In the world of literature, television, and film, some of the most brilliant examples of critical thinking have come from fiction’s greatest detectives. Unraveling mysteries that baffle ordinary mortals, these on-screen and literary luminaries not only entertain us with their thrilling adventures, but also offer invaluable insights into the art of critical thinking. From Sherlock Holmes to Keith Frazier, this article will uncover the critical thinking skills, such as deductive reasoning, collaborative problem-solving, and charming skepticism, they employ to solve perplexing cases and that you can use to solve complex problems as well as advance your career. Whether you’re a fan of classic mysteries or want to know how employers evaluate critical thinking when making hiring decisions, this article will illuminate what make these characters legendary thinkers and will make you a legendary community builder.
Fiction’s Greatest Detectives
Sherlock Holmes
Sherlock Holmes, England’s greatest “consulting detective”, was created by British author Arthur Conan Doyle in 1887. There have been multiple television and film iterations of Holmes over the last two centuries. He is arguably the most awesome deductive reasoner in the history of fiction. He can analyze situations and find clues that others might overlook and he is also able to figure out the motives and identities of criminals by using logic (step aside Spock). His ability to solve puzzles by removing options is well-summarized by this famous sentence: “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” He also uses his knowledge of various subjects, such as chemistry, anatomy, botany, and cryptography, to enable his investigations. Without doubt, Holmes is considered the prototypical mastermind modern detective – from Batman to Nancy Drew to Jake Peralta, Sherlock’s ideas and style have permeated our understanding of critical thinking.
From my perspective, Benedict Cumberbatch’s Holmes is the best representation of the character – he showcased deduction in a modern and creative way by using his skills of observation, crowdsourcing, analytical reasoning, and some light trespassing to solve various crimes and mysteries in modern London. He often used his smartphone (or John Watson’s) to access information, communicate across his network of spies, and manipulate data in service of his clients’ interests. He also employed forensic science, cryptography, and other techniques to examine evidence, crack codes, and extract confessions.
Whether you are deducing ways to help a potential employer or eliminating “inefficiency suspects” as part of a process improvement assignment, applying deductive reasoning will help to crack your next case.
The Sleuth Sisters (Amy Santiago and Rosa Diaz)
The Sleuth Sisters are allegedly the main characters of a series of “cozy mystery novels” by Maggie Pill. They are three middle-aged sisters who live in Allport, a small town in northern Lower Michigan, who Pill describes as…
Barb, a retired lawyer and a grammar and punctuation nerd who sneaks around town at night to correct the errors on signs.
Faye, a kind-hearted and insecure former librarian who loves animals and books.
Retta, a widowed former state trooper’s wife who is bossy, wealthy, and fashionable.
But that’s not who I’m talking about. I’m talking about Amy Santiago and Rosa Diaz, who are the real, modern, and coolest/nerdiest version of the Sleuth Sisters. My hunch is that Brooklyn 99 co-creators Dan Goor and Michael Schur were probably paying homage to the originals when they wrote this plot into the show.
With their contrasting styles – Rosa is secretive and fearless, whereas Amy is nerdy and ambitious – these Sleuth Sisters bring to life the critical thinking traits of trust and humility to their cases. Blending humility, trust, and collaboration, Amy and Rosa co-create a safe space for critical thinking. During their pursuit of Sergio, a criminal who evaded them years earlier, Amy discloses that she was the one who let the fine-smelling-criminal get away the first time. Through their dialogue about following hunches, being honest about mistakes, and jumping recklessly from a second floor window, the Sleuth Sisters highlight how psychological safety helps us uncover clues that might well stay hidden when everybody has their guard up and armour on.
What Google learning from its quest to build the perfect team is that the teams with folks who felt the most safety solved the most problems, produced the most innovative ideas, and yielded the highest engagement. When teams – whether it’s a tandem of Sleuth Sisters or an entire multi-national corporation – feel safe to ask all kinds of questions, challenge authority, and share what they don’t understand or what mistakes they made, folks can get to the root cause of a problem faster and with more clarity.
The Chickens from Outfoxed
Outfoxed is a cooperative board game for kids. Chicken detectives – the players – work together to gather clues, eliminate suspects, and catch the fox who stole a delicious pie. Players use dice, cards, and a special evidence scanner to solve the mystery. It teaches kids to solve problems collaboratively.
And adult, grown-up-kids, too.
Diverse teams are better critical thinkers. Collaboration fosters critical thinking through discussion, evaluation of ideas, and iteration based on what gets analyzed by the group. When our family plays Outfoxed we not only analyze the evidence in front of us during every turn, but we also think critically about our cooperative strategy. Who will search for clues? Who will reveal suspects for interrogation? Which chicken should move in what direction across the board? Where could these foxes with no briefcases, cloaks, top hats, and umbrellas possibly be hiding the pie?!
