Percent_Carbon comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Oscar_Cunningham 17 March 2012 09:41AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1174)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Percent_Carbon 20 March 2012 05:28:29AM *  6 points [-]

(Edited in response to feedback)

  • Dumbledore says he meant Harry to have wicked step parents - readers excuse this because Harry didn't have wicked step parents
  • Dumbledore sets fire to a living thing - even in story, he is excused of this with speculation about how he could have seemed to do that without being evil, and readers excuse him too
  • Dumbledore probably said that he burned Narcissa alive - readers excuse this as unlikely, pick other suspects
  • Dumbledore says it is necessary for bad things to happen instead of good - readers buy it
  • Dumbledore puts off taking down the man behind WWII in Europe - readers buy his excuse that it wasn't possible
  • Dumbledore gaslights Snape - readers excuse him saying that isn't what he meant to happen
  • Dumbledore tricks Hermione into doing dangerous things by humiliating her - readers excuse him because he knows what he's doing

When do we stop making excuses and start noticing the pattern under them? Dumbledore isn't a good guy, he is a schemer who thinks of himself as a good guy. But he is willing to do very bad things for very bad reasons, which is not a good guy thing.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 20 March 2012 08:43:01PM 5 points [-]

Dumbledore says he meant Harry to have wicked step parents

No, he didn't say that. He simply acted as if to imply that's the case -- at around the same time he was acting as if to imply that Fawkes was in reality a chicken.

Do you think Dumbledore couldn't have ensured that Harry had wicked step parents, if he truly so wanted it?

Dumbledore probably said that he burned Narcissa alive

Draco said that McNair said that Lucus Malfoy said that Dumbledore said he did it.

Dumbledore gaslights Snape - readers excuse him saying that isn't what he meant to happen

Citation needed that readers excused him for it.

Comment author: Xachariah 20 March 2012 11:42:19PM 5 points [-]

No, he didn't say that. He simply acted as if to imply that's the case -- at around the same time he was acting as if to imply that Fawkes was in reality a chicken.

Do you think Dumbledore couldn't have ensured that Harry had wicked step parents, if he truly so wanted it?

Dumbledore was also Lily's potion confidant. He helped her make the permanent potion of +4 charisma that she gave to Petunia.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 21 March 2012 12:44:39PM *  1 point [-]

He helped her make the permanent potion of +4 charisma that she gave to Petunia.

I think I'll start downvoting people who make no distinction between their wild hypothesizing, and the facts we observe in the story.

Comment author: Xachariah 21 March 2012 09:50:17PM *  29 points [-]

We observe that Petunia says took a potion that made her sick for weeks then she became beautiful. (Chapter 1)

"Anyway," Petunia said, her voice small, "she gave in. She told me it was dangerous, and I said I didn't care any more, and I drank this potion and I was sick for weeks, but when I got better my skin cleared up and I finally filled out and... I was beautiful, people were nice to me," her voice broke, "and after that I couldn't hate my sister any more, especially when I learned what her magic brought her in the end -"

We observed that it Harry thinks her beauty is a sign of magic and deduced that it was extremely rare and dangerous. (Chapter 36)

"Harry?" called a thin, blonde woman whose perfectly smooth and unblemished skin made her look a good deal younger than thirty-three; and Harry realized with a start that it was magic, he hadn't known the signs before but he could see them now. And whatever sort of potion lasted that long, it must have been terribly dangerous, because most witches didn't do that to themselves, they weren't that desperate...

We observe that Dumbledore admits to writing into Lily's potion notes. Specifically he claims he wrote notes regarding a potion of Eagle's Splendor that includes a modification where you get sick for weeks and is very dangerous. (Chapter 17)

"Do you see these notes," Dumbledore said in a voice so low it was almost a whisper, "written in the margins of the book?"

Harry squinted slightly. The yellowing pages seemed to be describing something called a potion of eagle's splendor, many of the ingredients being items that Harry didn't recognize at all and whose names didn't appear to derive from English. Scrawled in the margin was a handwritten annotation saying, I wonder what would happen if you used Thestral blood here instead of blueberries? and immediately beneath was a reply in different handwriting, You'd get sick for weeks and maybe die.

