His first comment capitalized “NOT”, which was kind of rude. He also chided me in a paternalistic manner “keep the facts straight please”. On the negative karma: Since I can’t prove it and we’re disagreeing he has an incentive to lie which means I discard his response and stick to the other information I have (to rephrase, he would have said he didn’t do it regardless of whether or not he did do it, unless I have some reason to trust him I would ignore his comments either way, I obviously don’t have a reason to trust him since he has no possible positive incentives to tell the truth but has possible negative incentives to lie, and also I don’t know him, and also see my next paragraph for more support). I know that he commented within five minutes of my receiving a negative karma vote. So I feel like he lied there. (People lie all the time, especially on the internet, so please ignore that gut level reaction that you need extremely strong evidence to believe that someone lied to you and actually rationally evaluate what I’m saying here, he is probably lying.) Apparently the above is wrong, but don’t ignore the first two points please.
He nitpicked one of my comments below, which shows that he argues for the sake of arguing. (http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/bmx/harry_potter_and_the_methods_of_rationality/6dnr) Coincidentally, this one also has a negative reputation. And there’s nothing within it that should be considered bad. Even if you think his flaw was worth mentioning (I don’t, and in fact his objection is wrong, see my new comment below his comment), it’s kind of odd that he would go around following all my comments and pointing out their flaws. That doesn’t seem justified, it seems kind of like something a jerk would do.
Finally, I feel like if he was critically evaluating the issue he would be coming to a different conclusion. If you honestly feel that it’s most probable that Quirrell wasn’t reading Hermione’s mind despite his ability and obvious incentive to do so and the fact that Yudkowsky said they were making eye contact, then I’m going to conclude that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. There is literally zero evidence to reject the mind reading hypothesis, his entire line of argument [/sarcasm] is pointing out that other possibilities exist, which does nothing to effect the probability of my interpretation. They do exist, but they’re barely probable, especially in light of the very obvious mind reading hypothesis. All he’s doing is making minor points to slightly undermine my point, he’s not producing any points which are more credible than even my slightly weakened theory, so his arguments don’t really matter.
If there are three people out there who actually feel that it’s most probable that Quirrell wasn’t mind reading, and who are willing to let me mock them when their theories don’t produce evidence making them better than mine, then I’ll bother to address his points in his last comment. If they’re not willing to let that happen then they shouldn’t have -negkarma’d my comment(s). But I honestly doubt that there are really three people out there who really think that, and I’m pretty sure that if three people actually do respond it will be because of biases or social pressures and not critical thinking.
But it was justified to ask for reasons, that makes sense and honestly probably makes my viewpoint much more credible, so have a cookie, and also a karma point.
Two things: one, that first downvote was mine, not ArisKatsaris’s. It’s still there, someone else just upvoted you.
Two: Quirrell’s not stupid. He went through that whole Groundhog Day Attack rigmarole to avoid leaving detectable Legilimency traces; he would be a fool to try it now, after Dumbledore’s specifically warded her against “hostile magic [...], or any spirit”.
Why did you downvote, that doesn’t seem justified at all??
Two: Quirrell’s not stupid. He went through that whole Groundhog Day Attack rigmarole specifically to avoid leaving detectable Legilimency traces; he would be a fool to try it now, after Dumbledore’s specifically warded her against “hostile magic [...], or any spirit”.
This is the first legitimate counterargument that’s been made and we’re seven layers in, that should tell everyone something.
I’ll lower the probability of mind reading, but I still don’t buy it. Hostile magic is obviously not the same as Legilmancy, that passage is talking about Dark Curses like Imperio. The Groundhog Day Attack argument makes sense, but I think Quirrell’s already played his hand. Why would Dumbledore care and what would Dumbledore do differently if Dumbledore found out that Quirrell had looked into Hermione’s mind? Also, if Quirrell succeeded in getting Hermione to leave, which he probably expected to do, then there would have been zero risk of detection.
I think textual clues outweigh extratextual extrapolation, too. The fact that the eye contact was specifically mentioned seems important, it was probably mentioned for a reason. I trust what the author writes more than what the commenters on this site write because EY doesn’t always make characters perfectly consistent and rational because he’s not God, and also because EY has knowledge about the book that we don’t. It makes sense to privilege what the writer has written over a fan’s opinion of what will probably happen next.
Even if I was mostly wrong I would still expect more argumentation and less group ritual display from a website like this. But I have way more -karmas than I do plausible counterarguments to what I’m saying, and in my mind downvoting should be used for punishing (or expressing disapproval of) immoral things rather than of mistakes, or things that aren’t even mistakes but are just theories you don’t believe in. That’s lame.
When commenters downvote everything I write, even if it’s mostly useful or prompts interesting discussions, it makes me want to leave this site. That’s not a good thing for people purportedly trying to promote rationality. People should probably be more laid back about downvoting. You guys kind of suck.
Hostile magic is obviously not the same as Legilmancy
It’s also not the same as the sort of LifeAlert wards Quirrell (claims that he) put on Draco, which we know (that Quirrell claimed that) Heh specifically forbade.
