What makes Sherlock Holmes deduction so striking?

When you read or watch Sherlock Holmes, it feels like every observation he takes always lead to some conclusion that just feel right.

Take his first encounter with Dr. Watson for example.

Sherlock Holmes carefully observed Dr. John Watson as they met for the first time. From Watson’s military bearing, the slight tan on his face, and the way he held himself, Holmes deduced that Watson had recently returned from military service. The stiffness in his left leg and the support of a cane suggested a prior injury, likely incurred during combat.

What makes his deduction truly remarkable?

At first glance, all of Holmes’ deductions seemed straightforward—leg stiffness implying injury and military bearing suggesting military service. However, there was something distinct about Holmes’ approach compared to our typical observations. While most people focus on facial features and eye contact during greetings, Holmes paid attention to minute details: legs, fingers, behavior, and more.

Holmes’ brilliance lies not only in his deductions, but also in his extraordinary mindfulness and keen observation skills. He notices what others overlook, enabling deductions that no one else makes (not because they can’t).

It’s not that his deduction is brilliant (just yet), but his mindfulness and his observation is brilliant. He observes what’s there, but nobody sees to make deduction nobody makes (not that they can’t).

This is similar to how everybody is so crazy about body language. The deduction is simple, and the clue is right there on the face but only a few pays attention to decode what they mean.

You know my method. It is founded upon the observation of trifles

Sherlock Holmes

As a beginner, intermediate detective ourselves, this method alone is more than enough to help us tremendously in deduction as well as in life, but I’d like to point out higher potential in the deduction realm.

Is there any other way to make this type of observation?

As of right now, I’ve only seen two other methods that achieves similar effect. The Sherlock Holmes example illustrated the observation of unnoticed details. The additional method I would like to mention involves observing what is not there and what should not be there.

And both of these observations require a tiny deduction. Let’s call them Layer 2 Observation.

Layer 2 Observations

Things, objects often come in pairs, group, theme. Birds fly in a flock, sandals come in pair, etc.

If someone have a lot of pictures hang in their room, they probably like to save memories. But what if there’s a lot of pictures with friends but none with family? They might not have siblings, but they do have parents (most case). From this piece of information, you can deduce they don’t have parents or don’t have a good relationship with them.

Similar concept of objects come in group, underwear stays in its drawer with other underwear, a book stays in a bookshelf with other books. But what if this person is in India, but his water bottle brand is not one of the popular one. Chances are this person is not from India and order online his drink for the home taste.

In this case, OP did not confirm or deny my deduction, but I’d like to point out the possibility.

While how fancy these 2 methods look, they’re hard to replicate and not contribute that much to daily life deduction just yet. Make use of the first method 90% then think about these two.

Conclusion

Observation what others don’t makes your deductions Sherlock-like. And it’s not hard since people are either busy with their tasks or distracted on their phone.

Just one “Did you just eat a cake while working on the last minute project” will impress everyone.

My dear Watson, now you know the secret.