"I see them," said Harry. "What about them?"

Dumbledore pointed to the second scrawl. "The ones in this handwriting," he said, still in that low voice, "were written by your mother. And the ones in this handwriting," moving his finger to indicate the first scrawl, "were written by me. I would turn myself invisible and sneak into her dorm room while she was sleeping. Lily thought one of her friends was writing them and they had the most amazing fights."

We observe that Harry and Eliezer are familiar with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (chapter 3); although Harry may not be familiar with this particular potion (D&D 3.0 came out in 2000). Eliezer uses the words "Eagle's Splendor" when that already is a well defined term in D&D. (From the D&D SRD)

Eagle's Splendor

The transmuted creature becomes more poised, articulate, and personally forceful. The spell grants a +4 enhancement bonus to Charisma, adding the usual benefits to Charisma-based skill checks and other uses of the Charisma modifier. Sorcerers and bards (and other spellcasters who rely on Charisma) affected by this spell do not gain any additional bonus spells for the increased Charisma, but the save DCs for spells they cast while under this spell’s effect do increase.

Now, it is possible that Petunia and/or Dumbledore are both lying and/or false memory charmed. We do only observe them saying things and not the actions themselves. It could also be coincidence that Eliezer used "Eagle's Splendor" as a borrowed keyword or he may be trying to mislead us. But these all require an unnecessary addition to our theory.

I suspect we're supposed to go with the obvious answer. The answer that these people are not lying or memory charmed: Lily gave an unusual beauty potion to Petunia; Dumbledore wrote in the margins about a modification to a beauty potion; the side effects for both unusual potions were the same. Ergo Dumbledore, as Lily's potion confidants, helped her come up with the components of Lily's unusual beauty potion.

If you have other observations or come to a different conclusion, feel free to share it. But absent of further evidence, I consider it obvious that Dumbledore helped Lily devise the potion and that Eliezer waned this to be obvious to us, rather than a mysterious secret. Do you come to a different, less wild hypothesis, given these observations?

Comment author: bogdanb 21 March 2012 11:08:00PM *  6 points [-]

Upvoted for geek scholarship. Also, Thestral hair is used in the Elder Wand, and IIRC the Cloak of Invisibility is mentioned at least in MoR to be marked with Thestral blood. (The Stone is said to be marked, but I don’t remember if it’s mentioned with what.)

The Hallows have all sorts of attributes related to permanency, or power over decay: being “invincible” means (more-or-less) your shields aren’t broken and your attacks aren’t stopped, the wand is able to repair broken wands, the cloak hides from death (it also looks like new from the descriptions), the stone brings back “souls”, and owning all of them makes you “Master of Death”.

In the twisted logic of magic, I could see Thestral blood making the effect of a potion permanent (or at least for life) rather than time-limited like most potions seem to be. (Transfiguration needs to be maintained, Polyjuice needs to be taken periodically, and the D&D Eagle’s Splendor has defined duration.)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 22 March 2012 01:25:35AM 1 point [-]

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. Upvoted.

May I note that you hadn't explained it previously, and that not all of us are D&D gamers that we would automatically know what Eagle's Splendor was?

Comment author: Xachariah 22 March 2012 10:01:24AM 2 points [-]

I apologize. A took it as an insult and responded inappropriately.

I know this theory has been explained in past discussion threads and assumed anyone who cares (wow that's a loaded phrase!) would have already known it. Even though it could be 5000+ posts of writing. In retrospect, that was clearly unreasonably of me.

In the future, it would make sense for someone to post a catalog of all the non-obvious insights in HPMoR. I know there are others, but my mind simply labels everything everything I know regarding HPMoR as 'obvious' since I already know it.

I'm reminded of the sequences on Inferential Distance.

