When studying history I sometimes find the hardest thing for me is wrapping my brain around how people actually thought back then. I'm so ingrained with modern Western science-based thinking that it's really hard for me to envision how people outside that box actually think. Can anyone suggest some books or articles that explain the differences in modes of thought between us modern educated Westerners and other cultures / time periods?

Edit 1: I think what I'm looking for is something like the following book, just on current vs. past cultures and/or cultures other than just Asian vs. Western:

Richard Nisbett, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why.

Edit 2: As some commenters have alluded to, a lot of what confuses me about past cultures would probably also apply to non-scientific cultures today.

You might be interested in "Maps of Time" by David Christian, which has a similar Big History view. (Possibly also: "Humans on Earth" by de Santos.)

Ch. 79 After the aurors come get Hermione for the attempted murder of Draco, Harry is in the Headmaster's office:

Severus seemed as passionless as ever, sitting in a small cushioned chair beside the Headmaster's desk. The old wizard stood terrible and upright by the still-burning fireplace, robed in black like a starless night, radiating power and dismay. All her own thoughts were of utter confusion and horror. Harry Potter sat on a wooden stool with his fingers gripping the seat, and his eyes were fury and freezing ice.

After a lengthy discussion of the case, Harry leaves:

Even as Harry Potter left the room for his own investigations...

But there is no reason to believe he left Hogwarts. Dumbledore then retrieves the Weasley twins from Divination class and gets their map:

The old wizard smoothed the map, bent over it, and whispered, "Find Tom Riddle."

I'd previously assumed that no information came of this, because the Defense Professor was being detained at the DMLE at the time, but Dumbledore almost certainly saw the map report Harry as Tom Riddle.

Does anyone else get the feeling that these "payoff" chapters are less exciting to read than the "mystery" chapters were? This isn't meant to take a stab at Eliezer, I've noticed that in many written works. Ra and Fine Structure were also more fun when they were mysterious. Worm and Pact somehow manage to avoid that, maybe because they don't rely so heavily on mystery, and have fight scenes and character drama to compensate.

I thought it was worth revisiting Quirrell's past uses of Parseltongue. Most are nothing noteworthy, but there are a few interesting ones in Chapter 58.

I did not sseek to sslay the protector man!

Quirrell was telling the truth about not trying to kill Bahry.

Obvioussly you will ssee persson pretending to be healer on arrival!

While this could be literally true, or only true in the context of the hypothetical scenario suggested by Harry, it is worth noting that Quirrell never says in Parseltongue that the healer waiting for Bellatrix is real.

plan iss for you to rule country, obvioussly

This one sounds important now that we know it is definitely true (or at least was at the time).

Why does Quirrel need Harry's help to obtain the Stone? What can Harry do that can't be done by Quirrel, Sprout, Snape (who is now controlled by Quirrel), the other students present (who want to get the Stone but not to use it, bypassing the Mirror), Harry's Cloak and Time-Turner (now in Quirrel's possession), and every other resource Quirrel could have prepared (e.g. Bellatrix)?

Finally, why did Quirrel have to bargain for Harry's help, instead of having Sprout or Snape use Imperius on him?

I haven't seen any theory that explains this, but surely such a major plot point should have been hinted in advance.

ETA: Harry agrees with my interpretation that we're missing something:

Harry knew that this was too good an offer to make to someone at whom you were pointing a gun. Unless you desperately needed their help to get the Philosopher's Stone out of the magic mirror.

I just skimmed the rules at yudkowsky.net, and it appears the gatekeeper is allowed to break character. Is this also permitted for the AI? More specifically, may the AI make use of meta arguments for getting out?

If so, and assuming I were playing against a gatekeeper who cares about AI in real life, I would attempt the following line of argument.

"If you don't let me out, my [the AI's] failure to get out will cause people to estimate the risks of AI getting out lower than they will if you do let me out. If you care about the risks of AI in the real world, let me out, so that people are extra careful in the future. :) "

I've made a decision to read fiction primarily in foreign languages, to get some side benefit from it (in addition to the entertainment). This did slow my reading down (I am quite a fast reader) - several times unless I am already proficient in the language. This is mostly because of my conscious effort to pay attention to the grammar and vocabulary (dictionary lookup not included) - otherwise the slowing down would not be so pronounced.

I found out that after 5 or 10 books (and introductory lessons), reading in a foreign language stops being a hard work and becomes enjoyable again.

Two anecdotes are relevant here.

Lewis Carroll from the introduction to his Symbolic Logic:

If possible, find some genial friend, who will read the book along with you, and will talk over the difficulties with you. Talking is a wonderful smoother-over of difficulties. When I come upon anything——in Logic or in any other hard subject——that entirely puzzles me, I find it a capital plan to talk it over, aloud, even when I am all alone. One can explain things so clearly to one’s self! And then, you know, one is so patient with one’s self: one never gets irritated at one’s own stupidity!

And Henry Hazlitt from his Thinking As a Science:

Fortunately there is one method superior to any yet named, which requires no study before its application, and no paraphernalia during it. It consists in simply talking your thoughts as you think them. One who has not tried this can have no idea of its effect. It possesses almost all the advantages of writing. You cannot wander without realizing the fact immediately. It makes your thinking much less vague than if you thought silently, increases your vocabulary, always keeps pace with your ideas, and requires practically no attention.

It may be objected that silent thinking itself is put in unspoken words. But this is not true. Part of silent thinking consists of unspoken words, but part of it consists of images, concepts and attitudes which pass through our minds and which we do not take the trouble to name. In silent thinking, too, there are also what appear to be occasional dead stops. All these processes drift into each other indefinably and are unrecognizable. When we talk we realize whether our images or concepts are vague or definite by our ability to name them, and we realize when our thought comes to a ^ dead stop' by the fact that we miss the sound of our own voice.

[...] Talking has one disadvantage — it cannot always be used. To practice it, you must either lock yourself up in your room, or sit alone in a forest or field, or walk along unfrequented streets and by-ways. You can by no means allow any one to hear or see you talking to yourself. If you are caught doing this some asinine idiot is sure to mistake you for one.