE].
The List
The list is organized head to toe, as one might scan a person.
Linguistic cues are listed last, both because they are likely to be encountered last, and because I think they are less worth memorizing. There are simply too many regional accents to keep track of; I’ll try to focus on cues with high surprisal.
Cauliflower Ear → Combat Sports
Source: Me (Cole Wyeth)
Confidence: High
Relevant background: https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/conditions/cauliflower-ear
I trained MMA and particularly Brazilian Jiu Jitsu for many years. I encountered many people with cauliflower ear, usually former wrestlers or cage fighters. I believe it is common in boxers as well. I do not remember ever encountering anyone with cauliflower ear who did not have a history in combat sports of some variety (a nontrivial observation because I ran frequent intro classes with people who had no martial arts background, as well as many who did). I understand that this is usually a result of repeated trauma to the ear, and though serious swelling usually recedes, after enough instances the ear never really regains it original shape. It has been observed in these circles (slightly tongue-in-cheek) that if you see someone on the street with cauliflower ear, you probably shouldn’t mess with them. It is of course also possible that some people have suffered blows to the ear for some other reason, or (if only one ear looks like this) perhaps one very traumatic blow, but I have never observed this.
Alternative explanations: @DAPuckett apparently has cauliflower ear from cold exposure.
Marks on Neck and Chest → Violinist
Source: Ana
Confidence: Low [SPECULATIVE]
Obviously, this should be interpreted that these specific marks imply someone might be a violinist. I am not aware of any real life confirmation of this (post if you have observed it).
Alternative explanations: Apparently cold can cause skin reactions too, though I have some doubts it would cause these precise patterns.
Semicolon Tattoos → Faced/Faces Mental Health Challenges
Source: @jenn
Confidence level: High
Relevant background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Semicolon
indicates that someone is struggling with or has overcome severe mental health challenges such as suicidal depression. You see them fairly often if you look for them. i’ve heard that butterflies and a few other tattoos mean similar things, but you’ll run into false positives with any more generic tattoos.
-Jenn
I have also observed this in real life.
Claddagh Rings → Relationship Status
Source: @jenn
Confidence level: Mid
Relevant background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claddagh_ring#Usage_and_symbolism
learned about this while jewelry shopping recently; it’s a ring that looks like a pair of hands holding a heart. it’s an irish thing, the finger you wear it on and whether or not it’s inverted indicates your relationship status.
Iron Ring → Canadian Engineer
Source: @jenn
Confidence level: Mid
Relevant background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ring
In Canada, engineers wear an iron ring on the little finger of their working hand, made from the remains of a bridge that collapsed catastrophically. a decent number of my engineer friends wear the ring.
-Jenn
Apparently not all engineers actually wear their rings, and these are only conferred to undergraduates.
Black Ring on Middle Finger of Right Hand → Asexual
Source: Ana
Confidence: Mid, not confirmed
Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_symbols
Apparently this is called an Ace ring.
Fingertip Marks → String Instruments
Source: Ana
Confidence: Low [SPECULATIVE]
I am not aware of any real life confirmation of this (post if you have observed it).
Flagging → Gay (and, uh… details)
Source: @Ms. Haze
Confidence: Mid
Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handkerchief_code
In-line with lace code is flagging, which has also mostly fallen out of use recently, and is not really done by gay youth these days, but you’ll still sometimes see it with older folks. Notably, to my knowledge, it has somewhat less geographic variation in colors than the lace code stuff does (though there still is some).
-Ms. Haze
Personally I don’t recommend clicking through that link too much, more details than one would want unless part of the subculture. Still, interesting to know all these handkerchiefs actually mean something instead of just being pretty.
leaving out obvious things like religious garb/religious symbols in jewlery, engagement rings/wedding bands, various pride flag colours and meanings etc:
semicolon tattoos: indicates that someone is struggling with or has overcome severe mental health challenges such as suicidal depression. You see them fairly often if you look for them. i’ve heard that butterflies and a few other tattoos mean similar things, but you’ll run into false positives with any more generic tattoos.
claddagh rings: learned about this while jewelry shopping recently; it’s a ring that looks like a pair of hands holding a heart. it’s an irish thing, the finger you wear it on and whether or not it’s inverted indicates your relationship status.
iron rings: In Canada, engineers wear an iron ring on the little finger of their working hand, made from the remains of a bridge that collapsed catastrophically. a decent number of my engineer friends wear the ring.
lace code: basically entirely dead, but if someone is dressed like a punk and they’re wearing black boots with red laces, there’s enough of a chance that they’re a nazi that i’d avoid them. there’s like a whole extended universe of lace colours and their meanings but red is the most (in)famous one.
astrology jewlery: astrology obviously isn’t real but if someone is wearing jewlery with their astrological sign, that tells you that 1) they are into astrology (or homestuck if you’re lucky) and 2) they likely have some affinity with their designated star sign, which you can ask them about.
teardrop tattoo right under the eye: this person killed someone or was in prison at some point, or want to pretend that that’s true for them (e.g. if they’re a soundcloud rapper from the suburbs). also see other prison tattoos
puzzle piece tattoo or jewelry: this person likely has an autistic child or close family member, and is not super up to date on the most uh, progressive thoughts on the topic. autistic people themselves are more likely to dislike the puzzle piece symbolism for autism
Oh, also it looks like you forgot to finish your sentence in the astrology section.
heh, thanks, I was going to make a joke about memorizing the top 10 astrology signs but then I didn’t think it was funny enough to actually complete
In-line with lace code is flagging, which has also mostly fallen out of use recently, and is not really done by gay youth these days, but you’ll still sometimes see it with older folks. Notably, to my knowledge, it has somewhat less geographic variation in colors than the lace code stuff does (though there still is some).
If someone accidentally uses “he” when they meant “she” or vice versa and when talking about a person who’s gender they know, it is likely because the speaker’s first language does not distinguish between he and she. This could be Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian and some Turkic languages and probably also other languages. I haven’t actually use it, but noticed it with a Finnish speaker.
Counterpoint: it could also be because the speaker thinks male is default and automatically thinks of an unknown person as male.
@Sune specified that they know the person’s gender.
Oh, yes, true. However, I still maintain that particularly jerkish people would be happy to misgender in that manner as they’d think that the only good gender is male or somesuch nonsense.
Interesting! I will attempt to verify this and then add it to the list.
You didn’t quote Holmes!
Yeah that definitely belongs in the post :)
In the UK, I think the most common assumption for cauliflower ear would be playing rugby, rather than a combat sport.
No idea if that’s the statistically correct inference from seeing someone with the condition.
In what way is rugby wildly different from combat :-)
Yeah, I guess I view Rugby and American football as being essentially combat sports. This may be worth clarifying in the post, but no one who read it and then found out “oh this person actually did Rugby not wrestling” would be particularly surprised.
Still this is somewhat an illustration of the general problem, there are often many adjacent and some non-adjacent alternative explanations.
The conditional increase in probability for “participated in combat sports or something non-surprisingly adjacent” based on “has cauliflower ear” may not be anywhere near as large as you think. Even just among the people reading this post, you’ve got someone with a cauliflower ear (me) who got it by something completely unrelated (the ear freezing solid). How can you tell if the sample you used to derive your explanation is biased? From the post, it sounds like you’re into MMA more than is the average for the population. I would expect many things in your life therefore correlate with MMA just based on exposure, maybe completely spuriously, maybe just more strongly than is true for the population in general. If you’re excluding entire segments of the population from your sample, and I think you necessarily must do so in any non-trivial application of this technique, I don’t know how you could have confidence in the resulting explanation. At least not outside of very homogeneous populations.
Useful to have a counterexample.
No, I don’t think many other things in my life correlate with MMA. There are no other visual cues I would consider reliable.
If it’s not too personal, is your condition persistent? Does it include both ears? And does it look similar to what you might see on UFC fighters?
It is persistent (or at least has persisted for about 20 years), is just the one ear (because that was what was exposed), and could perhaps be differentiated from blunt trauma cases in that the swelling only affects the helix and the directionality is different. How to explain the last part? If you imagine an axis going down your ear canal, with blunt trauma the swelling is generally parallel to that axis (the ear is made thicker) while with my ear it’s along a radius perpendicular to that axis (the ear is made taller).
Thanks! Good to know.
The Wikipedia link for claddagh rings goes to the Project Semicolon page.
Should be fixed.
Cole, great article and great quote there from the classic Conan Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet! Will add to my Goodreads favorite quotes list amongst the 12000 book collection hehe
my two cents on the fingertip marks thing: it definitely happens, but normal amounts of practice and play don’t generally cause them to last very long. if you see them, it’s very good evidence that the person plays a string instrument, but you’re not that likely to see them, so absence isn’t good evidence to the contrary.
If someone uses the word “bubbler” instead of “water fountain” or “drinking fountain”, they are likely from Milwaukee or at least Wisconsin. I say this as a Wisconsinite who knows that many people outside of the state have not heard this way of referring to a water fountain. “Water fountain” and “drinking fountain” also have regional differences, but they both have widespread use across the United States, so this wouldn’t clue you into much. I’ve heard that Eastern Massachusetts also uses this terminology, but I have not been there so I cannot say from personal experience.
Along the same lines, if someone refers to a casserole as a “hot dish” (and especially if they have strong feelings about which term is correct) they are likely from Minnesota or North Dakota.
Anyone who uses the noun adjunct “Democrat” instead of the adjective “Democratic” is some flavor of right wing. (Obviously only applicable to America.)
I agree that in my experience this is definitely probabilistically biased in the direction you state, but I don’t think it’s consistently true. This usage varies.
In a similar vein, I have only ever seen the term “classical liberal” used by people who identify with the term.
This is true, but I’ve only ever heard people use it while describing their political views, and at that point, “Sherlockian Abduction” is unnecessary. My example is the kind of the thing people might slip into more casual conversation.
Similarly, American conservatives generally refer to democrats as “liberals” and rarely as “progressives,” which democrats use more often to describe themselves.
Conservatives do this, but so do leftists, so all you really learn is that they’re not a democrat. And even then, it’s not that strong evidence.
I think this is false. I have seen it regularly used to mean something like “particularly evil liberal.”
Being from America, I feel pretty confident seconding this one. I will be visiting America soon and pay attention for examples.