Comment author: gwern 21 March 2012 10:41:17PM 0 points [-]

That seems pretty convincing to me. I had never heard of eagle's splendor before so I wasn't able to put the pieces together. But now I'm wondering, since we just learned the major principle of potions: how exactly does thestral blood help one become beautiful? Thestrals in canon are invisible and their blood confers invisibility (or was that MoR? they're getting mixed up in my head so much these days), so wouldn't such a potion render Petunia invisible? Useful for many things, perhaps, but being beautiful does not seem to be one of the things helped by being invisible.

(Or under the 'releasing' sort of mechanism, thestral blood... releases death? Makes one younger? But Petunia was already young.)

Comment author: pedanterrific 21 March 2012 11:43:45PM 3 points [-]

In canon, the Elder Wand has a thestral tail-hair core; in MoR,

And Harry knew, now, that the concealment of the Cloak was more than the mere transparency of Disillusionment, that the Cloak kept you hidden and not just invisible, as unseeable as were Thestrals to the unknowing. And Harry also knew that it was Thestral blood which painted the symbol of the Deathly Hallows on the inside of the Cloak, binding into the Cloak that portion of Death's power, enabling the Cloak to confront the Dementors on their own level and block them. It had felt like guessing, and yet a certain guess, the knowledge coming to him in the instant of solving the riddle.

Comment author: WrongBot 21 March 2012 10:55:15PM *  2 points [-]

Maybe the thestral blood added permanence, because death is permanent? If it was replacing blueberries I doubt it was the key magical ingredient, and so its effect may not be directly related to its properties.

ETA: And also that's why this version of the potion so much more dangerous. It has Death in it.

Comment author: gwern 21 March 2012 11:32:02PM 2 points [-]

ETA: And also that's why this version of the potion so much more dangerous. It has Death in it.

Yes, definitely. But it must be very dilute death or it'd just be a stupid potion. Dumbledore may feel guilty over such dangerous 'help' but he wouldn't make a suggestion guaranteed to fail.

Maybe the thestral blood added permanence, because death is permanent?

That's just crazy enough to work, but to continue the vein of thought, if thestral blood conferred permanence on all sorts of potions, you'd expect it either to be a deep wizarding secret Dumbledore wouldn't give any schoolgirl or to be used in lots of other contexts - anything you want a potion to be permanent. (Maybe witches aren't desperate enough to risk Petunia's potion... but how about Felix felicis? We saw what one day on FF could do, imagine an entire lifetime!)

Comment author: drethelin 22 March 2012 03:39:16AM 3 points [-]

Most people don't know how potions work. I think it'd be safe to tell someone to add thestral blood without telling them what for, and if they're someone as mundane as Lily Potter they would never figure it out.

Comment author: TobyBartels 24 March 2012 09:17:27AM 1 point [-]

Except that Lily did figure out what the substitution would do. She immediately figured out that it would make the subject sick and might be deadly, and she eventually figured out that it would make the change permanent (or whatever good thing it did) and would probably not be quite deadly.

Comment author: Xachariah 22 March 2012 12:42:24AM *  3 points [-]

Invisibility cloaks in canon are supposed to be made from demiguise hairs or enchanted, and not usually made out of thestral components even though thestrals are invisible. The true Cloak of Invisibility may be using the thestral blood for permanence as well. Most cloaks of invisibility fade and weaken with time until they are useless; until Harry discovered a secret use, the primary difference of Harry's cloak was it's ability to last for so long.

In canon, people are extremely prejudiced and superstitious against thestrals. They also share the same XXXX classification as trolls, according to Quirrel "the third most perfect killing machine in all of Nature." This means they're probably illegal to handle or acquire without ministry supervision. I would guess that most people don't have the means or desire to experiment with thestral blood.

Lastly, Felix Felicis is a super finicky potion. It is toxic in large quantities, difficult to brew, and dangerous to get wrong. The inclusion of thestral blood made an ordinary (well, 5th year) beauty potion extremely dangerous; people may not want to risk making it even more dangerous.

