Controlling people with fear

The news these days is full of fear. Some of the news is true, while other headlines turn out to be lies and half-truths. Either way, they spread fear. Can fear be used to control a society or group? Let's dive into that.

Fear can be debilitating when present in situations that aren't dangerous. Imagined fears cause people to be afraid of their own shadow. If someone in power can cause a panic, they can take control by promising safety. "For your own safety" sounds reasonable compared to "because I said so". Claiming they, and only they, can save you puts the one who started the panic in the driver's seat. 

Covid 19 propaganda

Here is where you can insert propaganda of any type, wartime or otherwise, repeated multiple times. Images and words repeated can condition us and influence us over long periods of time. In times of crisis people are extra easy to influence. If one doesn't dig for the truth, they may remain ignorant to the entire situation. Knowledge will disarm propaganda and the panic itself. 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

The sad truth is that most of the people in the most dangerous of oppression situations don't know that they are in danger. They often don't know until it is too late. This is one of the reasons Germany didn't do much to stop Hitler - and after you look at the propaganda given to the German people you can see why. The ones who saw it coming were ignored, because the subtle steps taken were so small, and yet added up. What Hitler was doing was hiding his abuse of Jews from his own people, except for those participating, and by the time it was more obvious it was far too late. 

After having power for so long, the fear of losing power becomes stronger, thus the oppression becomes worse once confronted. It is the fear of giving up the position of power that corrupts. Political and social power are higher up on the power ladder, so let's all be careful out there. Fear is far more contagious than COVID 19, and I'm seeing too much similarity between propaganda and the "stay home" message.

One of the main things you can do to help yourself think and get out of fight-or-flight mode is to stop watching the news, except to search for what the truth is. Even turn off the television. Unplug yourself from your social media, take a hike, get out of wifi range, and take good care of yourself. Oh, and avoid the panicked people who absorb the TV and media like sponges. Doing all this, or even half of it, will help you disconnect and think for yourself. I'd highly suggest you do so.

A word of caution to those reading the statistics for Corona Virus with fear - they are skewed because the hospitals are given more money to say a heart attack victim (for example) died of Covid 19. It happened to my mother's friend and she made the hospital change it back, but most likely, most haven't made them change it. The statistics are wrong. Please know this when you hear the statistics announced. I'd like you all to know the truth, rather than believe lies. 

Pictures:

Alamy

Bored Panda

Sources:

https://academyofideas.com/2015/11/fear-and-social-control/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-main-ingredient/201303/fear-vs-power

https://www.under-one-roof.net/spiritual/fear-control.html

men and women - socialized to communicate differently

We are all socialized to act a certain way in society, whether we know it or not. Gender, according to my Malone University gender class, is policed by those of the same gender. In simpler terms, if you don't act like your gender is supposed to act you get reactions you won't like. Women who don't act like women or men who don't act like men are less popular. 

What women and men are supposed to act like in communication style is based on your culture. Some cultures preferred silent women and loud men, while others made women queens (Nubians-black queens) and gave them power. It all depends on where you live and how you were raised, or socialized.

This all starts in childhood, when your family and teachers teach you what is for boys and what is for girls. It shapes your view of what you should do in society. The kids around you reinforce the ideas, most times, and "police" this by making fun of those who don't fit or not including them. If you were unconventional you know how it feels. It stings emotionally. The point here is that you naturally want to be like the people around you at a young age, so you might conform (or if you were me, embrace the fact you can't fit). The average kid will change for their friends. You will naturally want to fit in. The unconventional may also just give up on fitting in. 

For Boys Only And For Girls Only

The expectations of girls and boys are different. The label of boy toys and girl toys is based firmly on society. Dolls? girls. Trucks? Boys. Frills? Girls. Plain? Boys. (The last thing named is frustrating for those who want plain colors of t-shirts in the women's clothing department.) Point being, our society doesn't expect the same from both.  Soft is for girls and sturdy is for boys is usually the standard. This is all modeled for us by families and society. 

Communication is no different. With speech patterns, acceptable conversation, and accepted emotional releases comes a complicated web. It boils down to women being able to cry and men being able to express anger. Women are allowed more emotional release than men. This is taught by little boys being told not to cry early on, but yet allowed to yell on the playground. They are expected to be loud. Women, on the other hand, are taught social games like "house" in their childhood. They are given dolls, frilly stuffed animals, and teacups. They are taught more polite types of communication through these games, but it also gives more possibility of verbal damage from other women, as opposed to boys who fight with physical fists. 