Through dialogue that combines open listening and powerful questions (and possibly some ebullient yelling), our collaboration enables our critical thinking (or vice versa). When teams tackle problems together they increase the likelihood of generating more ways to find the pie co-create creative and effective solutions.
John Rebus
There is a statue of Arthur Conan Doyle in Edinburgh. Ian Rankin, one of the greatest modern authors of the detective genre, is drawing pretty obvious connections to the OG of modern detecting, Sherlock Holmes, with the hometown of John Rebus the main character of Rankin’s detective novels. He is a police inspector in Edinburgh, Scotland, who eventually becomes a semi-retired consulting detective, not unlike Holmes. He is also a complex and flawed person, who struggles with his personal life, his past, and his relationships.
John Rebus is also very skeptical. He doubts everything. Peoples’ stories. The evidence. Timelines. His friends. His enemies. Himself.
He always doubts.
Leveraging this skeptical approach, Rebus does not accept anything at face value, but always looks for evidence and logic. He also seeks different perspectives and sources of information to verify his findings. Most importantly, John Rebus believes that nothing is as simple or as obvious as it seems. He questions his colleagues, himself, and the state of the world to uncover clues and find the truth. He does not trust anyone easily and he often challenges his superiors (especially when they are trying to wrap up a high-profile, politically charged investigation).
Taking time to doubt a plan, solution, or new idea for a cool community experience sounds like “how could this thing fail?” and looks like a list of all the reasons the thing won’t work. This type of critical thinking will eliminate risky or imperfect ideas as well as prepare you for potential problems.
Miss Marple
Jane Marple is a fictional character created by the famous crime writer Agatha Christie. She is an elderly spinster who lives in the fictional village of St. Mary Mead in England. Miss Marple uses her sharp observation skills, her knowledge of human nature, and her experience of living in a small community to find clues and expose the culprits. She often helps the police or her friends and relatives who are involved in various cases and is considered one of Christie’s most popular and beloved characters, and is considered a great detective because of her intelligence, intuition, and charm.
My hunch is that Miss Marple would love game theory because of her imagination and her knowledge of human nature, which inspire her to come up with myriad scenarios and motives for her cases.
Game theory, a blend of math and human behavior, merges with critical thinking to enable strategic decision-making. It’s like a puzzle where players anticipate each other’s moves, using logic and psychology. This interdisciplinary approach dissects complex social interactions, offering insights into the fascinating interplay between human nature and economics, strategic decision making, and crushing your so-called friends at boardgame night. Critical thinking is pivotal to game theory, as players must anticipate others’ moves, evaluate potential outcomes, and adapt strategies accordingly.
In this case, critical thinking can be applied by predicting a variety of options for any given problem or scenario, such as potentialities for a new role at a new organization or predictions of how executive team members will respond to your next proposal. Generating a multiverse of outcomes deepens knowledge of the need or problem as well as solidifies the strength of the solution because it is built with multiple outcomes in mind.
Miss Marple is also very discreet, unassuming, and charming. She does not appear to be a threat or a rival to anyone, but rather a harmless old lady who likes to gossip and knit. She uses her social skills and her reputation to gain access and information from various sources. She also knows how to manipulate and persuade people to reveal their secrets or confess their crimes. She often surprises and impresses the police and the criminals with her cleverness and insight.
When we are quiet and observant – especially when surrounded by extroverts – a lot of data will spill into the room for critical analysis. It never hurts to be quiet, confident, and charming.
Keith Frazier
Speaking of charming.
Keith Frazier is a fictional character played iconically by Denzel Washington in the 2006 movie Inside Man, which is an underrated detective, heist, and bank robbery film directed by Spike Lee and written by Russell Gewirtz. Frazier is a New York City police detective who is assigned to negotiate with the ringleader of a bank heist that turns into a hostage situation that turns into misdirection that turns into a surprising coverup.
Frazier is a great detective because he is persistent and determined (not to mention witty and charismatic). He does not give up easily and follows the leads until he solves the case., which requires him to stands up to the pressure and interference from his superiors and a powerful fixer who tries to manipulate him.
One of the reasons that Frazier can resiliently manage the pressures he faces is that he is witty, charismatic, and improvisational. He has a good sense of humor and connotes confidence. He uses his communication skills and charm to negotiate with the robbers, the powerful fixer (played excellently by Jodie Foster) and persuades them to cooperate.
When critical thinking tactics of deduction, skepticism, vulnerability, game theory, scenario planning, collaboration, and compassion are exhausted without generating a clear understanding of the situation or problem we can use grit and perseverance. Grit enables sticktoitiveness over the long-term and gives us stamina to solve intractable problems.
And if this fails, well, our wit and charisma might be brought to bear to woo a new collaborator who can help us.
Which of fiction’s greatest detectives did I miss? Who else should be on this list and how do they demonstrate awesome critical thinking skills?