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

Comment author: Spurlock 21 February 2015 01:10:31AM *  12 points [-]

I wanted it to be an anagram of my name, but that would only have worked if I'd conveniently been given the middle name of 'Marvolo', and then it would have been a stretch. Our actual middle name is Morfin, if you're curious.

Morfin is a Riddle family name, so we can probably rule out Eliezer choosing it for its anagrams. Nevertheless, might as well have some fun:

Tom Morfin Riddle

  • Mini from toddler
  • Firm doom tendril
  • Mind meld for riot
  • Mind for time lord
  • Dirt mod of Merlin
  • MOR died from lint
  • Mr. Flirted in Doom

What else?

Comment author: Kindly 26 July 2013 01:41:01PM 2 points [-]

Unlikely given it was "spoken in the presence of the three Peverell brothers".

Comment author: Spurlock 27 July 2013 12:21:32AM *  1 point [-]

Ah, I missed this, I think you're correct (upvoting you and maltrhin). I suppose that my interpretation is the one EY is trying to trick unobservant readers such as myself into making.

I do still think there's still some wiggle room for that interpretation though: Harry's whole outburst about Trelawney's "He's coming!" prophecy, where he said it couldn't possibly be about him because he's already arrived, would seem to indicate that EY is willing to use prophecies whose proper interpretation is not-quite-literal.

Comment author: malthrin 25 July 2013 08:49:23PM 1 point [-]

'Shall be' refers to a change of future state, so it can't be about the way things are now.

Comment author: Spurlock 25 July 2013 11:12:15PM 7 points [-]

Agreed, but this prediction could be older than the Hallows and their creators.

Comment author: Raiden 25 July 2013 04:41:42PM 0 points [-]

Three shall be Peverell's sons and three their devices by which Death shall be defeated.

What is meant by the three sons? Harry, Draco, and someone else? Quirrell perhaps? Using the three Deathly Hallows?

Comment author: Spurlock 25 July 2013 05:05:46PM 12 points [-]

I interpreted this to mean that long ago, there were 3 Peverell brothers, each of which created one of the Hallows. Harry is descended from this family. Note that it doesn't say that "Pevererll's sons" will necessarily be the ones to use their devices to defeat Death, only that the devices are theirs.

Comment author: Spurlock 25 July 2013 05:00:28AM 13 points [-]

There had been only one thing Remus Lupin had thought of that might help, after he'd received the owls from Professor McGonagall and that strange man Quirinus Quirrell.

Harry was morally certain that Dumbledore, or both Dumbledore and Mad-Eye Moody, were following them invisibly to see if anyone tried for the bait.

It's seems that McGonagall and Quirrell are responsible for Harry spending the day with Lupin, and that Dumbledore knows exactly what they're doing. It's not entirely clear whether McGonagall and Quirrell knew that Lupin would decide to take Harry to Godric's Hollow, but Quirrell at least could probably guess.

All three of these people knew what Harry would find on his parents' grave. I don't recall McGonagall ever encountering Harry's transhumanist ideas, but Quirrell and Dumbledore would certainly know how Harry would choose to interpret the inscription.

Which makes it look as though one or more of these people might be indirectly trying to encourage Harry's efforts to resurrect Hermione.

Comment author: ChrisHallquist 06 July 2013 07:51:08PM 21 points [-]

Prediction: Snape will end up playing a crucial role in the climax of the story, similar to canon but even more satisfying. Evidence:

  1. I forget where, but at some point Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape is one of his most valuable allies.
  2. The most Snape-centric chapter is called "sunk costs." Notice that this is the name of a fallacy. Snape thinks his life is an unfixable wreck, but he is wrong, and good story telling demands that this be revealed in a suitably moving fashion.
Comment author: Spurlock 07 July 2013 02:29:58AM *  14 points [-]

I believe Snape's "Sunk Costs" hangup is also alluded to in Ch 91:

"Do you intend to declare that your life is now a ruin and that there is nothing left for you but vengeance?"

"No. I still have -" The boy cut himself off.

"Then there is very little advice that I can give you," said Severus Snape.

Comment author: solipsist 06 July 2013 01:48:19AM 9 points [-]

Possible legilimency episode during Quirrell's tirade to McGonagall:

"You." Professor Quirrell spun, and she found herself gazing directly into eyes of icy blue.


