All of Rejoyce's Comments + Replies

If you accept the hypothesis, wanded magic has the not-insignificant advantage of being more powerful. What's the advantage of wandless magic?

I thought it was obvious. What if you're without a wand?

0pedanterrific
If you're in battle without a wand, it seems to me that either 1) you've been ambushed, or 2) you've been disarmed. I don't really see that the ability to cast understrength spells helps all that much in either situation.

Also, is that $25 million in 1991 dollars (year the book's taking place) or 2011?

0gwern
My median income figure was from ~2009; combined with the bounty not being inflation-adjusted, this implies this nominal ratio is an underestimate of the real ratio.
1Alsadius
The reward was posted in 2001, and was unmodified for inflation until it was taken down in 2011.

There's got to be a spell for that, and it it likely to work similarly to the hover charm, i.e. instant effect.

Ah. Hundreds of girls Summoning a Harry Potter into their arms?

Maybe it's not that wands are needed to cast spells, but that they amplify magical power (and perhaps adds focus to a target). While the magically powerful are able to cast high level wandless magic, most are unable to. Hence, they have to use wands to make their spells powerful enough to have an effect. Children have spontaneous magic but they can't cast as much as adults normally can with wands.

Perhaps Roger Bacon just wasn't magically powerful. -shrugs- Not all great thinkers have to have tons of strength. Er, wasn't he Muggleborn? If the "Mugglebo... (read more)

3Velorien
However, the spells they do cast are fully as powerful as those of adults with wands. Pretty sure this theory has been unambiguously dismissed both in canon and in MoR. Otherwise your hypothesis is credible, though I still don't accept it as I can't see all the high-level wizards we know being dependent on wands when there are so many advantages to wandless magic (and when high-level wizards tend to be ones with strong, independent personalities).

A matter with the Comed-Tea that was bugging me for a while:

Chapter 14:

SO THAT'S HOW THE COMED-TEA WORKS! Of course! The spell doesn't force funny events to happen, it just makes you feel an impulse to drink right before funny things are going to happen anyway!

Hypotheses: Comed-Tea on person = impulse to drink, Comed-Tea not on person = no impulse to drink.

According to Chapter 12:

Harry couldn't help but feel the urge to drink another Comed-Tea. (And when he didn't...) Harry inhaled his own saliva and went into a coughing fit just as all eyes turned

... (read more)
8bogdanb
Chapter 17: He doesn’t seem to choke after this, but there follow several occasions where might have, had he been drinking. Anyway, the sentence means he kind of does use the Comed-Tea to kind-of-sort-of-predict the future, albeit not systematically. Regarding the counting, his line in chapter 14 might be meant to suggest he had been doing more experiments “not on camera”. There are only three occasions where he’s seen using it until then; he shouldn’t have been that frustrated about the explanation after that few tries.
3TheOtherDave
Earlier thoughts on Comed-Tea here
0brilee
I interpreted Comed-tea as the simplest example of backwards causality - an event A causing event B, where A occurs /after/ B in time. Eliezer introduced Comed-Tea to make the point that the HPMoR universe does not operate by what we imagine to be standard causality rules. I suspect that, the same way that messing with Time somehow results in a message saying "NO", it would be similarly impossible to commit to drinking Comed Tea.
7Eponymuse
Unless he actually followed through with saying that Voldemort is still alive, this wouldn't be enough.
0AspiringKnitter
You know, that is a really good idea.

Draco's a manipulative little snake. Lucius never probably never asked, "Son, are you able to cast the Patronus Charm?" because he was probably under the impression that Slytherins weren't able to cast Patronuses so why bother asking. Hence, the topic never came up. Draco's a scientist now, he doesn't completely believe everything that Lucius says anymore. Draco's probably avoiding talking about dangerous subjects with his father. And of course, he could always lie.

1loserthree
It doesn't have to be about Draco's status as a scientist. We know from the text that he is very afraid of disappointing his father. That could be enough to keep him quiet until he's asked about anything it might possibly pertain to. Then he's forced by the drops.
9Alsadius
Actually, he couldn't lie - he was interrogated under Veritaserum. That doesn't mean that the topic came up, of course.

I thought Draco promised Harry that Draco wouldn't tell Lucius about their interactions. Several times.

8pedanterrific
I wasn't aware that Draco was an Occlumens. (If he can't beat Veritaserum, those promises mean precisely nothing.)

