But “pessimistic” wasn’t the correct word to describe Professor Quirrell’s problem—if a problem it truly was, and not the superior wisdom of experience. But to Harry it looked like Professor Quirrell was constantly interpreting everything in the worst possible light. If you handed Professor Quirrell a glass that was 90% full, he’d tell you that the 10% empty part proved that no one really cared about water.
Well. That settles it for me—Quirrel is based off Robin Hanson.
EDIT: It saddens me a little that this is my most-upvoted comment ever.
Is he really? I’ve read Schneier for years and I don’t get any vibes off Moody. For example, Moody espouses all sorts of complicated theories which are the sort of ‘movie plots’ that Schneier derides.
If anyone, I think Mad Eye is James Jesus Angleton, or possibly Moody is an ‘anti-Schneier’. (Personally, I think Eliezer is simply exaggerating Moody in the spirit of I’ll-show-you-true-constant-vigilance!)
Well, what would Schiner be like with the Eye of Vance? When you can easily protect yourself from non-movie-plot problems through magic coupled with amazing situational awareness, the movie-plot problems get to be what’s left (not to mention that the wizarding world seems to breed movie-plot villians).
You hit the nail on the head when you describe the story as “idealized autobiography,” but I think it makes sense for one’s most important ideological frenemies (Hanson) to end up getting represented in a satire chiefly about ideology.
I’ve been getting this impression, too; there have been several occasions where Quirrell has advocated something very close to Hanson’s signaling theory of human behavior.
Nonsense! Quirrell isn’t a whiny self-absorbed dork always happy to spout rash idiocy purely for the thrill of gathering contrarian cred and to signal that he is not one of those stupid superficial sheep who only care about signaling.
(The above is at least partly unfair and I’ll take the thoroughly deserved karma hit—it felt good to throw out that little piece of bile.)
Well. That settles it for me—Quirrel is based off Robin Hanson.
EDIT: It saddens me a little that this is my most-upvoted comment ever.
And Mad Eye is Bruce Schneier.
Is he really? I’ve read Schneier for years and I don’t get any vibes off Moody. For example, Moody espouses all sorts of complicated theories which are the sort of ‘movie plots’ that Schneier derides.
If anyone, I think Mad Eye is James Jesus Angleton, or possibly Moody is an ‘anti-Schneier’. (Personally, I think Eliezer is simply exaggerating Moody in the spirit of I’ll-show-you-true-constant-vigilance!)
Because Moody wonders whether the Muggles are just pretending to have wards—that’s a Schneierism.
cargo-cult fencing
Well, what would Schiner be like with the Eye of Vance? When you can easily protect yourself from non-movie-plot problems through magic coupled with amazing situational awareness, the movie-plot problems get to be what’s left (not to mention that the wizarding world seems to breed movie-plot villians).
Man, this just makes the fanfic-as-idealized-autobiography bells go off in my head even more.
(Also, I totally sympathize on the most-upvoted sadness.)
You hit the nail on the head when you describe the story as “idealized autobiography,” but I think it makes sense for one’s most important ideological frenemies (Hanson) to end up getting represented in a satire chiefly about ideology.
I’ve been getting this impression, too; there have been several occasions where Quirrell has advocated something very close to Hanson’s signaling theory of human behavior.
Nonsense! Quirrell isn’t a whiny self-absorbed dork always happy to spout rash idiocy purely for the thrill of gathering contrarian cred and to signal that he is not one of those stupid superficial sheep who only care about signaling.
(The above is at least partly unfair and I’ll take the thoroughly deserved karma hit—it felt good to throw out that little piece of bile.)