Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: MinibearRex 05 August 2013 05:23:38AM 25 points [-]

He wasn't certain what he expected to find, which, in his experience, was generally a good enough reason to investigate something.

Harry Potter and the Confirmed Critical, Chapter 6

Comment author: MinibearRex 04 August 2013 06:07:56AM 42 points [-]

I've got to start listening to those quiet, nagging doubts.

Calvin

Comment author: [deleted] 06 July 2013 04:00:47AM *  4 points [-]

Sorry in advance for the giant comment. But this

"Albus Dumbledore was smiling with a strange sad look in his eyes, like someone who has taken one more step toward a foreseen destination."

makes sense of this

"And Minerva made it clear to me that Hogwarts required a competent Defense Professor this year, even if I had to haul Grindelwald out of Nurmengard and prevail on old affections to persuade him to take the position."

which looked like a type 3 foreshadowing. I think Dumbledore expects and intends to die soon. Certainly we're moving in that direction, with the recent talk of McGonagall succeeding him as headmaster. It looks likely to me that Dumbledore is plotting to end his own life at the hands of Grindelwald, whose return as an antagonist to Dumbledore was foreshadowed by the story of Peter and Sirius. This, in turn, reminds me of this

Are you ready? Good. I am going to pretend to cast the Killing Curse on Professor McGonagall - DO NOT REACT, Hermione!

which looks like utter lunacy, but apparently is Dumbledore's idea of inspiration. He means to go out like Gandalf.

Probably. The alternative would be that he just thinks his time as a mysterious old wizard is almost up. Or it'll be gur Cbgvbaf Znfgre again. (Spoilers for the original novels.) But I think it's more likely than not that he'll be the one to give Grindelwald his role in the story, given that Dumbledore names himself as the one to haul him out of Nurmengard and ur ratvarrerq uvf bja qrngu va pnaba. Two birds with one stone.

In any case, in this story, Dumbledore wishes to die to escape a wasting death from advancing senility, not a phefrq unaq. To collect the relevant quotes in one place:

Professor McGonagall looked a little sad at that. "Not on purpose, Miss Granger, but I think... well, it probably is true that sometimes the Headmaster has trouble remembering what it's like to be a child."

Professor McGonagall finally spoke, and she said in a whisper, "I'm so terribly sorry, Miss Granger. I did not think the Headmaster would say such things to you. I think he truly has forgotten what it is like to be a child."

"Maybe you're right, Harry. Maybe I have forgotten over the decades what it's like to be a child."

She swallowed, hard, and said, "Mr. Potter, at thirty hours per day, you'll - get older, you'll age faster -" Like Albus.

Plus the zillion uses of the phrase 'the old wizard', and the dog that didn't bark: the fact that still nothing has been made of the connection between Dementors, Dementation, and dementia. Dementors are named for the death of the mind, both of them eat away at memories and personality, and this has gone entirely unmentioned. Even the author's notes that listed the similarities between Dementors and death left it out.

Oh, and the fact that Dumbledore's really old, and that's what happens to people when they get old.

So there's a suitably heroic reason for Hermione to research the Philosopher's Stone - either to prevent it from happening or to prevent it from ever happening again.

Edited repeatedly for clarity.

Comment author: MinibearRex 08 July 2013 12:47:13AM 1 point [-]

BTW, the post says that spoilers from the original canon don't need to be in rot13.

Comment author: ikrase 07 July 2013 02:54:12AM 1 point [-]

Although, arguably full vampires are not very undead either.

Comment author: MinibearRex 08 July 2013 12:36:17AM 1 point [-]

Their hearts stop beating, and they stop needing to breathe during the turning process.

[SEQ RERUN] Final Words

2 MinibearRex 13 May 2013 03:49AM

Today's post, Final Words was originally published on 27 April 2009. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

 

The conclusion of the Beisutsukai series.


Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Practical Advice Backed By Deep Theories, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.

Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.

[SEQ RERUN] Practical Advice Backed By Deep Theories

1 MinibearRex 11 May 2013 03:38AM

Today's post, Practical Advice Backed By Deep Theories was originally published on 25 April 2009. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

 

Practical advice is genuinely much, much more useful when it's backed up by concrete experimental results, causal models that are actually true, or valid math that is validly interpreted. (Listed in increasing order of difficulty.) Stripping out the theories and giving the mere advice alone wouldn't have nearly the same impact or even the same message; and oddly enough, translating experiments and math into practical advice seems to be a rare niche activity relative to academia. If there's a distinctive LW style, this is it.


Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Go Forth and Create the Art, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.

Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 10 May 2013 10:07:30AM 5 points [-]

Personally, I'd suggest a pause of at least two weeks or so, perhaps a month, and then a discussion of whether to just start over or do something similar or different.

Comment author: MinibearRex 11 May 2013 03:36:02AM 0 points [-]

I plan to keep doing reruns through "Final Words", which will be posted two days from now. After the reruns are done, I have no particular plans to keep going. I had planned to create a post to prompt discussion as to future plans, but I don't plan to personally do another rerun.

[SEQ RERUN] Go Forth and Create the Art

3 MinibearRex 10 May 2013 05:04AM

Today's post, Go Forth and Create the Art! was originally published on 23 April 2009. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

 

I've developed primarily the art of epistemic rationality, in particular, the arts required for advanced cognitive reductionism... arts like distinguishing fake explanations from real ones and avoiding affective death spirals. There is much else that needs developing to create a craft of rationality - fighting akrasia; coordinating groups; teaching, training, verification, and becoming a proper experimental science; developing better introductory literature... And yet it seems to me that there is a beginning barrier to surpass before you can start creating high-quality craft of rationality, having to do with virtually everyone who tries to think lofty thoughts going instantly astray, or indeed even realizing that a craft of rationality exists and that you ought to be studying cognitive science literature to create it. It's my hope that my writings, as partial as they are, will serve to surpass this initial barrier. The rest I leave to you.


Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.

Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.

[SEQ RERUN] Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism

1 MinibearRex 09 May 2013 05:46AM

Today's post, Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism was originally published on 21 April 2009. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

 

Good online communities die primarily by refusing to defend themselves, and so it has been since the days of Eternal September. Anyone acculturated by academia knows that censorship is a very grave sin... in their walled gardens where it costs thousands and thousands of dollars to enter. A community with internal politics will treat any attempt to impose moderation as a coup attempt (since internal politics seem of far greater import than invading barbarians). In rationalist communities this is probably an instance of underconfidence - mildly competent moderators are probably quite trustworthy to wield the banhammer. On Less Wrong, the community is the moderator (via karma) and you will need to trust yourselves enough to wield the power and keep the garden clear.


Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was The Sin of Underconfidence, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.

Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.

[SEQ RERUN] The Sin of Underconfidence

2 MinibearRex 08 May 2013 04:51AM

Today's post, The Sin of Underconfidence was originally published on 20 April 2009. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

 

When subjects know about a bias or are warned about a bias, overcorrection is not unheard of as an experimental result. That's what makes a lot of cognitive subtasks so troublesome - you know you're biased but you're not sure how much, and if you keep tweaking you may overcorrect. The danger of underconfidence (overcorrecting for overconfidence) is that you pass up opportunities on which you could have been successful; not challenging difficult enough problems; losing forward momentum and adopting defensive postures; refusing to put the hypothesis of your inability to the test; losing enough hope of triumph to try hard enough to win. You should ask yourself "Does this way of thinking make me stronger, or weaker?"


Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was My Way, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.

Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.

View more: Next