Five days was perfect in my perspective. To be honest I thought the speculation had the potential to be very fun and mentally stimulating but the way we did it was completely wrong. What ended up happening was everyone proposed own theories left and right and in the end only a few people got some of the answer right, whereas if we collaborated better we could have ended up with an entire community who guessed most of the answer right. Makes for more overall happy.

If we held off proposing solutions the first two days of analysis wouldn't get buried down in the first place. And to answer your question, forum posts can be edited, and the date posted is marked with an asterisk if it was. A wiki sounds sensible but it might be a little too complex for those who are unfamiliar with it, not to mention there'd be tons of editing conflicts going on. I propose Google Docs, for its real-time collaboration, or any other similar alternative. Etherpad?

In retrospect, our guesswork was a lot messier than it should have been.

Chapter 25:

One set of problem-solving groups had been given the instruction "Do not propose solutions until the problem has been discussed as thoroughly as possible without suggesting any."

The other set of problem-solving groups had been given no instructions. And those people had done the natural thing, and reacted to the presence of a problem by proposing solutions. And people had gotten attached to those solutions, and started fighting about them, and arguing about the r

... (read more)
2Viliam_Bur
That's a version of publication bias. If a solution is very simple and if the hints are interpreted in the most obvious ways, then it seems like not worth publishing. :D
4AspiringKnitter
Personally, I thought the problem through and did, literally, draw a map of the room with its people and creatures, before coming on here, and yet I will own up to having not come up with anything at all and not even figured out which of the solutions proposed by others seemed most plausible.
0Duncan
How do you propose organizing a 'master list' of solutions, relevant plot pieces, etc. given the current forum format? Some people have made some lists, but they are often quickly buried beneath other comments. I'm also not familiar enough with how things work to know if a post can be edited days after it has been posted. One obvious solution is that a HPMOR reader who likes making webpages puts up wiki page for this. Can this be done on Lesswrong.com?

Out of curiosity, does anyone know or have any idea what time the trial's taking place? If it's before 3 PM Harry's unable to use his Time Turner to change the events of the trial. Unless he cheats the Time Turner like last time, or gets his Time Turner's restriction taken off, but he can't do that easily while the trial is going on.

Harry had used up all six hours from his Time-Turner, and there were still no clues, and he had to go to sleep now if he wanted to be functional at Hermione's trial the next day.

"Wanted to be functional" meaning i... (read more)

2Percent_Carbon
Time Tuners can't change events. MacGonagal says that when she gives it to him and the story doesn't say otherwise, yet.
6Anubhav
From chapter 79,

Combining with this idea: Harry openly speaks about Patronus 2.0, everyone's Patronuses fail (especially the sparrow and squirrel currently guarding the Dementor, everyone would see them fail), Harry casts his Patronus to protect Hermione (or she figures it out and casts her own, not that she would get the chance to but she might figure it out at least), and the Dementor starts sucking souls until Lucius retracts his sentence.

Heck, maybe even threaten to spread Patronus 2.0 to the media, make wizarding Britain's animal Patronus population fail, then Aurors won't be able to keep their Patronuses up to guard Azkaban. So even if Hermione gets in, she wouldn't get her happiness sucked...

3bogdanb
Hermione is chained and I’d be very surprised if she still had her wand.

Thanks for the post, I'll definitely look at it after I'm done replying to this one.

When you say "privilege arguments for the positions you already hold", do you mean "only allow arguments that allow you a better chance of winning"?

This sounds like the wrong thing to say, but... I'll say it anyways, I want to see your reaction: what if you don't develop a tendency to fight the easier battle? What you say makes sense: losing less = learning less, until the point where you start to win/lose at a 50/50 rate at least. What if you pick argu... (read more)

1[anonymous]
Ideally, you should aim to defeat the strongest version of your opponent's argument that you can think of--it's a much better test of whether your position is actually correct, and it helps prevent rationalization. Rather than attacking a version of your opponent's argument that is weak, you should attack the strongest possible version of it. On LessWrong we usually call this Least Convenient Possible World, or LCPW for short. (I've also seen it called "steel man," because instead of constructing a weaker "straw man" version of your opponent's argument, you fix it and make a stronger one.) You may be interested in the wiki entry on LCPW and the post that coined the term. I'm not sure about the merits of arguing for positions you don't actually believe. It can certainly be helpful in a context where your discussion partners are also tossing around ideas and collaborating by playing Devil's Advocate, since it can help you find the weaknesses in your position, but repeatedly practicing rationalization might not be healthy in the long run.

