Nicely written, original perspective, but nothing new and a lot of words and repetition. In fact I think that the kind of rationalism Sherlock Holmes expresses, is not that special nowadays (for quite a lot of people). It's only logic. Most scientists are strictly trained to follow this methodology. And a lot of them (and others as well), has done so since they were kids. So I simply don't think everyone has such a profound "Watsonian-mind" as the author pretends. But that behaviour it's often socially unacceptable. For example one has to remember "irrelevant" facts only because they are relevant for other people or in society in general. Or dress well for a job interview even when the job has nothing to do with outer appearances. In Rome do as the Romans do. Not everyone can always afford to express his train of thought as straightforward as Sherlock Holmes (or other rational characters from popular TV-series). Maybe the Meyer-Briggs-typology can shed some light on this matter.
Besides she speaks about mindfullness in relation to the character of Sherlock Holmes, but I think that mindfulness is about more than rationalism and deduction?
I hope I'm not the only one with these frustration-like experiences while reading this book? I thought it was a pity, since one could have made much more out of this perspective?
Don't get me wrong, I really admire Sir Arthur Conan Doyle for his influence on literature and science by amongst others creating his fictional character of Sherlock Holmes. ( )

not really worth reading. nothing new and she seems to think that Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson were real characters instead of having elements used for literary elements .
the last chapter, the postlude, was the only one in which I learned anything, Dweck's theories of incremental vs entity based intelligence.
read "moonwalking with Einstein" or "the brain that changes itself" or "six impossible things" before, or instead of, this. ( )

This book turned out to be an engaging, light read connecting the author's passion for the character of Sherlock Holmes with her deep subject matter knowledge. The result is a book that covers the basics of more weighty works on the subject, such as my favorite of the crop, _Thinking, Fast and Slow_, by Daniel Kahneman.


The difference between the two books, though, is the accessibility of Dr. Konnikova's work. _Mastermind_ serves well as an introduction to the topic for the interested.


I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Konnikova at the ScienceOnline conference in 2013. What immediately struck me was her ability to clearly discuss the subject of the book in clear, concise language. My personal experience has been that the ability to do so is a sign of great facility in the subject matter.


To be sure, this book is not an instruction manual, nor is it a deep nonfiction treatise - there are no footnotes to anything other than Conan Doyle's works. If you are searching for such a read, this isn't it. If, rather, you seek a pleasant introduction to the current best thinking on how humans learn and decide, you will be pleased. ( )

This was an interesting book about the differences in thought habits of Holmes and Watson. It even discussed how to change our thinking to match Holmes'. I will probably read it again and try to adopt some of it. ( )

I did like it, and she's clearly bright, but I couldn't always follow her reasoning. I suppose the fault is mine: in true non-Holmsian fashion, I assumed the title meant that I, personally, would learn to think like Holmes as a consequence of reading the book; this is untrue, and partly because I dislike examining people with Holmsian intensity.

Read intently the first half, then skimmed, then gave up at 3/4. ( )