Although, all of these are just speculation so take with a grain of salt. But it would explain how thestral ingredients grant permanence, but aren't used commonly.

Comment author: gwern 22 March 2012 01:03:58AM 1 point [-]

The true Cloak of Invisibility may be using the thestral blood for permanence as well. Most cloaks of invisibility fade and weaken with time until they are useless; until Harry discovered a secret use, the primary difference of Harry's cloak was it's ability to last for so long.

IIRC, both canon & MoR flat out says that the Cloak is more than a merely unfading ordinary invisibility cloak, but grants hiddenness and protection on a deeper level than them. It differs in both quality and quantity, you might say.

I would guess that most people don't have the means or desire to experiment with thestral blood.

One might say the same thing of using or researching dragon blood. And yet...

Lastly, Felix Felicis is a super finicky potion. It is toxic in large quantities, difficult to brew, and dangerous to get wrong.

Everything is toxic in large quantities, and the difficulties & danger of preparation apply to, well, the preparation, not the end product. (This actually makes it an even better potion to make permanent with thestral blood.)

Comment author: pedanterrific 20 March 2012 05:37:41AM *  2 points [-]

DD probably said that he burned Narcissa alive

Could you do me a favor and quote the exact line that made you think this?

DD puts off taking down the man behind WWII in Europe - everybody buys his excuse that it wasn't possible

I got the impression that in this case "everybody" amounts to Harry and... maybe just Harry. And I'm not sure that Harry bought that excuse so much as didn't think it worth arguing over at the time.

ETA: Oh, you meant the readers. Well yes, in that case you have a point.

DD tricks Hermione into doing dangerous things by humiliating her - everybody excuses him because he knows what he's doing

Actually McGonagall did pretty much the opposite of that.

Comment author: DanArmak 20 March 2012 07:42:22AM 3 points [-]

Actually McGonagall did pretty much the opposite of that.

She registered her dissent by not showing up at the Hermione Humiliation Party. She didn't actually do anything about it - like talk with Hermione and provide emotional guidance and maybe pick up on her Malfoy obsession ahead of time.

Comment author: pedanterrific 20 March 2012 07:49:06AM *  7 points [-]

"the opposite of that" as in, not excuse him.

And yeah, that would have been helpful. My first reaction to the suggestion was interesting: I thought 'that's not really her job, though' which is true as far as it goes, but raises the question of whose job it is, which raises the further question of why in the world Flitwick is such a nonentity in this story with two Ravenclaw protagonists.

Comment author: Percent_Carbon 20 March 2012 06:33:50AM -1 points [-]

"Could you do me a favor and quote the exact line that made you think this?"

It's in the Author's Notes, where he talks about how he wants his readers to figure things out. There were a couple times where he changed things because people kept guessing wrong, too. I don't know which one exactly made me thing that. It has come up a few times.

Basically, if he didn't say it, it would be a twist with nothing in it. Lucius hasn't done anything on his own in the story. He has only ever reacted to things that other characters did. If Lucius told a lie about what DD said, then that would be the only time in the whole story he did anything on his own. It doesn't fit what EY is doing with Lucius.

Yeah. I'm talking about the readers.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 20 March 2012 08:34:25PM 0 points [-]

Please distinguish between observation and inference.

Comment author: Percent_Carbon 22 March 2012 04:47:01AM 0 points [-]

Please be clear when you make a request of others. I honestly don't understand what you're asking for.

And aren't you suppose to be linking the Sequences if you're telling me my contribution isn't good enough? Isn't that how it works?

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 22 March 2012 11:54:50AM *  4 points [-]

Please be clear when you make a request of others. I honestly don't understand what you're asking for.

You have an argument about how probable Dumbledore is to have said that he burned Narcissa alive. But in the ancestor post, you're talking about readers "excusing" that, as if that's an observation both you and other readers shared, and the other readers merely choose to excuse him for it -- instead of just not making the same inference given the observations at hand.

And aren't you supposed to be linking the Sequences if you're telling me my contribution isn't good enough?

