Harry Potter And The Methods Of Rationality

I remember someone here speculating that they were going for reinforcements, although I think that was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.

I remember something about JK saying that in a interview but that could be just evergrowing rumors

I've just been re-reading the Azkaban arc and I noticed something I'm surprised I didn't think more about before: Quirrell plants Animagus Meditation potion in Bellatrix's cell. Dumbledore et al. presume this is a message from Voldemort that they cannot understand - but why would Quirrell do that in the first place? He told Harry that they were going to commit the perfect crime, so why leave anything in the cell? I suppose it could be a safety measure for if the escape was detected, but Quirrell surely knew that a detected rescue would be blamed on Voldemort, who is so magically skilled that he is a walking Hand Wave for anything odd about the escape.

So, if it wasn't a safety measure, why would Quirrell want to patch up Azkaban's defences against Animagi? The obvious connection is to Sirius Black's escape in canon - Quirrell may want to prevent a particular Animagus from escaping Azkaban. It could be Sirius who Quirrell doesn't want escaping for some reason, but then what about the man muttering "I'm not serious/Sirius"? But then, if Sirius has already escaped, why hasn't he contacted Dumbledore or Harry?

edited 15th Feb '13 4:30:25 AM by LogicDragon

The attack wasn't meant to just stay undetected until they were out of Azkaban, it was meant to stay undetected forever, or at least until Bellatrix showed her face in public again. So it's not reasonable to expect that the flask of Animagus potion must contain a non-failsafe message. As far as I can tell, it was intended to be (as it in fact turned out to be) protection for Harry. Until they found the Animagus potion, they had no explanation for Harry's ability to prevent the Dementors from seeing Bellatrix. And, at least from the conversation that we watched, it didn't appear that Dumbledore was just going to let it go if he couldn't find an explanation.

edited 15th Feb '13 5:54:11 AM by Exetera

I think the Bumblebee was going to seek some sort of excuse to reform the Order of the Phoenix at some point, even if he had to invent one. Having the number two most deadly magic user in the Death Eaters escape an inescapable prison would be ideal, particularly if he could track where she ended up.

Hmm. Looking through the canon books pages on this wiki and there seems to be one huge big glaring omission in their YMMV tab.

"Protection from Editors."

edited 16th Feb '13 12:30:54 PM by TamH70

There is still, as always, no indication that Dumbledore is anything other than sincere. And neither in canon nor Methods does he jump the gun on restarting the Order of the Phoenix.

"There is still, as always, no indication that Dumbledore is anything other than sincere"

There is still, as always, no need to take that for granted either. Note the conversation he has with Minerva over exactly which Dark Lord marked Harry as his equal. Minerva seems convinced that the party line still holds true and that it was idiot!Riddle. Not even Albus himself is that convinced - and if so, why should I be? So, until it all pans out one way or another, I am going with Dumbledore as being just as messed in the head as Riddle is. And he still set Narcissa Malfoy alight and watched her burn.

Unless that particular cat ends up in the state of alive rather than not alive...

"Oh, that was phoenix travel, idiot." No. Not proven. Setting enemies alight is exactly what someone who had been pushed as hard as Dumbledore was may end up doing. Us non-wizards didn't have much hesitation in doing precisely that to the civilian population of both Germany and Japan.

The prophecy thing is silly; I have no reason to believe that was there for any reason other than to show that Dumbledore is getting insecure and took an emotional blow from Harry's speech. Most obvious objection: Harry's parents did not thrice defy Dumbledore. (It helps that my model of Methods would predict a smart Voldemort attacking Harry, though.)

There's no evidence that Narcissa Malfoy was burned to death.

edited 16th Feb '13 4:16:49 PM by Exetera

Yeah, that story pinged my Itachi alarm like crazy.

If there's a plausible, interesting way that it turns out to be completely true, I will be incredibly impressed.

Obviously there's evidence. Lucius told his son Dumbledore admitted it, and during Hermione's trial, Lucius behaved in a manner that suggested he believes it.

Dumbledore also explained to Harry the circumstances behind his making the choice to send Voldemort a message through his followers.

Now, this may not be sufficient to overcome the prior unlikelihood that Dumbledore would burn Narcissa to death, but it's quite a lot of evidence, considering that without it we would almost certainly have posited it as a possibility.

How sure of that are you? Dumbledore was headmaster while they were students, and James was a major troublemaker. Lilly is less likely to have defied him, but James could plausibly have defied him a lot more that that.

The prophesy probably doesn't refer to Dumbledore, but Dumbledore's reasons for believing it might not be as weak as all that.

edited 16th Feb '13 5:45:33 PM by Desertopa

block1:

I don't mean Bayesian evidence. In any case, all that evidence would be equally consistent with Dumbledore poisoning Narcissa and then setting the drapes on fire. Even if they actually found Narcissa's burned body (which we don't know) there's no reason to believe that this happened premortem.

block2:

First, it's obvious that there's a pretty high bound on the word "defied," otherwise in canon their "defy" counts would ding every time they said the word "Voldemort." Yet, they had only defied him thrice, hence "defy" in the context of a prophecy isn't something that can happen accidentally.

