Daniel_Starr

• Daniel_StarrMar 27, 2012, 9:54 AM

  7 points

  in reply to: Joshua Hobbes’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  You’re assuming that Quirrellmort succeeds in his plan, and succeeds without major hitches. The hitches, and/​or Harry’s final victory, are where the twists and turns come from.

  At this point, everybody who knows Voldemort’s back and isn’t named “Harry” has Quirrell as prime suspect. What happens when they actually pursue him?

  Beyond that we still have both the Deathly Hallows and the Philosopher’s Stone as major artifacts that the story has made a big deal of that haven’t been fully put into play. Notice how almost everybody who talks about Harry’s cloak of invisibility has something to say about it being the Cloak of Invisibility?

  So if the author wants twists and turns, he’s put in the setup for them.

  The final ending of Lord of the Rings was declared in about chapter 2 of the book—“look, someone puts the ring in the fire, all right?”

  Books are not exciting because the ending is completely surprising; books are exciting because even though you know the ending, getting there turns out to take all kinds of shenanigans.

  And I think HPMOR is doing pretty well so far on the shenanigans count.

• Daniel_StarrMar 27, 2012, 1:14 AM

  40 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  Hypothesis:

  Quirrellmort intends to upload his mind into Harry’s body soon, as soon as Harry is Dark enough. Voldemort will become the Boy-Who-Lived. And Quirrellmort wants or needs this to happen within the next few months.

  Evidence:

  If Quirrellmort were only after the Philosopher’s Stone and training Harry for a long career, he’d keep his own cover intact as long as he could. Instead, over the last few story months, Quirrellmort has cheerfully all but ruined his cover in favor of giving Harry chances to turn Dark.

  • Quirrellmort got the Dementor brought to Hogwarts, waited until the last moment to observe Harry’s wand by the Dementor’s cage, gave wrong advice about how to help Harry recover from the Dementor-induced personality change, and persuaded the other wizards to let Harry face the Dementor again.

  • Quirrellmort took Harry to Azkaban soon after seeing Patronus 2.0, leading to more Dementor contact and the recovery of Bellatrix, Quirrellmort’s preferred assistant for critical tasks (like, say, ritual magic to download yourself into your Horcrux’s body).

  • Quirrellmort (as H&C) set up Hermione for Draco’s attempted murder, thus both cutting off Harry from the person who’s his best influence against being Dark, and motivating Harry to embrace his Dark side more in order to rescue or avenge Hermione.

  The first stunt made Dumbledore suspect a plot, the second showed that Voldemort had returned, the third that Voldemort was in Hogwarts. But it’s all been worth it to Quirrellmort to hurry up Dark!Harry. Why?

  Perhaps because Quirrellmort is running out of time in his current body.

  • On the day he killed Rita Skeeter, she observed Quirrellmort had his hair falling out.

  • Harry has noticed Quirrell looking visibly older.

  • The curse on the Defense against the Dark Arts position demands a terrible conclusion to his year—or at least the appearance of one.

  And if Quirrellmort doesn’t intend to be around as Quirrell much longer, what does he intend? We have clues.

  • We know from the prophecy that Quirrellmort and Harry can destroy each other’s spirits.

  • Quirrellmort has said that Harry’s sense of doom between them is precisely of Harry’s doom.

  • We suspect from canon combined with “Dark Harry” moments that Harry is an accidental Horcrux containing a partial copy of Voldemort’s mental circuitry, and possibly some of his power too.

  • Quirrellmort suggested a plan where Harry would be seen to fight the returned Voldemort and defeat him.

  The obvious answer is that Quirrellmort intends just the plan he told Harry: Harry will indeed be seen to fight Voldemort and “defeat” him. And “Quirrell” will die, probably having been revealed to be Voldemort. But Quirrellmort… will have downloaded himself into Harry’s mind, and so will win the duel he seems to lose.

  Just as before, a single clash of spells between Voldemort and Harry Potter will lead to the destruction of “Voldemort”(Quirrell.) And “Harry” will walk away triumphant. But “Harry” won’t be Harry any more.

  If Quirrellmort’s plan succeeds, Harry as we know him will cease to exist. Voldemort will go on in triumph—as Harry Potter, the boy who destroyed Voldemort twice over. Harry will be the beloved hero of magical Britain—and Voldemort inside.

  I suggest Quirrellmort’s top priority is to turn Harry fully Dark before the end of the year, so he can safely download into Harry.