A wordless image crossed her mind of a patch of glass on a steel ball.

This could be Quirrell finding out about Harry's partial transfiguration. More likely, it is nothing.

Comment author: Spurlock 07 July 2013 02:14:08AM 3 points [-]

I like this theory. But it's worth noting that Moody claimed that Voldemort could legilimens without making eye contact. EY seems pretty big on Conservation of Detail, so there's a good chance that this will turn out to be important. Of course, Conservation of Detail also weighs in favor of this eye-locking episode being important, so I suppose it could go either way.

Or both: perhaps sightless legilimency is handicap-inducing like wandless magic, so eye contact might be required to read a witch as powerful as Minerva.

Comment author: Desrtopa 20 February 2013 07:20:11AM 2 points [-]

I'm not sure how much to trust this stereotype. At best it's true as a rule-of-thumb with plenty of exceptions (people with great analytical minds and seemingly natural "people skills" certainly do exist). But if we run with it for a moment, doesn't it seem to screen off gender differences? That is, even if women do tend to lie further towards the "emotional" end of the emotional-analytic spectrum (again, I'm not arguing that this is even a real spectrum, just trying to hash out my confusion), this doesn't matter much because it's only the more analytical women who will give a damn about LW to begin with.

I think this rather incorrectly conflates being "emotional" in the sense of being nonanalytic with being "emotional" in the sense of being sensitive to the actions and opinions of others. While people who don't have analytical inclinations are unlikely to have a place in this community as long as it continues to follow its intended purpose, I don't think that's necessarily the case for sensitive people.

To take an example who immediately comes to mind (and I hope she doesn't mind my using her as an example of such), Swimmer963 has often made references to her own social sensitivity, in the sense of being powerfully affected by what she perceives others around her to think and feel. This certainly doesn't seem to have impeded her in becoming a valuable member here. It also obviously hasn't resulted in her being driven from the community, but if a sensitive individual had a poor initial experience here, it seems very likely that they would decide not to stick around.

Comment author: Spurlock 21 February 2013 02:58:43AM *  0 points [-]

Yeah you're right. I think part of what I was wondering was whether it does make sense to group those 2 things under one heading, or just how strongly they're correlated.

Now that you mention it, I seem to recall reading on Yvain's blog that he's also hyper-sensitive to negative criticism, so there's another data point for it not being tied all that strongly to gender.

Edit: Aforementioned Yvain blogpost

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 19 February 2013 01:39:20AM -1 points [-]

Fair point. I think I was using this as a proxy for truth, the same way you might ask "do economists believe X?" instead of "is X true about the economy?".

You really need to get better proxies for truth.

Comment author: Spurlock 19 February 2013 04:57:51AM 2 points [-]

Well, if nothing else comes out of this exchange, at least I can now relate to the OP that much better.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 18 February 2013 06:31:43AM 3 points [-]

I dunno if we're doing women a service or disservice by accepting this viewpoint... is it an interpretation that many feminists would approve?

How is this relevant? The important question is whether this interpretation is true.

So one might naively expect that even women are more emotional than men, this difference will mostly have vanished when we shift to the groups "Men Who Like LW Stuff" and "Women Who Like LW Stuff". But apparently this isn't the case, since OP finds (and some commenters agree) that women who are on LW still tend to be more put off by the hostility. So I suppose we should conclude that the correlation between analytical-ness and empathic-shortcoming is bunk.

Why? All you've shown is that this correlation doesn't fully screen off gender.

Comment author: Spurlock 18 February 2013 05:22:57PM *  1 point [-]

The important question is whether this interpretation is true.

Fair point. I think I was using this as a proxy for truth, the same way you might ask "do economists believe X?" instead of "is X true about the economy?". But also I was up late.

Why? All you've shown is that this correlation doesn't fully screen off gender.

True. It is possible that empathic ability is affected by both gender and analytical disposition directly, rather than gender by-way-of analytical disposition. Or more realistically, that empathic ability is affected by analytical-ness as well as other, orthogonal personality traits, and that these might be gender-correlated as well. This interpretation seems messy from a complexity standpoint, but such is the subject matter.

I wonder what other personality traits we'd have to account for before we could explain the gender difference. Also, there's the question of just how much of the difference is left over once we've screened off however much analytical disposition screens off. Again, I'm just hashing out confusion here, not claiming to have solutions.

View more: Next