Asymmetric

• Asymmetric 25 Sep 2011 17:36 UTC

  11 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  I was just wondering: does anyone else hope Eliezer fleshes out Magical History? I find it a pity that we don’t get to see how Magical Britain became what it is now. I mean, so far he’s reflected (very broadly) on the current political situation through Draco, but he’s continued to keep us in the dark about Voldemort’s rise to power, the situation that led to that, the circumstances surrounding the beginning of magic (as a technology, since Harry has confirmed that the rules for spells aren’t natural laws), the founding of Hogwarts …

  So, which do you all think are most important for Eliezer to touch upon? Can you think of any others you want to see?

  Also: I know that wizards generally ignore muggles, but they are another entire civilization, with documentation of their history, living in secret right next to the Muggle society. Wizarding history could provide a lot of insight into Muggle history because of how the two are so closely related.

• Asymmetric 25 Sep 2011 18:35 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: Oscar_Cunningham’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  That brings up another point. In the Philosopher’s Stone, Dumbledore enchants Erised so that only those who want to find the stone, but not use it, would be able to have it. If Dumbledore did in fact hide the stone in Hogwarts, I can’t see either Harry or Quirrell not wanting to use the stone.

  Is it even possible for Dumbledore to hide anything in such a way that Harry can get at it, but Quirrell cannot? Harry’s major ideal difference—his war against death—isn’t even understood by Dumbledore. Not to mention that such a hiding place would have been constructed before Dumbledore even met Harry.

• Asymmetric 25 Sep 2011 18:37 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  How would successfully transfiguring nanotech be bad, exactly?

• Asymmetric 25 Sep 2011 19:31 UTC

  7 points

  in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  Eliezer has already mentioned things like Atlantis. History would probably play a role in finding out how magic works in general. Harry, from a political perspective, would do well to learn how the situation arose, and it may be an opportunity for Eliezer to set up an Aesop.

  And it wouldn’t necessarily change history. The muggle world as it is in canon is very similar to how it is in the real world, down to things like Playstations, yet Rowling invents a wizarding history that manages to not change much. All of the science Eliezer has mentioned is historically accurate to the year. It’s not a stretch to say that the only part about HPMOR that is an alternate universe from canon is wizarding history, because even the existence of a wizarding world in canon didn’t manage to change much.

  Of course, this would be impossible to discuss in-universe without many-worlds magic. Harry can’t find out why the existence of a wizarding world has not changed history if, from his perspective, there was no other “reality” for him to compare it to that he can actually draw evidence from.

  However, wizards having their own history means they have their own documentation of that history. This means there are far more primary sources that may have been magically preserved, and muggles could, in the future, use these to learn more about their own history. They might even be able to settle historical debates that have gone on for decades, like what the actual pathogen that devastated Europe during the Black Plague was (since there is significant controversy over whether it was in fact the bubonic plague). Not to mention the existence of things like Pensieves. Magical historians are comparatively spoiled rotten when it comes to primary sources of historical events.

  So the implications would be that, instead of changing muggle history, muggles would be more knowledgeable about what actually happened.

• Asymmetric 25 Sep 2011 19:52 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: Oscar_Cunningham’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  His testimony and memories would still be considered primary sources by historians. I don’t think there is such a thing as a zeroth source. And every source has its limitations—frankly, a shelf full of memories all relating to a specific event (which, canon, is possible) would be better than the memories of only one person, depending upon the subject in question.

  But still. The things that man must have seen …

• Asymmetric 25 Sep 2011 20:05 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Oscar_Cunningham’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  Sure, but how would he know to do so? Harry didn’t know about that rule in canon. He wouldn’t have the impulse to not use the stone on himself unless he knew that wanting to do so would prevent him from getting it.

Ap­ply­ing Bayesian Anal­y­sis to His­tory (post idea)

• Asymmetric 8 Oct 2011 20:08 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: lessdazed’s comment on: Ap­ply­ing Bayesian Anal­y­sis to His­tory (post idea)

  Thanks for the correction—fixed.

• Asymmetric 30 Oct 2011 18:41 UTC

  4 points

  on: Christmas

  This whole idea is actually a major source of conflict in my family. I consider myself an atheist, but I enjoy Christmas and see it as an excuse to get together with my family, exchange gifts, listen to the music, eat food, light a fire in the fireplace, and just generally experience quality time with my few blood relations. I’m actually quite attached to the holiday. It has been the source of many fond memories.
  However, my parents aren’t letting me participate this year, because of my beliefs. They think Christmas is about Jesus and by celebrating I’ll be cheapening the holiday for them. They don’t understand why, if I’m an atheist, I should even want to celebrate Christmas, and that I’m not being consistent with what I think. Therefore, I won’t be able to give or receive presents, go to church or do Christmas related things with them. I personally agree with Alicorn’s and taw’s comments: I see no reason to feel hostile towards the holiday. Does anyone have any advice for what I should do?

