ron kamoshisd

A person discusses the importance of observation and deduction skills in becoming a detective. They provide examples and exercises to enhance these skills, such as noticing unusual details in the environment and using all senses to gather clues. They also discuss the science of deduction and the importance of logical reasoning and intuition. The person presents scenarios for the viewer to solve, emphasizing the need to consider all variables and think creatively. They also touch on the art of reading people and interpreting their words and behavior to uncover the truth. The person concludes with a final scenario involving a missing grandmaster in a chess tournament, challenging the viewer to solve the mystery. a weird guy, a smart guy, a genius. I mean he's legit a descendant of Sherlock Holmes and William James already. I mean once you get those genes together, it's rad. Today I don't want to bore you guys with information. I legit want to make you guys detectives now and increase your detection skills throughout the video. So let's begin. So, scenario 1, let's see what you guys got. A robbery occurs, but only a parrot as a witness. The next day, the parrot keeps saying, the butler did it, the butler did it. Is the parrot telling the truth? So pause the video and come up with your answer. Look, I know I'm not saying a lot here, but it's pretty easy. And once you got your answer, comment it down below. Okay now it's time for the answer. The parrot saying the butler did it is not really a direct witness to the robbery. Parrots mimic phrases they've heard, meaning the phrase could be learned from any context. Without additional evidence, it's inconclusive to solely rely on the parrot's words. The butler could be innocent, and the parrot might just be repeating a phrase heard from someone else or from a TV show, making this a lesson and not jumping to conclusions without solid evidence. So my take on it is obviously the parrot doesn't have morals. It's not going to just say the butler did it. Rather, in fact, it shows the butler didn't do it because someone obviously tried to frame him. So if you guys got that right or wrong, let me know in the comment below. But now let's begin with like actual like information. So let's begin. Chapter one, the art of observation. Observation is the cornerstone of deduction. It's not just about seeing, it's about noticing the details that others overlook. Ron Kimono Hashi's first lesson is always to be aware of your surroundings, to see beyond the obvious. So here's my exercise for you guys. Spend a day making a mental note of everything unusual or out of place in your environment. It could be a book misplaced in a library or an odd pair of shoes that someone's wearing, or even like a different color sock. Write these observations down and ponder why they stood out to you. It's like a game, spots what's missing or find Waldo. Once your mind can see these patterns and recognize like what's wrong, it'll be a lot more easier when these skills actually need to be used. So now we're going to talk about enhancing your senses. To deduce like Kimono Hashi, you must refine all your senses. A detective doesn't just use their eyes, but also listen, smell, and even taste to gather clues. So what I want you guys now is to take a walk in a familiar or unfamiliar place. Use each sense to observe your environment. What do you hear? What can you smell? Is there anything you can taste in the air? Note these down to enhance sensory awareness. And that's basically it for chapter one. So now let's see how you guys will do in another case. Two friends have the same meal. One adds salt to the meal and dies of poisoning, while the latter is fine. The food was not poisoned. How did the friend die? Once again, pause the video and come up with your answer. Then drop in the comments so we can see how smart you guys are. Again, this is pretty easy. The poison was in the salt, not the meal itself. The friend who added salt to his meal inadvertently poisoned himself, while the food they shared was safe. This scenario emphasizes the importance of examining all variables in a situation, not just the most obvious ones. So now let's move on to chapter two, the science of deduction. Detective reasoning involves starting with a general idea and working towards a specific conclusion. It's about linking the dots between seemingly unrelated observations. So here's another exercise for you guys. So tell one of your siblings or parents to place a pen somewhere. Say it's for fun and you want to find it. Ask them the last place they remember using it and retrace their steps. Consider every place they've been to and what they've done since. Apply logical reasoning to narrow down where the pen could be. Honestly, it's usually hiding in plain sight. Sometimes, deduction requires listening to your gut. Intuition can lead you to connections that logic alone might miss. And trust your gut is right 99% of the time. And also, you can only train your intuition by being in more situations where you have to use your intuition. So like, that's the only way you can train your intuition, by being in more scenarios where you have to listen or deny your intuition. But also, the more times you get them right, the more timely the XP is gained to your intuition, if you guys know what I mean. So now let's go on to another scenario. In a quiet town, a renowned author known for detective novels mysteriously vanishes. Her study, where she spends most of time writing, is found locked from the inside. Upon entering, investigators find the room untouched with no sign of a struggle. So all the items of note are a recently used typewriter and a manuscript for her next novel and a single burnt matchstick on the floor. The windows are sealed, she thought, and there's no other exit beside the door, which was locked. The manuscript contained a curious passage that read, as the silk of midnight, under the watchful gaze of the