Voldemort has reason not to do this, as it made a fool out of one of his tools and weakened his side by making them less willing to strike indiscriminately.
I disagree. The last part is an inference, and I think we have more evidence that the killing prevented any peace between Lucius and Dumbledore in Voldemort’s absence.
(I don’t know how much stress to put on this, but we learn that Draco thinks the death had this effect in the same chapter where he tells us to understand strange plots by looking at the outcomes. Seems at least 90% certain the author meant us to suspect Voldemort when he wrote that.)
Now, Donny just pointed out that Voldemort could have faked his death entirely by, say, transfiguring some chickens and burning them. We also know that his treatment of Bellatrix ensured her devotion to him would not count as a happy memory and would thus continue in Azkaban. I think he intended this effect, meaning he planned for the possibility of seeming to lose. It sounds like he planned for that from the start.
Setting fire to a chicken back in Chapter 17 should increase P(Dumbledore did it, and is a sadist). But supposedly DD’s weakness lies in doing evil “For the Greater Good,” not in having fond memories of the time he burned a woman to death. Seems more likely to me that he suspects Voldemort faked a burned body (per Donny’s guess), but can’t say so because he has no convincing explanation for why V hasn’t visibly acted since then. So he just taught Harry to doubt such appearances.
Should you take into account the possibility that the chicken was just something transfigured before increasing the probability of Dumbledore being a Sadist?
No, for a qualitative change in various probabilities we can ask if Dumbledore has unpleasant associations with burning—like a memory of something he wishes he didn’t (have to) do, or of a sad time for his family. These would reduce the chance that he sees “setting fire to a chicken” as clever.
Seems like a sadistic DD who killed Narcissa would enjoy alluding to this event, in a way that would disturb Harry without making him suspect the purpose behind it. But that seems to me like a more complicated hypothesis than a Dumbledore who shares Donny’s suspicions, given that DD looks like a ‘bad guy’ of a radically different kind.
Ok, I’m a bit lost here, I haven’t dealt with probabilties for several years and would like to find out where I was wrong. Please correct my reasoning:
P(Dumbledore did it \bigcap Dumbledore is a Sadist) =P (Dumbledore did it) x P(Dumbledore is a Sadist)
P(Dumbledore did it)=1-P(Dumbledore didn’t do it)
P(Dumbledore didn’t do it)=P(Dumbledore didn’t do it | He burned a real chicken) + P(Dumbledore didn’t do it | He burned something transfigured to be a chicken).
Now, we don’t know the probabilities P(He burned a real chicken) and P(He burned something transfigured to be a chicken), but it is something that has to be taken into account, isn’t it?
@your answer
In your answer, you assume he did it. If he didn’t do it, he wouldn’t neccessarily have negative associations with burning, only with the fact of being thought to have burned her.
If I understand you correctly, your reasoning regarding unpleasant associations with burning already assumes that he did it.
If he didn’t do it (and we don’t know yet wether it was him or, for example, Amelia Bones), he wouldn’t have unpleasant associations with the method of Narcissa’s death, only with the fact that it was ascribed to him. So there is the possibility that he didn’t do it, and doesn’t have negative associations with burning that would be brought up when burning transfigured stones or tablecloth or whatever.
I disagree. The last part is an inference, and I think we have more evidence that the killing prevented any peace between Lucius and Dumbledore in Voldemort’s absence.
(I don’t know how much stress to put on this, but we learn that Draco thinks the death had this effect in the same chapter where he tells us to understand strange plots by looking at the outcomes. Seems at least 90% certain the author meant us to suspect Voldemort when he wrote that.)
Now, Donny just pointed out that Voldemort could have faked his death entirely by, say, transfiguring some chickens and burning them. We also know that his treatment of Bellatrix ensured her devotion to him would not count as a happy memory and would thus continue in Azkaban. I think he intended this effect, meaning he planned for the possibility of seeming to lose. It sounds like he planned for that from the start.
Setting fire to a chicken back in Chapter 17 should increase P(Dumbledore did it, and is a sadist). But supposedly DD’s weakness lies in doing evil “For the Greater Good,” not in having fond memories of the time he burned a woman to death. Seems more likely to me that he suspects Voldemort faked a burned body (per Donny’s guess), but can’t say so because he has no convincing explanation for why V hasn’t visibly acted since then. So he just taught Harry to doubt such appearances.
Should you take into account the possibility that the chicken was just something transfigured before increasing the probability of Dumbledore being a Sadist?
No, for a qualitative change in various probabilities we can ask if Dumbledore has unpleasant associations with burning—like a memory of something he wishes he didn’t (have to) do, or of a sad time for his family. These would reduce the chance that he sees “setting fire to a chicken” as clever.
Seems like a sadistic DD who killed Narcissa would enjoy alluding to this event, in a way that would disturb Harry without making him suspect the purpose behind it. But that seems to me like a more complicated hypothesis than a Dumbledore who shares Donny’s suspicions, given that DD looks like a ‘bad guy’ of a radically different kind.
Ok, I’m a bit lost here, I haven’t dealt with probabilties for several years and would like to find out where I was wrong. Please correct my reasoning:
P(Dumbledore did it \bigcap Dumbledore is a Sadist) =P (Dumbledore did it) x P(Dumbledore is a Sadist)
P(Dumbledore did it)=1-P(Dumbledore didn’t do it)
P(Dumbledore didn’t do it)=P(Dumbledore didn’t do it | He burned a real chicken) + P(Dumbledore didn’t do it | He burned something transfigured to be a chicken).
Now, we don’t know the probabilities P(He burned a real chicken) and P(He burned something transfigured to be a chicken), but it is something that has to be taken into account, isn’t it?
@your answer In your answer, you assume he did it. If he didn’t do it, he wouldn’t neccessarily have negative associations with burning, only with the fact of being thought to have burned her.
If I understand you correctly, your reasoning regarding unpleasant associations with burning already assumes that he did it.
If he didn’t do it (and we don’t know yet wether it was him or, for example, Amelia Bones), he wouldn’t have unpleasant associations with the method of Narcissa’s death, only with the fact that it was ascribed to him. So there is the possibility that he didn’t do it, and doesn’t have negative associations with burning that would be brought up when burning transfigured stones or tablecloth or whatever.