Female

Interacting with women is verbal, mostly, with body language that actively reflects the emotions of the person they are talking to. They are less direct, more polite, and most likely sensitive. I have, even as a female, considered some social circles to be minefields of unspoken rules. It takes some time to figure out what is taboo. Female speech patterns are more complicated, by far. We are more equipped for communication or administrative positions as a result. Women communicate for relationship maintenance.

There is a nasty side to this, as most women who don't fit the normal pattern know. Not all women psychologically bully, to be fair, but it is more common to psychologically bully in women than men.  In my gender class several women and I agreed that we didn't trust our own gender. Women can be nasty to other women via gossip and complicated social rules. Not including so-and-so to a party can be done by any gender, but it is likely a woman may invite a person to a party in order to humiliate them. I am not trying to hate my own gender with this statement, but I am being honest. Women don't always trust other women.

Why do women backstab each other? It could be that women are competing for the attention of men, which we are taught to seek from childhood on. Yes, that is somewhat nature and less nurture, but many princess movies teach us to find a man. Barbie has a man, Cinderella has a man, even Anna from Frozen has a man. Ariel leaves the water for a man, even changes for him. This pattern teaches us to seek men and compete for them, thus any woman in our path could potentially take the one we want. Some women are known to home wreck, aka. steal men. Men can do the same thing, but women are blamed for it more often. 

Male

Men, on the other hand, fight with fists and not words. They speak more directly. Men use less facial emotion, less mirroring. They speak to negotiate, win, and for an end goal. They take up more space than women physically in personal space. They like face-to-face. It has to do with dominance, in some ways. Men man-spread naturally (meaning, sit with legs apart). It isn't complicated. They say it like it is. Though some men have gossiped, I won't say most do. Complex communication is not what they are socialized to do. They are socialized to be loud and masculine. They are taught from a young age to be tough and act, to solve problems rather than talk about them. This is modeled for them by men around them. This communication style is also why some women, exhausted by the verbal thrust-and-parry of typical female communities, turn to men as friends. Simple is quite refreshing compared to the world of women.

How is action-over-words socialized? Well, look at the role models in the movies and books. James Bond, Die Hard, John Wayne, etc.....Action stars who get the girl at the end of the movie. On top of that, we have more military-style toys marketed toward the little boys. I have a previous blog that includes a description of "the man box". It boils down to being manly and powerful, or being outside the norm and being a sissy. Men are taught to be powerful and dominant. I'm not saying all of them end up like John Waye and all the rest of the action stars that act virile, but it is what they are presented with in media from a young age. I want to say that this is shifting, but I also know it somewhat isn't, so I'll say this; it may be shifting as gender roles for women shift, but the image of the muscled man taking action hasn't left.

Pictures:

The Other Sociologist

Terminology Coordination Unit

Syfy Wire

Sources:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/eat-the-damn-cake/201211/learning-trust-other-women-again

https://wgac.colostate.edu/education/gender-and-identity/men-and-masculinities/

https://online.pointpark.edu/public-relations-and-advertising/gender-differences-communication-styles/

https://blogs.unicef.org/evidence-for-action/what-is-gender-socialization-and-why-does-it-matter/

https://sites.psu.edu/academy/2016/04/07/the-effects-of-gender-socialization-on-men-and-wculture

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/3-reasons-women-struggle-trust-women

https://www.sparknotes.com/sociology/socialization/section4/

Conditioning people

This past week it has occurred to me that we have all been conditioned to stand on a taped "X" and inside taped boxes in stores everywhere. Basically, we have been trained. What does it mean to be conditioned? Let's dive into that. 

It has to do with reward and punishment. It is how we learn, actually, so it isn't uncommon. It is the reason we obey enforced rules. When we break laws that are enforced we feel the consequences, thus we don't (usually) repeat our mistakes. It works the same way if there is an incentive to doing something consistently. For example, getting good grades and the reward of money may create a habit of working hard in school and wanting good grades. It creates good feelings when you get them after a while, reward or not. 

This is why, after two months of "social distance", we distance in public places whether we agree with it or not. After long-term conditioning, we form habits that are hard to break, thus we create a new normal in our lives with every conditioned response. It scares me sometimes how easily you can play with someone's normal by conditioning a response. 