moon, the truth that was hidden in the plain sight revealed itself, illuminating the path to freedom. The local clock tower had stopped working a week ago, stuck at midnight. How did the author disappear? And what did the manuscript's clue imply? That one was a long and harder one, but as you guys are getting better, so let me give you guys the answer. But before I give you guys the answer, just pause down and comment down what do you guys think. And you can just replay this part a couple times to get a better grasp. The author states her disappearance as a real-life mystery, drawing inspiration from her own novels. The key lies in the manuscript's passage and the burnt matchstick. The mention of the truth hidden in plain sight and illuminating the path to freedom suggests something visible only under specific conditions. In this case, darkness illuminated momentarily, like with a match. The clue about the clock tower being stuck at midnight ties back to the manuscript, implying a specific time for the hidden truth to reveal itself. The burnt matchstick was used to reveal a secret message or mechanism in the room that's only visible in the dark, illuminated by the match's flame. Author uses a luminescent material only visible in the dark after briefly exposed to light to mark a hidden compartment or door in the room. This compartment could lead to a secret passage she used to leave the room, locking it behind her from the inside. The entire setup was to mimic the plot twist in her novels, leaving a real-life mystery for others to solve. So now let's move on to chapter 3, the Ron Komanashi special. Making deductions to the information, more specifically facts. You must first be aware of all facts revolving around what or who you're working on. Use past experiences and present observation and you can easily connect the dots. Similar to chess, nearly every move and every action has been done before. The more you understand human nature and the more you experience and observe these things, the more the patterns form, making it easier to come to a conclusion. So making deductions is basically forcing things you can analyze to come to light. You need to force information out of others if you want things to work, but you also need to know how to work with such information, just like how Ron Komanashi does. The key? Mastering the art of reading people. How? Firstly, let them speak. Sit back and let the other person volunteer information rather than pulling it out of them. Don't let on what you know too early on. Stay relaxed while observing. What you are observing is not the person themselves, but the person they are in the interrogation, but don't make it weird like a creep. Focus on their words and tone, rather than just body language. Don't worry about individual signs and clues like touching the nose, looking up to the right, or stuttering. Rather look at the person's response and general shifts to the conversation, especially at junctures where you believe they may have to concord a story on the fly. Over-detailed stories are often lies. Listen for stories that seem unusually long or detailed. Liars use more words and they may even talk more quickly. Watch primarily for inconsistencies. Details of the stories that don't add up, emotional expressions that don't fit the story, or abrupt shifts in the way the story is told. Being chatty then all of a sudden getting quiet is serious when you ask a particular question is certainly telling. Use context. Look for patterns. Always interpret your conversations in the light of what you already know, the context and other details you've already observed in your interactions with this person. It's all about looking at patterns and trying to determine if anything disrupts in that pattern. So to end it off I'll give you guys one last scenario. During a high-stakes chess tournament, a grandmaster goes missing after a bathroom break between matches. The bathroom has only one entrance which was under constant surveillance and no windows. Investigators find an unfinished chess game on his computer in the lounge. A note with a cryptic message, checkmate in three, and a spilled cup of water near his desk. No signs of forced abduction or stillgirl are found. How did the grandmaster disappear? So pause the video and drop the final answer down below. So the answer, the grandmaster orchestrated his own disappearance. The key to solving this lies in the unfinished chess game and the note checkmate in three. It refers to the strategy in the game but also hints at the method of his disappearance. The spilled cup of water is not just an accident, it's a deliberate clue. Consider the surveillance and lack of escape routes. The grandmaster used a classic misdirection tactic. Before the match, he had arranged for a confederate to create a diversion outside the bathroom, drawing the attention of the surveillance momentarily. During this brief window, he slipped back into the lounge not to return to the game but to hide in a pre-arranged spot such as a false bottom in a large equipment case or a concealed compartment. Spilled water serves a dual purpose, to suggest an hurried or distressed state and possibly leading to abduction theory and to mark the area nearing his hiding spot. The chess game and note were left to suggest he intended to return, thereby creating a puzzling scenario that misleads from his true method of disappearance, hiding in plain sight until the search is done. So thank you guys for watching, peace on the street. I also have a one-year white room program and a lot of people think it's a course, which is far from that. It's a book, white room training guide, over 400 pages, a practical step-by-step guide, but also having a real-life classroom elite slash white room themed discord server where over 300 people where we have special exams, challenges, everything. So click on the test in the description below to join and that's it for today's video. Hope you guys enjoy.