Daniel_Starr

Karma: 699

Daniel_Starr Mar 20, 2012, 6:57 AM
10 points
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
I find Dumbledore morally confusing.
- His main policy in the fic is inaction.
- His reputation in the past of the story is of successful and (by the standards of the wizards) moral leadership. He earned vast respect in the wizarding world without resorting to Lucius’ blood-purist politics or Voldemort’s insistence on slavish obedience.
- The few specific deeds he’s done at his own initiative are somewhere between weird and vile. (Jinxing Snape’s relationship with Lily; planning for Harry to have wicked step-parents; etc.)
Largely inactive in the present, good and effective in the reputed past, weird or vile when we actually see him act.

Has there been a leader in real life like this? If this was a real-life person, what would we say about them—that they were a good leader once, and now they’re a crazy one?

Daniel_Starr Mar 20, 2012, 6:16 AM
5 points
in reply to: Alsadius’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
That’s a great possibility.

The catch would be explaining why Dumbledore killed Narcissa instead of kidnapping her as a hostage. If you’re in control enough of the situation to kill someone slowly and painfully, why aren’t you in control enough to knock them out and carry them off?

But aside from that hitch, that’s a great motive for Dumbledore. Dumbledore does have this pattern of finding “poetic story logic” a convenient excuse for almost unlimited occasional evil. (Harry’s intended parents, Snape as a kid, Snape’s victims as an adult.) And in story terms it would be a great way to finally “open Harry’s eyes” about Dumbledore, if the author wanted to send the story that way.

I’d still say Bellatrix is two or three times as likely a candidate as Dumbledore. Both because Bellatrix fits the boundaries of Harry’s oath to Draco so neatly, and because Dumbledore’s other vile actions have been explicitly in pursuit of assembling “fairytale tradition” on the side of Hogwarts or Harry. Killing Draco’s mother doesn’t fit the pattern for making Hogwarts heroic or Draco a hero, unless...

… well, unless Dumbledore has some specific reason to want Draco to want to try to kill him. Of course, Draco is indeed tasked to kill Dumbledore in canon. But I don’t think MoR!Dumbledore has read his own canon. That would be too much meta.

I think.

Daniel_Starr Mar 20, 2012, 2:07 AM
6 points
in reply to: SkyDK’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
To be a good con man, you have to think like other people. Harry’s not good at that.

A con man has to be good at playing to other people’s superficiality.

Harry can’t stand not asking questions. So he finds it hard to model others’ willingness to not ask questions. Also, he’s in love with getting the right answer, which makes it hard for his brain to think over wrong answers to offer people, even enemies. This is why Harry has no instinct for ambushes and active (lie-based, rather than silence-based) deceptions.

Someone like Harry can train to actively lie, deceive, ambush, etc. He’d do fine. But active deception is one of those social skills, like flirting, that mucks with the user’s own cognition and so takes more practice than smart people initially think.

As for formation tactics, drilling people to act together is another less-questions-more-cooperation trait that Harry’s never been good at. Chaos is definitely his right army name.

Daniel_Starr Mar 20, 2012, 1:50 AM
23 points
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Oh, thank you, that’s it, that’s the answer: Bellatrix is Narcissa’s sister, and of course Lucius would be more comfortable blaming Dumbledore than Bellatrix, not only for family reasons but for fear of Voldemort.

Plus, consider the Law of Dramatic Efficiency: Bellatrix is one of the few people we’ve met who would fully trigger Harry’s oath (to take Narcissa’s killer as an enemy) yet Harry wouldn’t want to kill. Because Bellatrix wasn’t “tricked” into killing Narcissa. Brainwashed, yes, but not tricked.

Bellatrix meets all the conditions for Narcissa’s killer:
1. If it’s not Dumbledore, it has to be someone Lucius would rather not name to Draco. Bellatrix: sister-in-law and Voldemort’s chief lieutenant.
2. It has to be someone Lucius has been in no position to take revenge on in the intervening years. Bellatrix: in Azkaban.
3. It ought, dramatically, to be someone within the oath yet very uncomfortable for Harry to go after. Bellatrix: in Harry’s mind, brainwashed into her evil, but not tricked into the murder of Narcissa.
So Bellatrix fits perfectly. Lucius blames Dumbledore, knowing Draco won’t trust Dumbledore claiming the contrary, and knowing how dangerous it would be for Draco to go after Bellatrix—or for Draco not to accept Bellatrix as an ally, if Voldemort returns.

