Occupational Forensics

[L.J.Steele]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

That is the problem with all of this Sherlock-Holmesery.

It works in fiction because the GM or writer is simplifying reality. Reality doesn't have to make sense. It indulges in black swan events and weird coincidences.

In a book or game, the cook character will have certain cuts or burns (if the GM/author knows about it) because that's intended as a clue for the players/reader. The lack could mean ignorance on the GM/author's part, or a clue in the other direction -- that's harder to say.

I would urge a real-life investigator to be more cautious about generalizing from generalities.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

That is the problem with all of this Sherlock-Holmesery.

It does remind me of a TV movie where Sherlock was reawakened from stasis into the "modern" world. During one scene he showed his amazing observational skills and rapid deduction... wrongly. He made leaps of judgment that were mistaken due to misunderstanding modern contexts.

For example, he assumed the cop questioning him was nicknamed Noodles, because the cup on his desk had that on the side. It was a Cup-O-Noodles.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by L.J.Steele

It works in fiction because the GM or writer is simplifying reality. Reality doesn't have to make sense. It indulges in black swan events and weird coincidences.

In a book or game, the cook character will have certain cuts or burns (if the GM/author knows about it) because that's intended as a clue for the players/reader. The lack could mean ignorance on the GM/author's part, or a clue in the other direction -- that's harder to say.

I would urge a real-life investigator to be more cautious about generalizing from generalities.

Good point. Even in live action, the camera can slightly zoom in to show the hands as something we should pay attention to.

[Luke Bunyip]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

There were a lot of occupational stigmata back in the days of manual trades, and not just distinctive calluses....
<snip>
Having worked in a lot of kitchens I can tell you that right-handed cooks get cuts on their left hand and burns on their right one, left-handed ones vice versa.

Forefinger callus on the dominant hand, for someone that uses a knife or a cleaver on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by (E)

... Which leads into how cigarettes were held/smoked by the different classes, ember towards the palm amongst the lower classes.

Got taught this living on the streets as a teenager. Still do it today.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by (E)

In some cases they smoked with their pipes upside down. Which leads into how cigarettes were held/smoked by the different classes, ember towards the palm amongst the lower classes.

Or with the ember to the inside of the mouth. That one seems distinct enough to give a clue about both profession and region.

[RyanW]

A related observation is whether someone is from "here" or not.

My area code is 910. Pretty much everyone from this area says it as "nine one oh" or "nine one zero". If someone says "nine ten" I can be pretty sure they are a transplant.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

There were a lot of occupational stigmata back in the days of manual trades, and not just distinctive calluses. Doctors in A.C. Doyle's day were sometimes taught about them, as Doyle was by Joseph Bell, because there were also distinctive occupational diseases.

Tailors too, it is in W.H. Hulme's The Theory of Garment-Pattern Making. He does not give many examples because its a pre-WW II textbook for a trade so pages were precious, and since the essence is "study the bodies of your customers rather than mechanically reproducing some table of proportions or the pictures in fashion magazines."

[Polydamas]

Until roughly the 1950s and 1960s, poor rural people in most of the world tended to wear clothing made in their village of local products and a few well-known imports (like English broadcloth and Hudson's Bay blankets in North America), town people wore international fashions and imported materials. (Tracht/folk costume is the tail end of this).

Clothing often clearly defined ethnicity and social status. So characters should be able to recognize the peasant in his shapeless homespun and hide brogues or the fop in his scandalously short, garishly coloured clothing and double-soled shoes with silver buckles. A butcher, smith, or carpenter may have their apron ... Christians may wear pilgrim badges, Moslems may have something to tell whether they are hajis and details like the colour of their clothing, amount of hair they cover, and length of their trousers hint at their theology ...

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by RyanW

A related observation is whether someone is from "here" or not.

My area code is 910. Pretty much everyone from this area says it as "nine one oh" or "nine one zero". If someone says "nine ten" I can be pretty sure they are a transplant.

Like how so many mispronounce place names. It's weird how many natives of nearby Washington and California fail to pronounce Oregon correctly, but more than a few Brits can.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Clothing often clearly defined ethnicity and social status.

In the extreme case, of course, sumptuary laws enforce this. But I think this is a reason why Shakespeare's disguises as the opposite sex may have seemed more plausible in their day: clothing in the 16th century was both thoroughly gender-coded and not particularly form-fitting or revealing (in most cases), so if you saw "person in male garb" you would probably just assume male.