• Daniel_StarrMar 27, 2012, 1:03 AM

  3 points

  in reply to: Anubhav’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  Implies Aberforth Dumbledore was killed by the Death Eaters.

  If Albus Dumbledore killed Narcissa himself, this was probably the trigger.

• Daniel_StarrMar 27, 2012, 1:00 AM

  4 points

  in reply to: RomeoStevens’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  Hindsight bias.

  If X happened, then X must have deserved to happen. In this case, if Voldemort failed, then our bias is to assume all Voldemort’s choices must have been bad ones, and all of Voldemort’s enemies’ choices must have been good ones.

  However, this is complicated when looking at a deliberately told story, because storytellers choose stories for being what they feel are representative cases of true things. In other words, just as there’s a difference between you picking a card at random and me choosing a card and handing it to you, there’s a difference between you looking at a random failed politician, and me choosing to tell you a story about a particular failed politician.

  Thus, the original Harry Potter story represents Rowling’s views about what matters, not a random selection from actual events, and so too HPMOR represents EY’s views about what matters, not a random variation on the original story.

  None of which means hindsight bias isn’t an issue—but the storyteller’s bias, or accurate judgment, is also an issue.

  In this case, peculiarly, hindsight bias might be more likely than average, because the author of the story is trying to illustrate the challenges and methods of being rational.

• Daniel_StarrMar 26, 2012, 5:35 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  Removed confusing clause. In the fic, we have

  Dumbledore’s mother had died mysteriously, shortly before his younger sister died in what the Aurors had ruled to be murder.

  This is a change from canon. Presumably it points to a secret about Dumbledore.

• Daniel_StarrMar 26, 2012, 5:16 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  Fixed. Thanks!

• Daniel_StarrMar 26, 2012, 4:53 AM

  35 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  Dumbledore’s trickeries: just how much is he covering up?

  We know, now, from the “Santa Claus” stunts, that Dumbledore is quite capable of trickery. Reading between the lines, it appears he cruelly sabotaged Snape and Lily’s teenaged relationship.

  What other deceptions belong to Dumbledore? Several are possible.

  • the prophecy and Snape

  • Rita Skeeter’s False Memory Charm

  • Amelia Bones burning Narcissa Malfoy

  • Lily’s final Dark-ritual conversation with Voldemort

  The prophecy and Snape:

  The “confessor” interlude makes it clear that Snape was present for Sybil’s prophecy. Does that mean that Harry is wrong to theorize that Dumbledore arranged for Snape to hear it...

  … or did Dumbledore use a Time-Turner to make sure Snape heard the prophecy live and in person, so that Snape would be baited more credibly into telling Voldemort?

  Rita Skeeter’s False Memory Charm:

  Dumbledore rewards the Weasleys for the prank, which happened to benefit Harry Potter and deprive Lucius Malfoy of a tool. Is it possible that he not only rewarded them for it, but committed the active part of it himself?

  Amelia Bones burning Narcissa Malfoy:

  There’s suggestive evidence within the text (“Someone would burn for this”) that Amelia Bones is hard-bitten and fire-minded. We also see her specifically pulling back Dumbledore from confessing to Narcissa’s murder. Is it possible that Bones performed the murder, and afterward Dumbledore pretended to Lucius that he had been Narcissa’s killer?

  Lily’s final Dark-ritual conversation with Voldemort:

  Lily’s last conversation with Voldemort just so happens to replicate the requirements of a Dark ritual—you name the thing sacrificed, and then the thing to be gained.

  “I accept the bargain. Yourself to die, and the child to live.”

  Did Dumbledore prompt Lily on what to say if confronted by Voldemort, to trigger the accidental Horcruxing that saved Harry?

  How much of this is Dumbledore actually guilty of? Do we know or suspect other trickeries, or have other evidence?

• Daniel_StarrMar 26, 2012, 12:04 AM

  10 points

  in reply to: iemfi’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  The trick is to ignore personality. Never mind how calm or mean someone seems. Just ask: which characters show actions and knowledge that are distinctive to Voldemort?

  1. In canon, Quirrell could not touch Harry because he was Voldemort. In the fic, Harry and Quirrell also cannot touch.

  2. In canon, a Horcruxed object becomes especially long-lived and durable, and the maker of the Horcrux tries to hide it or get it out of others’ reach. In the fic, Quirrell tells Harry he enchanted the Voyager 2 space probe to make it super-durable, and talks to Harry about where to lose objects so they’d never be found.