Lucius lied about the killer so that Draco wouldn’t want revenge on someone so unsafe to want revenge on.

Voldemort himself is another one Lucius would lie to Draco about, but Voldemort would probably not have burned Narcissa alive, and it doesn’t have the storytelling punch, because Harry has far less problem taking Voldemort as an enemy than Bellatrix.

So I think you’ve got it. It’s Bellatrix, and Lucius lied about it to keep his son from a dangerous revenge, and Harry will have a huge problem once he finds out.

Daniel_Starr Mar 19, 2012, 10:25 PM
0 points
in reply to: Joshua Hobbes’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Dumbledore faking Narcissa’s death: problem is this involves Narcissa leaving behind her son.

Dumbledore covering for someone else: who’d want to be covered for?

Rule of drama and crime: start with people known connected to Narcissa. Who’s connected, besides Draco?

Lucius. Could Lucius have killed Narcissa and gotten Dumbledore to take the fall in exchange for some unknown favor or threat? Sure. So that’s one option.

Who else do we know, besides Draco and Lucuius, who were connected to Narcissa?
What links here?
- glumph's comment on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11 by Oscar_Cunningham (Mar 20, 2012, 1:44 AM; 3 points)

Daniel_Starr Mar 19, 2012, 10:16 PM
8 points
in reply to: Joshua Hobbes’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Right, that’s not yet obvious. At least not to me!

We do know that Quirrellmort is consistently surprised by the extent to which Harry thinks like a nice person instead of a Dark Lord. So the “alien power” could be Harry’s having more of a mind of his own than Quirrellmort expects of a Horcrux.

The “alien power” could equally be that Harry can cast a 2.0 Patronus, and in general has access to certain kinds of feelings and thoughts (and their associated magics?) that Quirrelmort doesn’t.

Or I suppose it could be that Dad’s rock is in fact the Philosopher’s Stone.

Daniel_Starr Mar 19, 2012, 11:44 AM
31 points
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Here’s a secret in plain sight: if this story has a happy ending, then Harry has the power to destroy Quirrelmort’s brain, anytime they’re together.

First clue: the WRONG DON’T BAD IDEA messages when Harry tries to make contact with Quirrell. Assume that they mean just what they say—that something terrible will happen if Harry makes contact.

Second clue: the prophecy appears to say that Harry and Voldemort’s confrontation can only leave more or less one. Storytelling convention makes us think it’s a metaphor or foreseeing complex future actions. But maybe there’s just an already existing spell or condition, dating from the first encounter, that’s primed to cause Harry+Voldemort = boom.

There’s more. But just from these two clues alone, we can see that an available though seemingly extreme interpretation of data in the story is: “If Harry ever touches Quirrellmort, one or the other will be magically destroyed”.

Now the subtler clues.

Third clue: in the original canon, Harry had a piece of Voldemort’s soul in him, an accidentally created Horcrux, and the destruction of that piece of soul was a critical step in Voldemort’s death.

Fourth clue: in our world’s science, there’s no such observable thing as splitting souls, but there is such a thing as copying data, or duplicating a software neural network.

Fifth clue: Lucius thinks Harry is Voldemort.

Sixth clue: Harry has patterns of behavior in him that don’t at all resemble a loved little boy, but wholly fit Voldemort.

Seventh clue: the Sorting Hat said Harry didn’t have a separate mind under the Hat with him. It never said his own mind was normal.

Hypothesis:

In this universe, a “Horcrux” is a compressed or partial copy of your brain software.

Harry was accidentally imprinted with some of Voldemort’s brain software at their original encounter. Ever since, he’s been a child who knows how to think like Voldemort. Literally. (Harry’s dark side really is an alien thing, not as an actual person, but as a range of behaviors that didn’t come from his own past experiences but another’s.)