The Operant 

Conditioning a response is fairly simple. You reward the behavior you want and punish the behavior you don't. You can probably see how this works. One is more likely to repeat an action when they get a good response. There are two responses, respondent and operant. Respondent is automatic. Operant is a conscious action. 

By removing a negative consequence or adding a positive event, you use operant conditioning for reward. Removing the positive event or adding a punishment is the opposite effect. An example of this would be a child learning to clean up their room. If they did the task well, we add a cookie reward or take away the threat of being grounded/spanked. In the opposite circumstance, we spank/ground the child and there is no cookie offered. Simple. It can also be said that an event they were looking forward to may be denied, like if they can't go to a party. 

A lot of times there is reinforcement on behavior. (Keep in mind that this can be done to anyone of any age, not just children and lab rats.) It can be continuous, have a fixed rate (after x amount of response it is reinforced), fixed interval (after x amount of time), and variable fixed rate/variable interval rate (which is random).  How effective is it? Well, continuous means learning quickly, but it doesn't last. Fixed ratio is steady. Fixed interval is steady, but not as sure. Anything variable is quite effective.  

The Respondent or Classical

Respondent conditioning (classical conditioning) is association. For example, my soft-toothed childhood. I associate dental visits with Novacaine. This is a perfect example because it was reinforced so often I began to react to the parking lot of the dental office like a dog reacts to the vet. Speaking of dogs, they are the first example of classical conditioning. Pavlov used his dogs and food to prove classical conditioning. Any psych class you take will talk about it. 

How do you condition classically? Take a neutral thing (a dental visit) and unconditioned stimuli (the feeling of numbness). For this I'm just going to break down my first example. The idea is for the idea of the neutral event or object (or even person) to cause a conditioned response (in my case, dread at the feeling of numbness). It isn't that hard of an idea. It is also scary how easily you can mess with someone in this conditioning. 

This is the part where I warn all you medical professions to be personable to young children. It is shockingly easy to create a phobia in young children by being scary to them, over and over again. Heed my warning. Learn to work well with children and you will be loved, not to mention the cooperation you'll get. Scare them on accident too many times and you create fear of you, a tool you use, or your profession as a whole. The child may even do the opposite of what you say because they don't like you. So, the choice is yours. Do you want cooperation and love, or fear and spite? Be careful and good luck!

The Pros and Cons of Conditioning

I mentioned that any age or species can be conditioned. I don't care if you are a dog, cat, human, or zoo animal - you can be conditioned. Society is evidence of that all by itself. We are taught to behave a certain way while young and grow up following that lifestyle, give or take some personality and life situations we face. We are not robots, to be sure, but we do tend to follow like sheep and be conditioned. 

The pros of this include raising well-disciplined children into well-rounded adults using operant conditioning. We raise our offspring using reward and punishment systems. If we let our kids run around without rules we'd have anarchy everywhere. You start young, with a kid of docile temperament, and you barely need any corporal punishment (according to my parents). This is just one example of a good use of this, but it is the best one I can think of. 

The con side of this is cases of abuse and manipulation. Emotional abuse is notorious for this. People conditioned to apologize for everything are usually victims of this. Being conditioned to cope with someone's abuse means there is a blind spot in your perception. It creates unhealthy normal and unhealthy habits of second-guessing your own judgment. It often creates a habit of having to text back immediately, because the response is flack for not texting back quick enough. It takes months to bounce back, and some don't truly bounce back at all. In short, you are conditioned to appease your abuser.

Pictures:

Thought Co.

Medical News Today

Elevator World

Sources:

https://www.verywellmind.com/operant-conditioning-a2-2794863

https://www.verywellmind.com/classical-vs-operant-conditioning-2794861

https://pro.psychcentral.com/recovery-expert/2016/07/victims-of-emotional-abuse/

My first review- Lake City Way Ninja Girl

The other day I got a request to review a book on twitter - my first one ever! The book Lake City Way Ninja Girl was written by Cait Moore, wife of horror writer Michael J. Moore. From the minute I read the first chapter I was hooked. I read this book, and the chapter of the next book (previewed at the end) in one evening and a morning. No joke. 