  3. Voldemort knew how he behaved with Bellatrix Black, and is almost the only person with strong reason to rescue her. Quirrell knows and tells Harry how to behave with Bellatrix Black, and persuades Harry to rescue her.

  4. Dumbledore identifies the Bellatrix rescue as bearing the style of Voldemort. Quirrell designed the Bellatrix rescue.

  5. Dumbledore identifies the Hermione frame as having been done by Voldemort. Quirrell was the one who found the bodies, and is the only wizard in Hogwarts we know to be a post-Voldemort newcomer to Dumbledore’s acquaintance.

  6. “Quirrell” admits to the interrogating Auror that he is an imposter.

  It’s easy to miss because we don’t think that a personality like Voldemort could turn so calm and un-sadistic as Quirrell. In fact that’s the whole background to my post above—that it’s weird how much MoR!Quirrell’s leadership style differs from MoR!Voldemort’s. How could be so dumb in the past and so clearheaded now?

  But once you allow for the possibility of a personality change, or an incredible Occlumens-style personality disguise, Quirrell is the overwhelming candidate. Just watch knowledge and action, not attitude.

• Daniel_StarrMar 25, 2012, 2:51 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  He has that stone too? And Dumbledore doesn’t know it? That would surprise me.

• Daniel_StarrMar 25, 2012, 1:57 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  Possibly Harry will swap it for Dad’s Transfigured rock when the bad guy isn’t looking?

• Daniel_StarrMar 25, 2012, 1:47 PM

  8 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  Can we add a link in the article heading to discussion section eleven?

• Daniel_StarrMar 25, 2012, 1:42 PM

  22 points

  in reply to: David_Gerard’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  1. Quirrell stops short the field trip in chapter 40, saying something’s come up that requires he be elsewhere, soon after Harry shows him the symbol (and that’s the only real news for Quirrell that’s shown). Strongly suggests that Quirrell knows where an object is with that symbol and, now he knows what it is, is going to fetch it.

  2. If the backstory is the same as canon, Riddle in fact did gain possession of the ring that held the stone without immediately knowing it for what it was. Chapter 27 has a reference to a ring that tends to confirm that the backstory is, indeed, same as canon.

  It’s possible that Quirrell was unsuccessful in obtaining the object, but the most likely scenario is he went and got it without trouble and now has it.

• Daniel_StarrMar 25, 2012, 1:31 PM

  12 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  The chapter emphasizes that it’s a separate personality system that’s running Harry at that point (which doesn’t prove it’s Voldemort, but is suggestive). E.g.:

  that’s not Harry--

  You know. About his dark side.

  Although it’s not absolutely definitive; Dumbledore’s line in reply is

  But this is beyond even that.

  which argues for “he’s damaged” as you suggest rather than “he’s alien [and Voldemort]” as I’m suggesting.

• Daniel_StarrMar 25, 2012, 1:12 PM

  11 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  I like the idea that “Voldemort” was very consciously a role; that fits the Occlumens speech Quirrell gives to Harry.

  But still, which is more plausible? That Voldemort’s violence was an optimal choice for the situation? Or that Voldemort was stupidly violent?

  Quirrell uses the monastery story to argue Voldemort was stupidly violent, which at minimum implies Voldemort had a reputation consistent with stupid levels of violence. Dementor!Harry, which I read as a representation of Voldemort, thinks

  The response to annoyance was killing.

  which is about as stupidly violent as it gets.

  Let’s put it this way: if Voldemort’s violence level was rationally chosen, the author’s worked really hard to disguise that fact.

• Daniel_StarrMar 25, 2012, 1:05 PM

  10 points

  in reply to: razor11’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  The monastery, Bellatrix, and Dementor!Harry evidences of Voldemort’s violent behavior cited above are original creations in HPMOR. HPMOR doesn’t just ignore canon!Voldemort’s punishment fixation; it reaffirms it.

  There should be a reason.

• Daniel_StarrMar 25, 2012, 12:22 PM

  29 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 12

  Why is HPMOR’s Quirrellmort so much less violent than HPMOR’s Voldemort?

  HPMOR paints a Voldemort fixated on punishing his inferiors, a Voldemort who never used persuasion or inspiration when he could rely on suffering.

  • Voldemort amused himself by inducing in Bellatrix a love so knowingly one-sided that it was not a happy thought for her.

  • Quirrell asserts Voldemort slaughtered an entire monastery rather than simply impersonate an appropriate student.

  • Voldemort’s rule was so coercive and terrorizing that Lucius Malfoy finds it best to claim he was not merely deceived or misled but forced to obey him.