Further, in this universe, a Horcrux, or at least an unstable Horcrux like Harry, destructively decompresses/uploads itself back to its source mind when brought into contact with it.

In consequence, if ever Quirrellmort and Harry come sufficiently into physical/magical contact, Quirrellmort anticipates that Harry’s brain will turn into a vegetable as Harry-Voldemort destructively uploads itself into the “real” Quirrell-Voldemort, leaving behind a stronger and more complete Q+H-Voldemort.

This may require preparation on Quirrell’s part to go well. Or there may be other things involved that Quirrell hasn’t accounted for, such as the extent to which Harry has a (literal) mind of his own. Either way, there’s a fair likelihood, depending on author intent, that the contact will destroy Quirrellmort, not Harry.

So if the story has a happy ending, where even the protagonist gets to live, then we can express the hypothesis like this:

Harry can defeat Quirrellmort. He just has to give him a hug.

There’s a Care Bears Omake spawning in my brain now.

Daniel_Starr Mar 19, 2012, 7:40 AM
8 points
in reply to: buybuydandavis’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
You’re right, the Stone would be worth it.

But if you know or expect the Stone to be in Hogwarts, then why take the awful risk of breaking out Bellatrix Black? If you were found out, you’d lose your chance to continue casing Hogwarts for the Stone.

Come to think of it, why did Quirrellmort break out Bellatrix before his other plans were complete? Wasn’t that awfully risky?

What does Bellatrix offer that is so urgently needed?

(Possible answer: Quirrellmort is decaying fast.)

Daniel_Starr Mar 19, 2012, 7:35 AM
7 points
in reply to: loserthree’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Good point. After all, Dumbledore has already shown suspicion of Harry’s attitude about death...

Daniel_Starr Mar 19, 2012, 7:06 AM
1 point
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Why does Dumbledore not want to use the word “Horcrux” in front of Harry?

Did Quirrell have a reason for not mentioning Horcruxes in front of Harry, other than not wanting Harry to deduce that the professor himself had made one?

Daniel_Starr Mar 19, 2012, 7:03 AM
2 points
in reply to: buybuydandavis’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Presumably if Quirrell thought he could take over the world on his own he’d have done so, and not wasted time playing a petty game to amuse himself with one boy wizard.

But you’re right that “I notice I am confused” about the relationship between Voldemort, Quirrell’s current mind, and Harry’s mind.

If Quirrell’s mind is a copy of Voldemort, and if he believes Harry’s mind is also a copy of Voldemort, what is Quirrell’s ultimate intent for Harry?

To overwrite him? To merge with him? Or merely to train him back into himself?

And if Dumbledore knows as much or almost as much about Horcruxes as Quirrell, does Dumbledore also know or suspect that Harry contains a piece of Voldemort’s mind?

Daniel_Starr Mar 19, 2012, 6:25 AM
3 points
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
I agree that Dumbledore doesn’t seem able to get Lucius to delay the trial. But I suggest that Harry could suggest an agreement to delay the (irreversible part of the) punishment.

Since the only fixed rule of the wizards’ council is there are no fixed rules, such an agreement could be made. “She’s guilty, and we’ll house-elf her in a week.” Since Lucius’ priority is protecting Draco, genuine proof that someone else tried to killed Draco would be plenty of reason to release Hermione—in exchange for Harry/Voldemort’s help against the villain.

From Harry’s point of view, especially, why should Lucius exact a high price to postpone the house-elfing of Hermione by a week or a month, as long as he has the formal verdict and the young villain is under secure observation somewhere?

Daniel_Starr Mar 19, 2012, 5:40 AM
0 points
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Good point. They’re obviously at least somewhat different from canon. The rules on fixing their effects are unknowable without the author’s say-so.

I suppose it isn’t critical whether Obliviates and FMCs are normally removable in this universe—Harry would still be able to use a delay in carrying out sentence to either attempt to find a counterspell or find the real perpetrator or both.

So no matter what, for Harry, a one-year delay in carrying out sentence has a really good cost/benefit tradeoff.