Ah, I feel very embarrassed now. That was very ignorant of me-- to not consider the situations outside my own area. (stupid, stupid!) I can't believe I didn't think of that, especially the China thing, and only a couple of days after my mum told me how amazing the transportation in Taiwan was (to the point that no one really wants a car). Clearly I have much more to learn. (-facedesk-) The mistake won't happen again.

5MartinB
Happens, no need to worry about making mistakes. And welcome on the board.

I've heard. Failing a case makes you feel worthless, and sometimes winning one makes you feel soulless. Maybe I should go into the milder forms of law. Patents, perhaps?

0TimS
Some of that, but not much - the stakes aren't usually that high. My intended point was that the practice of law is about repeating what you are good at, over and over and over again. Like if you are a divorce lawyer. You can try to argue every case about the theory and purpose of alimony and child support - or you can just reference the schedule of presumptive amounts from the statute or the regulations. The first one is interesting, like thinking about the implications of Milgram's experiment. The second one is the way it actually works. Lots of people think that want to be lawyers because they want to translate their idealism into real-world consequences. I'm not saying that's impossible (heck, I'm trying to do it now), but it isn't the natural progression of a career in law. In short, I'm given to understand that "The Firm" is a moderately accurate picture of what the practice of law is often like.

There you go! That's the one. :)

Very true, but very unhelpful answer. :/ If you don't use a car, how will you get to places?

Buses/taxies/motorcycles are probably one of the more convenient forms of transportation nowadays.

The only other thing I can think of are rapid transit, trains, bikes, and planes. But you can't ride the subway/bike/take a plane with as much flexibility as a car.

0TobyBartels
You can take a bike with more flexibility than a car; speed (and safety, as remarked elsewhere) are the problems here. (Conversely, speed is a bonus for planes.)
2MartinB
There are a few very cultural biased responses in the thread. Your statement seems really ignorant to me. Obviously your usage of alternatives depends on what the situation in your area is like. There are cultures that are very much into bicycles (Netherlands, Denmark), some where just no one even has a car (China, many other non-rich countries). Some where public transport is crappy and car is the only alternative (Fill in your own). Some where many alternatives exist. It is for everyone to find out which alternatives exist in her or his locale. It should be easy to figure out the local transport abilities. On an international forum no one can give all-suitable advice that fits every situation. For example I choose to move into the inner city of a 400.000ppl city in Germany. There is much public transport (bus, tram, subway, distance trains) available, including a great website that tells me how to get from A to B anytime. As a backup there are taxis. But since I am young, poor and healthy I mostly walk everywhere. If is more than 1,5h walking distance I take public transport. The OP probably does not suggest to never ever drive, but to make a reasonable effort to stay safe. Reducing driving if possible is one way. If it is not feasible in your area, than you still can do the other things. Since we deal with probability here it is all about comparing alternatives and improving your odds. From a financial viewpoint one can calculate the total cost of a car broken down on usages, vs. public transport vs. increased rent for a more favorable place. And if you do not need a car on a (work)daily basis you can find the local car-sharing offer (no idea if the US provides it. In Germany it is slowly growing), rent a car at times or take the Taxi.

Salutations and whatnot! My name is Joyce, I'm a high school sophomore. Probably on the younger side of the age spectrum here, but I don't mind starting young. The idea of rationality isn't new to me, I've always been more inclined to the "truth", even when it sometimes hurts. In my mind knowing more about the truth = better person, so that's my motivation for being here. I'm have better grades than the average, but for the past couple of years the thing I hated most about myself was the fact that I usually "coast" a class, get my A, an... (read more)

6Vladimir_Nesov
This is actually one danger of learning about fallacies: you become more able at defeating arguments, and this holds irrespective of their truth, so if you have a standard tendency to privilege arguments for the positions you already hold, that makes it harder for you to change your mind. See the post Knowing About Biases Can Hurt People.
0TimS
Welcome to LessWrong. Thanks for mentioning that other fanfic, I hadn't seen it and it looks great. I'm glad you find the moral theory stuff interesting - I do as well. I want to let you know that law is a terrible career for that sort of thing.
1arundelo
Probably post hoc ergo propter hoc.