I have no problem linking to some sequence when I know there's actually something relevant and useful there, same way I have no problem linking to some relevant and useful Wikipedia page. Do you have some particular page in the sequences that you think I ought have linked to? If so, you can link it to me.

Or are you in reality complaining that people are linking to the sequences too much for your tastes, and are disguising this as a complain that I did not link to them? If so, I suggest that your tactic of criticizing the people who act like you would like them to act is counterproductive.

Comment author: Percent_Carbon 23 March 2012 01:19:36PM 0 points [-]

I've only read a couple. I don't know what's out. I just see them being linked and thought it might do a better job of explaining what you were trying to tell me.

Comment author: WrongBot 20 March 2012 05:32:41AM 0 points [-]

It would be less confusing (to me, possibly others), if you abbreviated Albus Percival Brian Wulfric Dumbledore's name as AD. (My personal preference for APBWD should not be catered to.)

Comment author: DanArmak 20 March 2012 07:42:55AM 15 points [-]

Just call him Heh.

Comment author: pedanterrific 20 March 2012 05:42:06AM 3 points [-]

It's APWBD, not APBWD.

Comment author: WrongBot 20 March 2012 06:27:54AM 2 points [-]

Thank you. Alas, my credibility shall be forever tainted.

Comment author: pedanterrific 20 March 2012 06:46:50AM *  4 points [-]

Nah, if you didn't make mistakes now and then your name wouldn't make any sense.

See: me.

Comment author: wedrifid 20 March 2012 05:59:31AM 1 point [-]

It would be less confusing (to me, possibly others), if you abbreviated Albus Percival Brian Wulfric Dumbledore's name as AD. (My personal preference for APBWD should not be catered to.)

I'd settle for "Albus" or "Dumbledore" too.

Comment author: Percent_Carbon 20 March 2012 06:37:07AM 0 points [-]

Dumbledore is a funny word to type and not easy to look at. I don't want to get it wrong.

I used DD because that's where you speak up when you say it. Is there another character in this story that DD could mean?

Comment author: pedanterrific 20 March 2012 06:58:54AM 4 points [-]

Dedalus Diggle?

Comment author: Percent_Carbon 20 March 2012 07:35:30AM 0 points [-]

I bet there won't be need for him in this story. If EY doesn't use an existing character to do something minor that Dedalus Diggle would do, he'll use a cameo.

Comment author: wedrifid 20 March 2012 07:22:06AM 2 points [-]

I used DD because that's where you speak up when you say it. Is there another character in this story that DD could mean?

I don't mind too much. It makes Dumbledore sound like "The Destroyer". Bodes well for the future when he puts on his black hat...

Comment author: Percent_Carbon 20 March 2012 07:33:03AM 0 points [-]

"It makes Dumbledore sound like "The Destroyer"."

How does it do that? There's only one D in "The Destroyer". Is there a character somewhere called The Destroyer whose initials are DD?

Comment author: wedrifid 20 March 2012 07:38:21AM *  5 points [-]

How does it do that? There's only one D in "The Destroyer".

In other news, standard Navy designations for battleships are BB, frigates are FF, battle cruisers are CC and submarines are SS.

Comment author: Multiheaded 23 March 2012 02:00:56PM *  0 points [-]

battle cruisers are CC

I thought that it was split into heavy (CA) and light (CL) cruisers, at least back during WW2. Also deviating from the two-letter pattern are carriers (CV) and escort carriers (CVL).

Damn, I really need to get into Gary Grisby's War in The Pacific someday. It's an amazing game, but immense and borderline unplayable, like Dwarf Fortress with you controlling a whole civilization.

Comment author: wedrifid 23 March 2012 03:06:58PM *  1 point [-]

I thought that it was split into heavy (CA) and light (CL) cruisers, at least back during WW2. Also deviating from the two-letter pattern

No, cruisers are split into battle cruisers (CC), armored (CA), large (CB), light and a couple of others, some of which are even still in use. Pre 1920 cruisers were just "C", destroyers "D" and battleships "B".