And if Dumbledore won’t exert himself sufficiently to secure that, there’s no one Harry will be left trusting excerpt McGonagall—and Quirrell.

Daniel_Starr Mar 19, 2012, 5:15 AM
1 point
in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
I was reading the quote you cite as “too much trouble usually” rather than “absolutely impossible”, because canon indicates that both can be removed, albeit not easily:

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Memory_Charm

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/False_memory_charm

Daniel_Starr 19 Mar 2012 4:54 UTC
6 points
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
I suggest: (1) all Harry needs is time, (2) Dumbledore refuses to give it to him, (3) Harry offers Lucius an Unbreakable Vow.

In theory, Obliviations and False Memories can be broken, right? So what’s Dumbledore’s excuse for not insisting on a delay in punishment long enough to attempt to break the alleged tampering with Hermione’s brain?

[ETA: actually, doesn’t matter whether the spells are known breakable; Harry could experiment with counterspells or just hunt for the real villain. Either way, Harry will be confident that he can get the truth—given time.]

It seems like Quirrell stands to take away three of Harry’s supports—if Harry realizes that Dumbledore won’t insist on even a delay in punishing Hermione to test whether she’s actually innocent, he’s hardly likely to ever trust Dumbledore ever again.

Meanwhile, it seems like the obvious “taboo tradeoff” for Harry to offer for Hermione is some kind of Unbreakable Vow for the Malfoys’ benefit—especially since Lucius believes (sort of correctly!) that Harry is Voldemort. That would be fun storytelling, since an Unbreakable Vow for Draco’s benefit also shows up in canon. Is there a more appropriate bribe Harry could offer than that?

And would Harry and Lucius actually come to an agreement in such a negotiation, or would Harry’s maximum offer be less than Lucius’ minimum offer? Since Lucius has Hermione as hostage, it would be tricky, though not impossible, for Harry to simply threaten the Malfoys into handing Hermione over.

But suppose Harry can’t make a deal with Lucius, can’t contact Quirrell in time, and can’t get Dumbledore to take effective action—then what is Harry’s best option at this point if he absolutely refuses to let Hermione be turned into a house-elf (or whatever)? Is Harry’s best solo option to get to Azkaban on his own and lead out a Dementor army? (I didn’t say good, just best...)

Is there a save-Hermione option that would make sense to us that Harry is unlikely to consider?

Daniel_Starr 24 Feb 2011 1:41 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: Blueberry’s comment on: Procedural Knowledge Gaps
If it’s an obviously super-brief pro-forma “conversation”, like banter with a waitress, then I see why ruhe47 ’s approach works: it shows that you’re more interested than average, but the other person has an excuse (other customers!) to walk away rather than lay out their whole life or be rude, so it’s not trapping them into a demand for a long answer.

But if someone were to say “Are you really good, or just sorta good?” in a more extended-conversation setting, like a party, then I would agree with Sniffnoy in disliking the proposed question. Without such an obvious natural time limit, that open-ended reflection-demanding question creates too much of an interrogation atmosphere. It’s like you’re going to stand there and poke at their life until you’ve heard enough.

My feeling is that the right way to start an extended conversation with someone is to ask them a question that invites them to remember, specifically remember something that’s fun for them and likely halfway interesting to you.

Toy example from my own life: “I’ve got Netflix streaming now, and I can’t decide what to watch. When you think about TV shows or movies that you’ve really enjoyed, which ones do you think of first?”

It sounds silly, like most conversation-with-strangers openings (“How are you?” is pretty silly in its own way, when you think about it), but it’s easy to answer and it invites discussion of something the other person has fun thinking about. Also it puts the other person in the position of being capable of helping you, as opposed to being evaluated or judged by you, which is a much friendlier subtext.

And hey, I really do need the recommendations. :)

But ruhe47 offered up their technique simply in the context of pro-forma ‘conversations’ like when you’re buying something at a store counter, and in that environment I can totally see how it would work. Especially since when you’re clerking or table-serving, you’re spending hours helping people yet not being engaged with as an interesting human being, so a sign of more genuine interest (without a real obligation to raespond more than you feel like) should be pretty positive.