I don’t even know if Harry made the right decision by protecting her and her friends. We’ll see if
Harry made the right decision by protecting her and her friends. Given what he knows and even given human (and Hogwarts) behavior it gives the best expected outcome.
Yes, Eliezer may construct negative consequences for Harry and try to teach a Deep Lesson but I basically wouldn’t buy it[1]. You can’t get much better bullying deterrent than seeing them visibly humiliated by first year girls. Add in some naked wall sticking and nobody would want to affiliate with such a degraded role. (They’ll move on to more successful dominance displays.)
[1]ETA: Unless the Deep Lesson was one about decisions still being the correct decision at the time even if hindsight revealed an unpredictable outcome. But there are easier ways to communicate that.
You can’t get much better bullying deterrent than seeing them visibly humiliated by first year girls. Add in some naked wall sticking and nobody would want to affiliate with such a degraded role. (They’ll move on to more successful dominance displays.)
You’re addressing the wrong question. We know that at least one apparent sociopath (Belka) wanted to hurt/kill Harry and Hermione before Snape’s angry intervention. So we have to ask if likely Legilimens Q. Quirrell, who interferes with Snape’s damage control in ch. 75, wants Belka or someone else to commit murder.
More broadly, we have to ask if it made sense for Harry to get help from Quirrell or to try and cheer up the unFriendly AI.
Harry made the right decision by protecting her and her friends. Given what he knows and even given human (and Hogwarts) behavior it gives the best expected outcome.
Yes, Eliezer may construct negative consequences for Harry and try to teach a Deep Lesson but I basically wouldn’t buy it[1]. You can’t get much better bullying deterrent than seeing them visibly humiliated by first year girls. Add in some naked wall sticking and nobody would want to affiliate with such a degraded role. (They’ll move on to more successful dominance displays.)
[1]ETA: Unless the Deep Lesson was one about decisions still being the correct decision at the time even if hindsight revealed an unpredictable outcome. But there are easier ways to communicate that.
You’re addressing the wrong question. We know that at least one apparent sociopath (Belka) wanted to hurt/kill Harry and Hermione before Snape’s angry intervention. So we have to ask if likely Legilimens Q. Quirrell, who interferes with Snape’s damage control in ch. 75, wants Belka or someone else to commit murder.
More broadly, we have to ask if it made sense for Harry to get help from Quirrell or to try and cheer up the unFriendly AI.