Image from Book Sprout

The tale of a 12 year old girl, mentally haunted by the shooting of a man beside the food bank in Lake City Way, becoming a vigilante had me on my seat from the first five chapters and made me want more by the end. It isn't a "happily ever after" ending, I'll just tell you that now, but it is worth every penny, should you ask me if you should invest in it. It would make a fantastic addition to any personal or public library. 

This is a dark, young adult novel, but not so dark that isn't young adult. It is realistic to what might happen to a 12-year-old vigilante going after drug dealers in the street. It has several Batman references and characters that could come alive and actually be real people. I found myself sympathizing with the young girl throughout the book, much like when I read Hunger Games or Maximum Ride in high school. I connected deeply with this 12-year-old girl, Gaby, who was frustrated by the violence in her streets and decided to do something, reckless or not. 

What was truly unique was the various colored words that could be found throughout. I almost wanted to write them down and decipher them like some sort of code later, but I suspect that they represent her innermost thoughts. "My mom" and "my dad" are often in a red color, as well as other phrases that come up throughout the book. 

What really hit me like a ton of bricks was the ending, and because I want you to read it for yourself, I'm going to tell you nothing about how it ended. Nothing at all, except that her story will continue on in the next book, from a place you'd never expect her to end up. It was a plot twist that made me want to grab the next book and keep on reading. 

Thank you Michael J. Moore for asking me to review this book. I enjoyed it immensely and will be putting this series on my reading bucket list from now on. Thanks for putting it on my reading radar!

What is Black Lives Matter? - an overview

We know about George Floyd, but what does the Black Lives Matter movement actually stand for? We're doing this Dragnet style - "just the facts". We're not going into opinion on this blog post. There is enough of that on social media everywhere, anyway. 

Black Lives Matter is global, in the US, UK and Canada. They want to get rid of white supremacy and gain local power in order to intervene in the violence in black communities, either by the state or vigilantes. They want to improve opportunities for the black community and create a better black community. It was founded after the acquittal of Trayvon Martin's murderer in 2013. They reach out to the marginalized and will help you no matter your gender or immigrant status.  They want every black person to thrive in every way possible. Short answer, they fight racism toward the black community, and hope to make the world better for all people through this fight. They are for peace in the world.

Founded 

This organization was founded by three women. They are Patrisse Khan-Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi. Khan-Cullors is also the Strategic Advisor. When George Zimmerman was acquitted of Trayvon Martin's murder these ladies created this movement. Part of the goal was to let in all genders, because most only let leadership fall to straight men, leaving women and any other genders out. This is why they reach out to all genders. This has continued for six years. 

Co-founders fo Black Lives Matter

What They Do 

The arts is a major way to reach people, thus they help and uplift emerging black artists. These arts are based on everything from 1960 and 1970 to Women's Rights. They have a series of art videos called The Provocateurs. If you go to the source website below and go to programs, then arts and culture you will find the link to it. 

Petitions, petitions, and more petitions are also their thing. Not to mention hashtags, phone calls, rallying, social media campaigns, and marches. They are your typical political movement, after all, so that is no surprise. 

Pictures:

World Economic Forum

Sources:

https://blacklivesmatter.com/

Women against feminism- why they didn't want it

Women against getting the vote actually existed out there. What? This topic may get a little deep, so bring your shovel and let's get started! *Please note anything in this blog is research, not personal beliefs.*

 

Anti-Suffragette Propaganda

First, we define feminism and the women's suffrage movement. Feminism is a movement that wants equality for women and men, in its most basic definition. Women's Suffrage was the movement that fought for the female right to vote. Now that we have that straight, we'll start with the oldest one. 

Women's Suffrage Movement

The women against voting did not want into politics, at all. Also, the belief that women and men had different roles was strong. Something known as "The Anti's Alphabet" explained some of why these women opposed the freedom we love so much. To sum this up, they had a duty to the home and children. Voting women challenged that, and challenged men who believed politics was no subject for women to speak of. Women were domestic, but men were public when it came to influence. Women cared for the community and the home. The Antis didn't see time for a new task. They suggested women couldn't do it all, at least not without neglecting a few tasks here and there. They feared divorce would result.

The feminine sphere was not to be involved in politics through voting, to be clear. The women who did want the vote were not the most popular, which explains why it did not come easily. The argument that certain sexes did certain duties was not going away, and most that fought for suffrage didn't contradict it, but the anti-suffragists depicted them as trying to be men. They made them look like a threat to men. While some may have felt they were just that without the influence of the Anti-suffragists, these Antis didn't help the cause. 

