= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nickernst comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 10 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (641)
Nobody has proposed yet that H&C #2 = Snape. The evidence for this hypothesis is that Snape's helping of SPHEW caused a serious escelation of conflict (with Hermoine Granger at the center), and whoever primed Hermoine to attack Draco with the Groundhog Day Attack got her to continue the escelation.
Though I don't know what goal this subgoal would serve...
Further evidence for this theory is that H&C is not great at modelling people, and Snape isn't good at mental models of others either.
If you think H&C2 is the same as H&C1 (I do, for conservation-of-detail reasons), Snape is a plausible candidate for competent plotter who isn't Quirrell or Dumbledore. Which isn't to say that there a clear motive in that case either.
The sticking point in my mind is that the groundhogs day attack should have been a lot more efficient if the attacker was a legilimens.
Abg fher vs Ryvrmre erjevgvat gur tebhaqubtf qnl nggnpx pbhagf nf "vafvqre vasbezngvba." Ebg13vat vg whfg gb or fher.
Guvaxvat nobhg guvf unf oebhtug nabgure vqrn gb zvaq. Gur nccnerag vapbzcrgrapr bs gur tebhaqubtf qnl nggnpx vf jung ernyyl pbashfrq zr bevtvanyyl nobhg gur vqragvgl bs U&P. Znal crbcyr zvfhaqrefgbbq jung unccrarq gurer naq Ryvrmre unq gb tb onpx naq erjevgr vg n ovg. Jung vs gung nccnerag vapbzcrgrapr jnf whfg n fvqr rssrpg bs Ryvrmre gelvat gb uryc gur ernqre haqrefgnaq JGS vf tbvat ba?
Gnxvat gung vagb nppbhag pnhfrf zl cebonovyvgl bs U&P orvat Dhveery be Fancr gb tb jnl hc.
Quirrell is also a leglimens, although I believe that he has stated that using leglimency on students makes things too easy to be amusing.
It also leaves a mark. This is first mentioned when Dumbledore checks HJPEV after Quirrell set thugs on him in, I think, chapter 19 or 20.
Ya, it turns out that mark can be seen months later. I did not expect that.
You make a good point. All I can really do is distinguish between being able to read someone's thought-at-the-moment and understanding a person's mental methodology. Knowledge of the first doesn't imply knowledge of the second. That is, if you were talking in stream-of-thought with little filter, I still probably wouldn't be able to predict what you would say 30 sec in the future.
And I'm sure that Q is not H&C1, because that would be pointless from Q's POV. If we assume the Hermione-Draco duel and aftermath was the intended effect of the groundhog day attack, I also think Q has easier ways of creating similar effects on Harry's psyche. I think Q would not need or desire to falsify the blood purity thesis ("true blood is stronger") to create a rift between HP and Draco. And if the Hermione-HP link was the target, involving Draco and Lucius seems an excessively dangerous complication.
In short, I'm not sold on Snape, but I'm fairly sure it isn't Q. And the text is explicit that Hermione recognized undisguised H&C.
That is a good point. I would love for it to turn out that Eliezer reversed what Rowling did with Snape. I don't think that you can abuse generations of children, for any reason, and still come out the other side of it a good guy.
It would be just like Eliezer to add another level to Cannon Snape's deception. Bad pretending to be good pretending to be bad. shudder
Two-color views...
Better than one...
There really isn't much way that you can abuse generations of children and still be the good guy. For whatever it is worth that is sufficient for the label. That doesn't mean he must be on the enemy team, he could well be a bad guy that plays for the same side Harry does and otherwise does some positive things.
The point is that the label is meaningless, because the dichotomy it's based on does not correspond to anything in the real world.
Sure it does. It responds to real world behaviors that include abusing generations of children! That is something that represents a particular configurations in the universal wave function and it a set of configurations that I do not like.
If you want to define it that way, of course Snape is evil!
But don't go around trying to sneak in any more connotations, now. Such as, for instance, that he kicks puppies, rapes Muggleborns, massacres Jews, plans to nuke Africa, or is secretly a frequentist.
Nobody was arguing by definition. The implied argument by link is invalid. Whatever the word used - bad, evil, dickish, deprecated, subjectively-obectively against my preferences - there is just a thing being described as undesirable and no attempt to prove anything by definitions.
This doesn't apply to anything I have done either. Did you include it just because it happens to be the follow up link on the argument by definition? (So as to give no pretense of subtlety, I endorse the implication behind my pointed emphasis on 'I'.)
This conversation is perhaps not entirely useful so I'm just going to claim the Godwin's violation and leave it alone.
Reread this.
Your claim: (paraphrased)
I seem to have missed this part, though:
Which is more or less exactly what I'd anticipate, meaning that this whole debate is over semantics.
Looking at TVTropes, I find that Godwin's Law is defined more broadly than I'd thought it was. OK, you win.
Something about badness, child abuse and Snape still being a @#$% no matter who he is secretly working for.
Because The Fallacy of the Gray is an awesome point, applies to your accusation of Elmer and said accusation should be rejected as an inappropriate reply to what Elmer said. While having a surface appearance of sophistication your criticisms there and in the subsequent replies are based on incorrect application of the principles of each of "two color views, no meaning in the real world, arguing by definition, and sneaking in connotations".
"You asked" does count for something but I wonder if it would be better not to answer that question literally and directly. Pardon the violation of tact - don't take that as an escalation but rather an explanation of existing position without expectation that you would agree.
Really, all I have to do is describe someone as not a good guy and you accuse me of having a two-color view?