You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lavode comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 12 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Xachariah 25 March 2012 11:01AM

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

Comments (692)

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

Comment author: Lavode 25 March 2012 01:55:45PM *  17 points [-]

The simplest reason is that Quirrelmort is simply not in a position to indulge any sadistic impulses the way Voldemort was. He spends hours each day conked out completely, and he has no powerbase to retreat to. Overt malice of the kind Voldemort practiced would very rapidly earn him an adavra. There are quite a few other possible reasons - for one thing, Tom Riddle is not running on the same wetware anymore, and his original brain might have been miswired in a way that did not carry over, or heck, the original Quirrel could have been very calm and unflappable, so now Quirrelmort just cannot get a good temper tantrum going no matter how hard he tries.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 25 March 2012 09:11:16PM 3 points [-]

True, he doesn't have the power base to openly attack anyone and everyone in the wizarding world. But Quirrell is a wizard with power dwarfing all others except Dumbledore. He could indulge as much sadism as he wants on random people in spots across the globe. If he has the appetite, he could do it.

And with obliviate, he could probably arrange to have Minerva as his sex slave with minimal risk.

Comment author: loup-vaillant 25 March 2012 11:00:29PM 6 points [-]

"Some do," Professor Quirrell said equably, as though discussing the weather. "Although personally, I don't."

(Chapter 70)

Comment author: pedanterrific 25 March 2012 11:03:11PM 8 points [-]

Well, that's what he would say either way, isn't it? (Not that I believe he would, the motive seems too human, but it's the principle of the thing.)

Comment author: loup-vaillant 26 March 2012 08:58:31AM *  3 points [-]

Mostly true. The bayesian evidence from that is weak. However, I do think that if he did do this sort of thing, he would be less likely to raise the topic in the first place. Well, unless he's playing one level above me, in which case it would point in the direction of guilt, or he is just messing with my brain, Arrggghhhh!!

Anyway, it doesn't seem to fit Professor Quirrell style. (Though like Harry, I am beginning to wonder if this whole "style" business mean anything.)