She who wanted the vote, who wanted into an "unnatural" role was considered manly or a hybrid, according to the article "Elimination of Sex", written in 1912. They were not talking about the physical act of sex, but instead the roles of each sex being mixed up and messed up in society. If you read it now, it sounds ridiculous and laughable, but then? It made sense (if raised in that period of time). We live in a far more free society than ever before, as women, and so, we would be seen as hybrids, which is what Antis were trying to avoid. They stated the influence of women could do many things without the vote.

The idea of family balance is at play. The roles women and men play are embedded into that, and thus women wanting to step anywhere near the sphere of men were seen in a bad light, especially because politics and military were connected. Men were military, not women, so Antis were keenly aware that social balance was being upset. Men being the head of the home was in danger, allegedly. 

British Anti-Suffragette Badge

Also, most of these women were of the privileged class and, most likely, liked their cushy, simple lives. The benefits of those doing well under the current system outweighed any urge they had to vote. They wanted to stay in the lines society had drawn in the sand and continue their philanthropy. Not to put these ladies in too bad of a light, but they had status and wanted to keep it, especially the influence that came with it. They liked their feminine sphere. These women got comfortable there.

Feminism

Where do I begin? Feminism gets complicated, quickly, and the Webster definition I referenced isn't anywhere close to what people consider it. The connotation of it is that these women hate men, but it isn't true in most cases. Yes, there are extreme groups out there that say one sex is inferior to the other (men or women). I won't deny that. I took a gender class in college and we dove into this topic with lots of research. Put simply, this blog is not long enough to go into the history of feminism, so I'm sticking with the dictionary definition today. It is a heated subject, so I'm going to repeat the disclaimer from the top. *This is research, not my personal opinion.* This is about the perspective of those against feminism.

Women against sexual equality do exist, undeniably. It has to do with reproduction and control of lady parts, along with equal responsibility for sexual actions. There have been points made about men using condoms (not guaranteed to work) and women having the pill, and then men being made responsible when the condom wasn't good enough (assuming the woman didn't take her pill). It was then pointed out that women bear the consequences, and if a man is forced into responsibility or willing to take the responsibility, risks his life working. This, oddly enough, puts women in the driver's seat because she can opt to not take birth control, then blame the man. Then the whole abortion vs prolife issue comes up. 

We can't talk about reproduction without the "Me Too" movement and rape. These women highlight that there are also male victims of rape, but that feminist movements bury any mention of these, thus making it a female problem, and men are almost always the culprits. Men are then considered animalistic and predatory when it isn't true of all men. They say that male perspectives are overlooked, so they don't report their rapes because it can't be proven or they won't be believed. I will also add that male suicide rates are higher, but ignored. This leaves opening for women to abuse men, much like the case of Johnny Depp. The claim that female abusers create rapists comes from one of my sources, a blog of an Antifeminist. This perspective makes women the monster, not men.

It seems to me that the perspective I read puts women as the monsters of society for blaming and abusing men, and puts no responsibility on men. She claims women are silencing men using the claim women are victims, and she is claiming "mansplaining" is a way to shame men for talking about issues. Men, in her perspective, are treated like animals who always have sex on the brain because women threw the label on them and silenced them. She presents her own sex as the enemy. 

Conclusions and My personal Opinion

All of the above is research, but this paragraph is not. Reading the blog of an anti-feminist woman was not the most fun thing I've done this week. It blew my mind to read the tone of the blogs, the tone that declared women were the enemy and men were the victims-coming from a woman. I don't think our society needs to be The Battle of the Sexes. We all have equal responsibility to treat people well and listen to their perspectives. The only thing that I agreed with on the blogs I referenced was that men are overlooked on suicide rates and as rape victims. That is true and can be proven. However, I think that no matter your sex you should treat everyone you meet with kindness and God's grace. We, as humans, have the incredible potential to be evil or good. Be kind. 