Why would Dumbledore care and what would Dumbledore do differently if Dumbledore found out that Quirrell had looked into Hermione’s mind?
Well, for one thing, he might look at the Map again. (He suspects Voldemort is trying to influence Hermione’s mind; the Defence Prof is caught trying to read Hermione’s mind; it doesn’t take a genius.)
The fact that the eye contact was specifically mentioned seems important
But it wasn’t, though. “The pale blue eyes watched her intently” is not an unambiguous indication of eye contact.
in my mind downvoting should be used for punishing (or expressing disapproval of) immoral things rather than of mistakes
How astonishingly strange. (I don’t agree.)
People should probably be more laid back about downvoting.
This is the first legitimate counterargument that’s been made and we’re seven layers in, that should tell everyone something.
It tells me that you see far fewer counterarguments as “legitimate” than you should.
I think textual clues outweigh extratextual extrapolation, too. The fact that the eye contact was specifically mentioned seems important, it was probably mentioned for a reason.
As I mention in a comment above, Quirrel’s intent gaze is also mentioned in ch. 70, in a situation where we’re pretty sure no Legimancy occurred.
Even if I was mostly wrong I would still expect more argumentation and less group ritual display from a website like this.
You refused to accept argument, and you take offense at being corrected as if making you less wrong is a hostile act.
and in my mind downvoting should be used for punishing (or expressing disapproval of) immoral things
Fuck that (ie. I viscerally disapprove of and hold in honest contempt this asserted social norm.) Moralizing gets annoying.
That’s not a good thing for people purportedly trying to promote rationality.
ie. Not trying to promote moral purity.
People should probably be more laid back about downvoting.
You’re the one getting worked up about it. Really, getting voted down isn’t that much of a big deal and even if it was directly challenging it is a tricky social move to pull off.
His first comment capitalized “NOT”, which was kind of rude. He also chided me in a paternalistic manner “keep the facts straight please”.
Rudeness isn’t the same thing as disingenuousness. I was probably rude. But I wasn’t disingenuous.
it’s kind of odd that he would go around following all my comments and pointing out their flaws.
I don’t expect you to believe me now, since you didn’t believe me before, but since I was honest before, perhaps you’ll hopefully have updated the level of my trustworthiness upwards: I didn’t “follow you around”. I was looking at the recent comments of the HPMoR thread, not your comments. I don’t remember noticing who made that comment until after I had responded to it.
And I didn’t downvote that comment of yours either. So far I’ve only downvoted two of your comments, and both of which contained false accusations against me specifically.
The fact that I corrected you again is just indicative that you’re the one who’s been recently making sloppy arguments and false claims all over the place. (no, Quirrel didn’t echo her exact thought, no Dumbledore didn’t speak of Tom Riddle in front of Harry, no Lucius Malfoy doesn’t need to know of Voldemort’s love of puns to take note of the word “riddle” when directly mentioned to him by Harry Potter)
Okay.
His first comment capitalized “NOT”, which was kind of rude. He also chided me in a paternalistic manner “keep the facts straight please”. On the negative karma: Since I can’t prove it and we’re disagreeing he has an incentive to lie which means I discard his response and stick to the other information I have (to rephrase, he would have said he didn’t do it regardless of whether or not he did do it, unless I have some reason to trust him I would ignore his comments either way, I obviously don’t have a reason to trust him since he has no possible positive incentives to tell the truth but has possible negative incentives to lie, and also I don’t know him, and also see my next paragraph for more support). I know that he commented within five minutes of my receiving a negative karma vote. So I feel like he lied there. (People lie all the time, especially on the internet, so please ignore that gut level reaction that you need extremely strong evidence to believe that someone lied to you and actually rationally evaluate what I’m saying here, he is probably lying.) Apparently the above is wrong, but don’t ignore the first two points please.
He nitpicked one of my comments below, which shows that he argues for the sake of arguing. (http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/bmx/harry_potter_and_the_methods_of_rationality/6dnr) Coincidentally, this one also has a negative reputation. And there’s nothing within it that should be considered bad. Even if you think his flaw was worth mentioning (I don’t, and in fact his objection is wrong, see my new comment below his comment), it’s kind of odd that he would go around following all my comments and pointing out their flaws. That doesn’t seem justified, it seems kind of like something a jerk would do.
Finally, I feel like if he was critically evaluating the issue he would be coming to a different conclusion. If you honestly feel that it’s most probable that Quirrell wasn’t reading Hermione’s mind despite his ability and obvious incentive to do so and the fact that Yudkowsky said they were making eye contact, then I’m going to conclude that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. There is literally zero evidence to reject the mind reading hypothesis, his entire line of argument [/sarcasm] is pointing out that other possibilities exist, which does nothing to effect the probability of my interpretation. They do exist, but they’re barely probable, especially in light of the very obvious mind reading hypothesis. All he’s doing is making minor points to slightly undermine my point, he’s not producing any points which are more credible than even my slightly weakened theory, so his arguments don’t really matter.