  • If Harry’s “dark” thoughts under the Dementor’s influence represent Voldemort’s mind accurately, Voldemort’s reflex inclination was to punish or kill anyone who didn’t slavishly obey.

  Yet Quirrellmort, for all that he talks cynically and is prepared to kill or memory-charm, prefers not to punish when he can benignly persuade or inspire.

  • Quirrell is verbally much less insulting than an army drill sergeant, let alone how Snape treated students.

  • The “Quirrell point” system is all about achieving rewards, not avoiding punishments.

  • Quirrell’s entire plan revolves around patient impersonation and feigned subordination—the kind of behavior that the old Voldemort allegedly refused at the monastery.

  • Quirrell is explicitly disapproving about the old Voldemort’s approach to persuasion.

  • We’ve been in Quirrell’s head when Harry and Dumbledore weren’t around, yet his violent acts have always been to “eliminate my enemy”, not to “instill fear of me in my intended lackey.” The author’s had 70+ chapters to show Quirrell or even H+C tormenting a hireling of his with no one else around, and neither has done so.

  In HPMOR, Voldemort was grandiose, cynical, and punitive. Quirrellmort is grandiose, cynical, but not punitive. We see him kill to remove danger, but we don’t see him torment to instill subordinates’ fear of him. Why the change? Options:

  • 1: Maybe Quirrellmort is still as punishment-oriented as old Voldemort, but the author doesn’t want to show us that ugly side of him quite yet. But if Quirrell doesn’t deserve our sympathy, isn’t it a good idea to make us lose it? Or if the author wants to hold off on admitting Quirrell is Voldemort until the last moment, why not have H+C be the punisher instead of Quirrell?

  • 2: Maybe Voldemort had bad publicity; he was ruthless with enemies, but it’s only propaganda that he abused his own people. But Bella and Dementor!Harry are both private evidence that Voldemort was abusive.

  • 3: Maybe Quirrellmort has realized the practical downsides of being punitive with those under your authority, and no longer uses those tactics. But if he could figure he was wrong about such a huge part of his leadership style, why is he so deaf to all the other ways he could be wrong about what to expect from people? Where did that open-mindedness go?

  • 4: Maybe Quirrellmort doesn’t have Voldemort’s abusive impulses, because Horcrux!Harry is holding onto them. But why would Quirrellmort not believe in terrifying his subordinates anymore, when he still believes that nobody has any reliable kindness or loyalty? It’s cynicism as much as anger that inspires rule-by-fear, and Quirrellmort has full cynicism.

  Of those four, my bet is on Horcrux!Harry, but even that doesn’t quite make sense to me. Why’d you change, Quirrellmort?

• Daniel_StarrMar 25, 2012, 9:15 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: Vaniver’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  Is there a book you’d recommend on the thinkers of Al-Ghazali’s time? The only one that came up for me in a quick Google on his name was a screed with all the hallmarks of cherry-picking history to support a point of view about present-day politics.

• Daniel_StarrMar 25, 2012, 8:40 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: Daniel_Starr’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  Minor variant: “I did it all. Voldemort made me, with the Imperius curse—just like when he made me help rescue Bellatrix Black.”

  Advantages:

  • requires Harry to make up fewer details about Voldemort’s behavior (Harry just claims Voldemort Imperiused Harry with his orders regarding Hermione and then disappeared).

  • incredibly dramatic first line for chapter. “I did it! I’m guilty!” Readers spend several paragraphs wondering if Harry is actually setting himself up to go to Azkaban in Hermione’s place.

  Disadvantage:

  • requires Harry to claim that the Imperius curse gave him spell expertise he otherwise doesn’t have (Obliviate and the False Memory Charm).

  I personally dislike the Imperius “powerup”, but it’s in canon so Harry could certainly know about it in the fic. Aside from that objection this is an even more dramatic variant.

• Daniel_StarrMar 24, 2012, 10:40 PM

  5 points

  in reply to: DanArmak’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  Dumbledore won’t ask for a Legilimens, because he’ll trust Harry.

  Lucius won’t, because he believes Harry is Voldemort and a perfect Occlumens.

  And everybody else will follow Dumbledore and Lucius’ lead on the matter.

  Politicians hate taking risks and being caught out. Subordinate politicians really hate taking risks and being caught out.

• Daniel_StarrMar 24, 2012, 12:05 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Non­mind­kil­ling open questions

  Ah. Point.