Pictures:

Bored  Panda

The British Suffragette Movement - Wordpress

BBC

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-history-dept/2015/10/22/450221328/american-women-who-were-anti-suffragetteshttps://womenagainstfeminism.com/ 

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/why-women-led-antisuffrage-campaigns-against-themselves

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1903/09/why-women-do-not-wish-the-suffrage/306616/

https://ehistory.osu.edu/exhibitions/1912/womens_suffrage/interest

Sherlock Holmes and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Sherlock Holmes is known the world over for being an excellent detective with an equally cunning nemesis, Professor Moriarty. He was created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. This quirky, genius detective has not been forgotten. From The Great Mouse Detective to Sherlock, we know his name well. 

The Great Mouse Detective

Who is Sherlock? If you don't know, he is a detective with exceptional logic skills, a mind palace, and a sidekick known as Watson, Dr. John Watson. Dr. Watson is a war veteran with a cane and mustache, as well as a medical doctor. Professor Moriarty is a perpetual criminal problem for this pair who has his hand in most of the crime in England. *Spoiler Alert Coming!* There is a famous scene where the pair both fall to their deaths fighting each other, and then both of them come back to life. Why? Because of the public outcry against killing Sherlock off and financial problems for Doyle. 

The Author 

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was born in Edinburgh Scotland in the year 1859, May 22nd. His father was an alcoholic and his mother read him books and told him stories so well it somewhat obscured real life. He shared his mother's talent at telling stories. Upon returning from his education he helped sign his troubled father into an asylum. From here he went into medical training. Much like Holmes, whom he created, he was exceptional at logic, diagnosis, observation, and deduction. Once his works started to be published he learned he could make money off of them. 

When offered a medical position on a whaling ship, he accepted the adventure. That experience inspired Captain of the Pole Star.  He was no stranger to travel. He also experienced Africa (though he wasn't as thrilled with it). He returned to England as quickly as possible to start his own, two-room, practice. He had one foot in writing and another in medical practice after that. This is where he was when he began writing Sherlock Holmes. 

The Beginning of Sherlock Holmes

He was doing well by the time The Sign of Four was out there for the world to see. He was known better in The United States, surprisingly, than in England. He had a good married and family life, thriving medical practice, and great success in writing. He was still restless. After trying Ophthalmology, and seeing not one person in the door, The Strand magazine picked up the Sherlock Holmes stories and he collaborated with an illustrator. That is when Holmes was made most famous. 

After almost dying of influenza, he gave up trying to juggle medical and literary, and stuck with literary so he could be his own master. In 1892 he became a father to Kingsley, and the man was overjoyed. Around this time he tried to kill off Sherlock Holmes, to his audience's shock. The Strand magazine subscriptions plummeted. He didn't consider Holmes his best work, as weird as it sounds, and Holmes overshadowed what he considered his best. 

Doyle threw himself into his favorite work, not noticing his wife's health, until she was diagnosed with Tuberculosis. He devoted himself to her and kept her alive well past the time they had predicted. He explored life beyond the afterlife by joining the Society for Psychical Research, something his current depression may have drawn him to. 

Since this blog is mostly about Sherlock and Doyle, let's skip forward. He gave the script rights to playwright William Gillette, told him to do whatever he wanted, and got a result that was anything but what was written in the pages of his stories. 

Sherlock's Return

He resurrected Holmes after he got a story idea based on the Devonshire Moors, realizing he already wrote the character he was trying to invent. Frustrated readers now got more of what they wanted in  The Hounds of  Baskervilles. Sherlock Holmes continued after that.

Curiously, he helped solve crimes, as himself, when George Edalji was convicted of slashing horses and cows, but had such poor eyesight he couldn't have done it. Doyle pointed this out to the Scotland Yard. He saved several people from injustice more than once. 

The Cottingley Fairies, what Doyle took for truth

I mentioned before, in a blog previous to this, that Doyle's second wife was a medium. She trance wrote, to be exact, and mostly because he got her into the occult after the toll the wars took on him. He was also into fairy lore. He found pictures that looked untampered, all of two fairies with a few teenage girls. His interest progressed into the occult after more of his family died. Press mocked and the clergy didn't like it, but he was undeterred. This point in his life was less fiction and more spiritualism writing. He did tours for spiritualism. He died of heart problems. His last word were to his wife.

This man is a fascinating subject, and the website I used has even more information, so feel free to look into my sources. I could write so much more, but it'd be an extra long blog. I hope you enjoyed it, Sherlock fans!

Pictures:

BBC

itunes-apple

Litquotes

Sources:

https://www.arthurconandoyle.com/

https://www.arthurconandoyle.com/biography.html