= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
loserthree comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (1221)
On the contrary, the reference to Albania is almost certainly a clue to the reader that the hero was replaced.
Almost certainly?
It's suggestive, sure, that he showed up from a long disappearance at about the same time as the "First Wizarding War" began. But the year could just be the one he returned at for some other reason, like, say, his Muggle Albanian wife dying.
In the latter case, why 1970? Because, like the original coincidental 1926 birth year, Eliezer was trying to make people go, "'Oh no, is she about to identify Voldemort?' . . . to be contradicted soon after by the Gaunts not exactly being on the Wizengamot or having a patroness grandmother."
Anyway, if you really think it's "almost certain", I'd like to arrange a bet on that. Say, my $5 against your $100?
You'd lose. Canon!Quirrell was possessed by Voldemort in Albania.
Canon!Riddle got Ravenclaw's diadem out of a hiding place in Albania circa 1945. Thus the inclusion of all four details — 1926, 1945, Albania, and 1970 — can all be explained as part of the same "Oh no, is she about to identify Riddle/Voldemort?" fake-out that was then deliberately blown up by the inconsistency with the Gaunts.
None of them need a separate cause to explain why Eliezer included them; all of them are explained sufficiently by the author-confirmed fake-out without adding the hypothesis "The hero who showed up in 1970 was a trick by Voldemort."
But if you're so sure I'm wrong, how about I put up my $5 against, say, your $500?
It would be more like your 1¢ against my empty instant ramen packaging, so no.
If you're that eager to lose money, loserthree can have it.
Thank you, Pedant One.
I will make three excuses for not taking the gracious offer of $5.00 (pre-tax) from the Holy See of Whereever, then I will give you a real answer.
I kind of lied: the status matter is totally part of the issue. But the real reason is that I have been conditioned to overvalue losses to gambling. I can only play poker by convincing myself it isn't gambling.
Really, though, isn't that gauche? Does it feel right to taunt a stranger with two-thirds of a fast food meal?
Even Urban Dictionary is no help with this one. What?
It was totally non sequitur. Also very old. Maybe obscure.
http://www.bash.org/?10739
I think it's still in the top 200 quotes on the site.
Oh, first google result if I hadn't used quotes. Duh.
Without confirmation bias, would that actually have helped? I'm certain I don't know what that would look to someone who didn't know what I was going for. But I have the Illusion of Transparency on my mind since I saw someone catch it while trying to help someone with it.
Is that really it? Would you have been happier with, say, $20 against $400? I generally think of "almost certain" as indicating p≥0.95; the $5 was driven by the math of keeping your potential loss down.
And, not that I'm asking for you to actually answer, but ask yourself - is it really that you overvalue losses from gambling? If I were offering to put $2,000 up against your $100, would you still refuse because of the exact same chance you'd lose that exact same $100?
(I raised the odds to reflect p≥0.99 for pedanterrific because he implied that I was being a sucker for offering 1-for-20 odds.)
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that unless I am willing to tie significant amounts of money up for the sake of winning tiny amounts of money, I lack the confidence I claim.
It that didn't have the sound, the feel of a scam with it's a-sure-thing-isn't vibe it'd be a passable bullying tactic for the mathematically adept sort with something to prove. I've pushed people around for a living, so I like to think can appreciate a good push.
Or maybe that scamishness is part of the push?
The mark thinks himself a rational fellow, so he's unlikely to bolt. Bringing money into it makes the mark nervous. The mark mistakes his nervousness about money for doubt about his claim. You capitalize when the mark starts backing down, and claim some petty victory.
Seems like an awful lot of work for a small show, but thanks for the trick. Maybe I'll make something of it.
No, not at all. Not being willing to tie up the money is a perfectly sensible reason to refuse the bet. Opportunity cost isn't remotely connected to confidence levels; that I quite confidently expect a Treasury bond to pay me the promised interest doesn't mean I'd rather spend the money on something else that I value more.
And you certainly don't owe me an explanation of any kind as to why you refuse a bet. You merely owe yourself a good one instead of a bad one.
Then it would seem improbable that I'm putting the work in for the small show you identified, no? Not impossible, of course, but maybe you need a better theory of what I was trying to do.
I'm not saying it can't be used as a status attack the way you're suggesting, but this is a thing people do here. Something about calibrating confidence levels.
Huh.
Doesn't actually look like fun.
Good for them, though. I'll stick to poker and "status attacks," thanks.
Is there much here on status attacks?
It's better than that - the classic con is to make the mark feel like he's putting one over on you.
That is what I meant when I mentioned that a sure thing isn't.
The author has suggested we pay attention to the Conservation of Detail. With that in mind, the involvement of Albania is enough for almost certainty.
The detail is already conserved by its known use to try to make the reader suspect Bones is going to discover Quirrell is Riddle/Voldemort. Now the question left is whether Albania is a Chekhov's Boomerang, or whether theories based on it are an example of Epileptic Trees. I know I'm not "almost certain" either way.