• Asymmetric 10 Nov 2011 17:40 UTC

  5 points

  on: 2011 Less Wrong Cen­sus /​ Survey

  For those of us still in high school, should we put “general” or the major we expect to take in college?

• Asymmetric 13 Nov 2011 21:27 UTC

  2 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  Harry has said that Hermione is his moral center. Is she? Should she be?

  I have mixed feelings. She’s hardly a paragon, and if she’s going to continue to develop into her own character instead of a satellite of Harry, Eliezer’s going to outline her faults in more detail. We’ve seen this with Harry. Every time he undergoes a trial, readers learn more and more how fallible he is, and why.

  Thoughts?

• Asymmetric 13 Nov 2011 21:30 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 9

  Until he finds a person who he would describe as good but had legitimate reasons to torture someone? The situation would be contrived, but it’s still possible.

• Asymmetric 13 Nov 2011 23:26 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: MixedNuts’s comment on: Draw­ing Less Wrong: An Introduction

  Sometimes it’s just the techniques. My drawing of faces became significantly better once I read a “how to draw” book that told me that the eyes are in the middle of the head (many beginner artists draw them towards the top). Likewise, knowledge of basic anatomy is helpful in drawing figures.

  That said, I’m very interested in this series. Good luck!

• Asymmetric 29 Nov 2011 1:56 UTC

  1 point

  on: The Apol­o­gist and the Revolutionary

  Oliver Sacks wrote a book called “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat”, which is all about right-brained anosognosia. It was first published in 1970, so it may be outdated, but it is relevant.

• Asymmetric 31 Jan 2012 4:45 UTC

  2 points

  on: In­tel­lec­tual Hip­sters and Meta-Contrarianism

  This is exactly how history is studied.

  Historiography is how historical opinions have changed over time. It first begins with the Orthodox viewpoint, which is the first, generally accepted viewpoint of the events that arises. It is generally very biased because it comes about directly after the event has occurred, when feelings still run strong.

  This Orthodox viewpoint is contrasted by several Revisionist viewpoints, which tend to make wildly different conclusions based upon new evidence in order to sell books (historical scandals are quite good for that). Sometimes a Revisionist viewpoint can become the new Orthodoxy if it has become entrenched in the public consciousness long enough.

  Then there’s Post-Revisionism, which, after the rancor has died down, aims to dispassionately weigh the evidence brought to the table by both the Revisionist viewpoints and the Orthodoxy (different Post-Revisionist conclusions arise from differing opinions on how reliable certain pieces of evidence are). While the Orthodoxy and especially the Revisionists tend to make strong statements about the controversy, Post-Revisionists rarely make statements that concede nothing to other viewpoints, and thus their arguments are “weaker”, though Post-Revisionist opinions are seen generally as the least biased of the three.

  The problem with the Post-Revisionist viewpoints is that, even though they don’t arise from emotional attachment (or rejection of the same), they tend to have access to less evidence in total—I mean, just look at all those Egyptologists. Or, really, anyone who wants to know about an ancient civilization.

• Asymmetric 18 Mar 2012 4:18 UTC

  −1 points

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

  I would put Lucius up there as a suspect or accomplice: he loves his son, and was noticeably offended when he saw Hermione beat him in magic. Purebloods also have a history of thinking of muggleborns as not-people (see Harry and Draco talking about Luna on the train), so he wouldn’t have any moral compunctions getting in the way of hurting Hermione. He was also at the school at the time, so he has almost as much opportunity as the rest of them.

  And wouldn’t that just be a perfect rationality lesson? Eliezer can talk about how Lucius is blinded by perceived threats to his beliefs, thereby putting his son and an innocent girl in danger.

  Of course, I really hope that it’s Quirrel instead, if only because it would be impossible to convict Lucius.

• Asymmetric 18 Mar 2012 22:18 UTC

  4 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  This thought just occurred to me: would Harry think to check the phoenix’s price chamber for a picture of Narcissa Malfoy? If it is not there, how strong is it as evidence against Dumbledore immolating her?

• Asymmetric 23 Mar 2012 2:52 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: 75th’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  I was under the impression that we can actually influence the events of the story based upon how good our ideas are. If I may ask, Eliezer, are we trying to pick your brain for a True ending (something you have written already that we’re trying to guess) or are we coming up with a Good one?

• Asymmetric 23 Mar 2012 2:57 UTC

  0 points

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

  That means losing Dumbledore as an ally, and convincing the entire world that he really has gone Dark. He might even lose Hermione. Would that really be worth it?

• Asymmetric 23 Mar 2012 4:06 UTC

  2 points

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

  And yet, he did an entire arc about the role of a hero and supporting characters. I don’t think we can be sure that his decisions won’t be influenced by story concerns.