If there are three people out there who actually feel that it’s most probable that Quirrell wasn’t mind reading, and who are willing to let me mock them when their theories don’t produce evidence making them better than mine, then I’ll bother to address his points in his last comment. If they’re not willing to let that happen then they shouldn’t have -negkarma’d my comment(s). But I honestly doubt that there are really three people out there who really think that, and I’m pretty sure that if three people actually do respond it will be because of biases or social pressures and not critical thinking.
But it was justified to ask for reasons, that makes sense and honestly probably makes my viewpoint much more credible, so have a cookie, and also a karma point.
Two things: one, that first downvote was mine, not ArisKatsaris’s. It’s still there, someone else just upvoted you.
Two: Quirrell’s not stupid. He went through that whole Groundhog Day Attack rigmarole to avoid leaving detectable Legilimency traces; he would be a fool to try it now, after Dumbledore’s specifically warded her against “hostile magic [...], or any spirit”.
Why did you downvote, that doesn’t seem justified at all??
This is the first legitimate counterargument that’s been made and we’re seven layers in, that should tell everyone something.
I’ll lower the probability of mind reading, but I still don’t buy it. Hostile magic is obviously not the same as Legilmancy, that passage is talking about Dark Curses like Imperio. The Groundhog Day Attack argument makes sense, but I think Quirrell’s already played his hand. Why would Dumbledore care and what would Dumbledore do differently if Dumbledore found out that Quirrell had looked into Hermione’s mind? Also, if Quirrell succeeded in getting Hermione to leave, which he probably expected to do, then there would have been zero risk of detection.
I think textual clues outweigh extratextual extrapolation, too. The fact that the eye contact was specifically mentioned seems important, it was probably mentioned for a reason. I trust what the author writes more than what the commenters on this site write because EY doesn’t always make characters perfectly consistent and rational because he’s not God, and also because EY has knowledge about the book that we don’t. It makes sense to privilege what the writer has written over a fan’s opinion of what will probably happen next.
Even if I was mostly wrong I would still expect more argumentation and less group ritual display from a website like this. But I have way more -karmas than I do plausible counterarguments to what I’m saying, and in my mind downvoting should be used for punishing (or expressing disapproval of) immoral things rather than of mistakes, or things that aren’t even mistakes but are just theories you don’t believe in. That’s lame.
When commenters downvote everything I write, even if it’s mostly useful or prompts interesting discussions, it makes me want to leave this site. That’s not a good thing for people purportedly trying to promote rationality. People should probably be more laid back about downvoting. You guys kind of suck.
It’s also not the same as the sort of LifeAlert wards Quirrell (claims that he) put on Draco, which we know (that Quirrell claimed that) Heh specifically forbade.
Well, for one thing, he might look at the Map again. (He suspects Voldemort is trying to influence Hermione’s mind; the Defence Prof is caught trying to read Hermione’s mind; it doesn’t take a genius.)
But it wasn’t, though. “The pale blue eyes watched her intently” is not an unambiguous indication of eye contact.
How astonishingly strange. (I don’t agree.)
Yes. People should. (Hint hint.)
Groupthink triumphs again. This is disappointing.
I’m done with this.
I’ve been looking at it, and I really have no idea what part of my comment you are referring to here. Which is mildly concerning. Could you clarify?
It tells me that you see far fewer counterarguments as “legitimate” than you should.
As I mention in a comment above, Quirrel’s intent gaze is also mentioned in ch. 70, in a situation where we’re pretty sure no Legimancy occurred.
You refused to accept argument, and you take offense at being corrected as if making you less wrong is a hostile act.
Fuck that (ie. I viscerally disapprove of and hold in honest contempt this asserted social norm.) Moralizing gets annoying.
ie. Not trying to promote moral purity.
You’re the one getting worked up about it. Really, getting voted down isn’t that much of a big deal and even if it was directly challenging it is a tricky social move to pull off.
So did your… nevermind.
Here’s a vote for not-mind-reading. This seems deliberately written to suggest Quirrell’s reacting to body language, not thought:
Rudeness isn’t the same thing as disingenuousness. I was probably rude. But I wasn’t disingenuous.
I don’t expect you to believe me now, since you didn’t believe me before, but since I was honest before, perhaps you’ll hopefully have updated the level of my trustworthiness upwards: I didn’t “follow you around”. I was looking at the recent comments of the HPMoR thread, not your comments. I don’t remember noticing who made that comment until after I had responded to it.
And I didn’t downvote that comment of yours either. So far I’ve only downvoted two of your comments, and both of which contained false accusations against me specifically.
The fact that I corrected you again is just indicative that you’re the one who’s been recently making sloppy arguments and false claims all over the place. (no, Quirrel didn’t echo her exact thought, no Dumbledore didn’t speak of Tom Riddle in front of Harry, no Lucius Malfoy doesn’t need to know of Voldemort’s love of puns to take note of the word “riddle” when directly mentioned to him by Harry Potter)