Second, if James Potter's prank escapades counted, the prophecy would be "born to those of whom one had defied him thrice and the other had defied him eight hundred and twenty-nine times," which doesn't scan nearly so well.

Chamge of subject: is this story a good way to present rationalism? Yay or nay?

The evidence is consistent with that hypothesis, but Dumbledore telling Lucius he burned Narcissa to death is stronger evidence that he burned her to death than that he poisoned her and then burned her. It's not as if it doesn't do more to narrow down that particular possibility than other things he might have done, but didn't say he did.

Well, it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it seems to have brought in quite a number of people to Less Wrong, and probably gotten considerably more people interested in rationality who haven't joined the community.

Eh... That's actually a hard question. I'd say it's somewhat mixed. The story itself is an excellent way to explain rationality in my opinion, with an extra special hat tip to having it in a setting with magic. Too many people seem to think that any kind of ordered thought vanishes in a puff of logic at the sight of someone getting turned into a newt... Harry hasn't been being a perfect rationalist lately, but eh, whatever, we can't all be Marty Stus. I think it would be more effective if we could see how Quirrell makes his plans; hopefully, that will come later. Outside the story, it's a bit more hazy... in particular, a Harry Potter fanfic as a recruiting tool has a distinct "marketing to kids" vibe about it which I don't like much.

You mean that Draco told Harry that Lucius told Draco that Dumbledore told Lucius that Dumbledore burned Narcissa to death. But, yes, that particular piece of evidence does favor the theory that Dumbledore burned Narcissa to death, to the extent that you'd trust Dumbledore to tell the truth about Narcissa's manner of death after simulating her death via immolation. *

edited 16th Feb '13 6:56:59 PM by Exetera

Just re-reading the story from the beginning. Has this been noticed before in chapter one?

"And Lily would tell me no, and make up the most ridiculous excuses, like the world would end if she were nice to her sister, or a centaur told her not to"

That latter excuse seems oddly specific. And while the former one could be read as "as if the world would end, if she were nice to her sister!", in retrospect, it can also mean "...ridiculous excuses, such as that the world would end"

It's as if Lily literally gathered knowledge from centaurs that she shouldn't make Petunia prettier, and that the fate of the world is depending on that.

Then in the 8th chapter, there was this: "The Rise and Fall of the Dark Arts claims that you survived because of your mother's love and that your scar contains all of the Dark Lord's magical power and that the centaurs fear you".

edited 17th Feb '13 1:52:57 PM by Ever9

Keep in mind that centaurs are known in canon for their divination practices, and Harry is heavily prophesied about. This would also explain why Lilly would say that a centaur told her not to, it's comparable to saying "A seer told me not to." As ridiculous excuses go, it's not really oddly specific.

If centaurs are really that good at prophecy, and it seems that is the case even in canon, or else I missed something, I wouldn't dismiss it as a ridiculous prophecy.

I would be stocking up on tinned food, water, sanitary supplies and warm clothing.

I suspect that the fact that centaurs fear Harry is plot relevant, but unrelated to the fact that Lilly claimed that a centaur told her not to help her sister.

If Mo R were a single-point-of-departure fic, it would actually make sense, since that could be taken as the point of departure which ultimately led to Harry's rationalist upbringing. But Riddle's upgrade predates Lilly making the potion for Petunia. A neglectfully raised Harry would be unlikely to improve anything from the Wizarding World's point of view.

Maybe Harry's going to screw up Riddle's plan... in a way that's actually much worse for everybody involved than if Riddle's plan had simply worked as intended?

That's possible, although it might distort the message of the story if Harry screws things up too badly.

One consideration that comes to mind; two foes who are close to evenly matched can cause far more destruction than foes who're heavily mismatched. In a mismatch, one can defeat the other quickly and efficiently. In a close match, it's likely that both will fight to the last breath, because they're convinced that they can win if and only if they refuse to give up.

edited 17th Feb '13 7:25:45 PM by Desertopa

That's why I am sort of convinced that the whole "Harry gets bullied by lots of bigger Slytherins and has to stand and take it" scene was foreshadowing. Not so much the events itself but the dialogue between Harry and (yeah, I am gonna) squee!!! Quirrell about dominance rituals and Harry having to learn how to submit or at least fake it convincingly.

Because what you said there is pretty much what Quirinus told Harry.

On Harry screwing things up? Well yeah, he might. He is eleven years old, after all. That's part of the territory for a kid that age.

edited 17th Feb '13 9:39:34 PM by TamH70

On a semi-related note to HPMOR, I found an impromptu in-character wizard sociologist. It's an interesting read and made me wonder if a certain author is also a redditor.

Now that was a fun read.

If you're referring to Eliezer, if I remember correctly the answer is "yes, but under his real name."

Well, we have a new Progress Report. Apparently, EY has some content done that apparently contains suspense sufficient to mean we do not want it to just be posted. Speculation?