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.

wobster109 comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapter 113 - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: Gondolinian 28 February 2015 08:23PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (503)
Tags: fiction hpmor harry_potter fanfiction

Comments (503)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: wobster109 01 March 2015 04:09:30AM *  12 points [-]

Dear Eliezer,

For the best experience, if you have not already been following Internet conversations about recent chapters, I suggest not doing so, trying to complete this exam on your own. . . .

Although you've requested an individual exam format, two mathematicians aren't "the same smart" as the smartest of the two of them.

The Polymath Project got off to a slow start. . . Jozsef Solymosi from the University of British Columbia posted a comment. . . over the next 37 days, 27 people wrote 800 mathematical comments. . . Just 37 days after the project began Gowers announced that he was confident the polymaths had solved not just his original problem, but a harder problem that included the original as a special case. Link

You spend many chapters teaching Harry the importance of collaboration.

"Anyhow," Hermione said. "Captains Goldstein and Weasley, you're on duty for thinking up strategic ideas for our next battle. Captains Macmillan and Susan - sorry, I mean Macmillan and Bones - try to come up with some tactics we can use, also any training you think we should try. Oh, and congratulations on your marching song, Captain Goldstein, I think it was a big plus for esprit de corps."

So I'm afraid I urge everyone to do the opposite of what you've suggested and collaborate. Sorry.

Comment author: Duncan 01 March 2015 04:56:47AM *  7 points [-]

Quirrelmort would be disgusted with us if we refused to consider 'cheating' and would certainly kill us for refusing to 'cheat' if that was likely to be extremely helpful.

"Cheating is technique, the Defense Professor had once lectured them. Or rather, cheating is what the losers call technique, and will be worth extra Quirrell points when executed successfully."

Comment author: ChaosMote 01 March 2015 12:22:52PM 4 points [-]

I think in this case, you and Eliezer are both correct, but for different definitions of "winning". If one's primary goal is to find a solution to the puzzle (and get the good ending), then your advice is probably correct. However, if the goal to stimulate the experience of having to solve a hard problem using one's intellect, then Eliezer's advice seems more valid. I imagine that this is in the same way that one might not want to look up a walkthrough for a game - it would help you "win" the game, but not win at getting the most benefit/enjoyment out of it.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit