Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 21, chapters 91 & 92

NancyLebovitz

This is a new thread to discuss Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and anything related to it. This thread is intended for discussing chapters 91 & 92 . The previous thread has passed 500 comments.

There is now a site dedicated to the story at hpmor.com, which is now the place to go to find the authors notes and all sorts of other goodies. AdeleneDawner has kept an archive of Author’s Notes. (This goes up to the notes for chapter 76, and is now not updating. The authors notes from chapter 77 onwards are on hpmor.com.)

The first 5 discussion threads are on the main page under the harry_potter tag. Threads 6 and on (including this one) are in the discussion section using its separate tag system. Also: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,18,19,20.

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.

Okay, I see I've been using words in an idiosyncratic way, so I'll just dump out my thoughts on the subject, most of which came from Eliezer's author notes:

To write a character successfully, you need to show that character acting in ways in which it would be plausible for them to act. To write a character who's smarter than you - who would plausibly choose courses of action and speak lines of dialog that wouldn't occur to you - you need to cheat. Smarter-than-Author-Intelligences can think faster and remember more, but they can't be better than you at seeing the connections between the facts at their command. If they're Emmett Brown, they can invent amazing technologies, but the scientific explanations for them will be gibberish. If they're Sherlock Holmes, they reach startling and true conclusions on the strength of bad evidence.

The movie Gattaca is full of artificially-selected superbeings who never speak a single witty line. That's the difference between a character who's supposed to be smart and a character who's successfully written that way, between telling and showing. Eliezer may have intended for Quirrell to be smarter than him in some sense, but he hasn't been written that way, because he couldn't have been.

Unless all you meant by 'horsepower' was thinking speed, in which case you might be right. Dunno.

I did mean thinking speed. Note the exchange where Harry blames Quirrell for not thinking of stuff in time, and Quirrell retorts that even smart people miss stuff and need time to reach their conclusions. An author has usually much more time than the characters and the benefit of controlling the world entirely, so he can make the characters more intelligent than him in that they're able to think faster and better under pressure, and that they're able to legitimately draw the right conclusions from the evidence that's been left available to them.