Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 22, chapter 93

daenerys

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 chapter 93. The previous thread has passed 300 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Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).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Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).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.

they sometimes find issues even where issues don't actually exist

Issues are subjective. Something that's not an issue for you can still be an issue for someone else.

For example, you have a problem with thakil's phrasing and have offered a "corrected" version. However, you've destroyed the point of thakil's sentence, which is that it's possible that ((Person A finds X enjoyable) AND (Person A finds X problematic)). I know from direct experience that this is true; I have been Person A in that situation.

If you have not personally been in that situation, it doesn't follow that another person has not, nor that they are somehow being "unfair".

Issues are subjective. Something that's not an issue for you can still be an issue for someone else.

Then it is an issue for them.

Projecting the problem outwards is just that - seeing the problem where the problem isn't

-3Dentin13y

Understood. I had not taken that meaning. In this particular case, I enjoy the work and do not find it problematic, but I acknowledge that other people may find it problematic, in the same way that I acknowledge that other people think vaccines cause autism and that homeopathic medicines work.

5[anonymous]13y

Well quite. When I call this something problematic that can be still enjoyed, I find it problematic and still enjoy it! With regards to whether an issue exists or not.. I mean if readers can perceive it, then it exists. Eliezer can decide that the story he's going to tell is just going to alienate those readers, or perhaps he can make adjustments now or in future to avoid that. My minor concern is that in some of his responses I don't feel like he has quire grasped the substance of the complaints: the problems exist, and trying to argue that they do not is probably a hiding to nothing.