Percent_Carbon comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1174)
(Edited in response to feedback)
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.
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?
Draco said that McNair said that Lucus Malfoy said that Dumbledore said he did it.
Citation needed that readers excused him for it.
Dumbledore was also Lily's potion confidant. 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.
We observe that Petunia says took a potion that made her sick for weeks then she became beautiful. (Chapter 1)
We observed that it Harry thinks her beauty is a sign of magic and deduced that it was extremely rare and dangerous. (Chapter 36)
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)
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)
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?
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.)
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?
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.
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.)
In canon, the Elder Wand has a thestral tail-hair core; in MoR,
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.
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
One might say the same thing of using or researching dragon blood. And yet...
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.)
Could you do me a favor and quote the exact line that made you think this?
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
Please distinguish between observation and inference.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Just call him Heh.
It's APWBD, not APBWD.
Thank you. Alas, my credibility shall be forever tainted.
Nah, if you didn't make mistakes now and then your name wouldn't make any sense.
See: me.
I'd settle for "Albus" or "Dumbledore" too.
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?
Dedalus Diggle?
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.
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...
"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?
In other news, standard Navy designations for battleships are BB, frigates are FF, battle cruisers are CC and submarines are SS.
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.
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".