A useful model for note-taking is that of system 1 and 2 thinking. Try to do as much as possible in system 1. So, most work is done without much work and effort. Chris places his hypothesis.is workflow within system 1.

This interaction is funny and intriguing. This was published 30 years before the suffrage movement and already you can see things are starting to change. Sherlock, although very progressive with his reason and detective skills, still sees women as inadequate. While Watson is coming around to the new way of thinking that women can have opinions and thoughts too.

(I’m putting this at the end of Small’s narrative because my annotation deals with the entire thing.) Doyle wrote this piece during the heat of british imperialism and had had much success in taking over indigenous populations. Doyle kind of shows India as mystical and full of treasure and there is this constant idea that the new world means wealth. It was a popular belief among people at the time. But paired with the luxurious treasure is the constant despair and destruction. Maybe Doyle is suggesting Britain’s ability to overthrow anyone shouldn’t be so highly praised for it only seems to cause chaos. By casting Sholto as a British man as well as a thief I think Doyle is showing his contradictory views. Maybe Doyle sees this expansion and power as robbing other nations and over stepping british boundary.

Also Sherlock and Watson viewed the little man as a savage, so possibly Conan Doyle believes that these people indigenous to Tierra del Fuego are crazy and cannot control themselves

I find it funny that throughout this whole story they were trying to find and convict the man who had wronged Sholto and Mary's father, when both of them had wronged Mr. Smalls and taken all of his wealth and he spent his whole time trying to get revenge for his brothers or "The Sign of Four." To Mr. Smalls home is the bond that he made between the three other men. To Mr. Smalls it didn't matter what race they were because they made a promise to each other and he tried to help them.

As said by a few other classmates, this is historical context because drugs such as morphine and cocaine, as well as many other opioids, were commonly used during the 1800s. However, other versions of Sherlock Holmes tales have taken this context out and replaced it with one that is more common for us, like drinking. The link below, in the section titled 'Sherlock Holmes, Eccentric Chemist (and Dope Shooter)' explains why the Sherlock Holmes movies replace his cocaine use with alcohol. https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2009/12/film-friday-comparing-ritchies-sherlock-holmes-to.html

This passage shows how Doyle is representing cultural blending. The major is belittling the three other men because they are black, and Small is defending them. This, in my observation, is Doyle's way of pushing down the idea of cultural purity, because the four men are working together to get the treasure regardless of their race.

In regards to the hero's journey, the last step is the "return home," or the arrival of the place where there was the call to adventure. The first and the last place Holmes and Watson are in The Sign of Four is 221B Baker Street, with Holmes injecting himself with cocaine. This is where home is. Picture of the Hero's Journey: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjFx5_y3-TOAhUC1mMKHXEfBIEQjRwIBw&url=%2Furl%3Fsa%3Di%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dimages%26cd%3D%26ved%3D0ahUKEwjFx5_y3-TOAhUC1mMKHXEfBIEQjRwIBw%26url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fdesigningsomething.com%252F2016%252F04%252F17%252Fthe-entrepreneurial-journey-as-a-heros-journey%252F%26bvm%3Dbv.131286987%2Cd.cGc%26psig%3DAFQjCNEhf0BTG-p8XrsqhGfXcfM3i9uTvw%26ust%3D1472495639018969&bvm=bv.131286987,d.cGc&psig=AFQjCNEhf0BTG-p8XrsqhGfXcfM3i9uTvw&ust=1472495639018969

Doyle is saying that even though the idea is very simple that no description is needed but giving context to it, will only limit what the audience views while reading. This seems like a good example of having multiple meanings because when things appear to be simple, and no description is given, we tend to miss something huge later on. I feel like this is foreshadowing for this book. If being simple were something that is just looked over, major clues for the characters, or readers are hidden in plane sight.

Yet again it is shown the difference between Watson and Holmes, and perhaps one of the great strengths Holmes is able to show in his ability to seperate emotions or feelings from his outlook on the problems.

This is in stark comparison to Watson, who makes this remark, whilst Holmes is thinking about the problem at hand. Not only this, but he does get emotionally involved with her multiple times later in the story, whereas Holmes is able to focus his mental capacity on the pressing matter at hand

Judging from the fact that it is said her father was in the "Indian regiment", in "the year 1878", we can get a pretty good idea of the war they are referring to, being the Second Anglo-Afghan war between the British Raj and the Emirate of Afghanistan, in the years of 1878 to 1880.

The offensive was done by British India, invading Afghanistan, so this is with all likelihood what is referred to by the "Indian regiment", stating that Miss Morsten's father was a senior captain of his regiment in the British Indian invasion of Afghanistan in the Second Anglo-Afghan war.

This really speaks to Sherlock's rigorous logical discipline that he keeps in his work, as he never lets his emotions get in the way of his observation, his work, and his thought process.