7 ms·

Your comment could be more valuable if it included your reasoning or suggestions for improvement.

andolanra 12y ago
I have been following someone's critical chapter-by-chapter criticism of HPMOR for some time now, which might be illustrative. It is admittedly quite long: http://su3su2u1.tumblr.com/tagged/Hariezer-Yudotter/chrono http://su3su2u1.tumblr.com/tagged/Hariezer-Yudotter/chrono Among other things, I've often seen people try to sell HPMOR as, "Harry Potter fanfiction in which Harry applies the scientific method to the magical world of Harry Potter!" And that shows up a little [^1] but is by and large not the content of the work. Harry does very few experiments to verify his hypotheses and is actually a broadly incurious character. For example: Harry is nominally interested in eliminating death, but never once investigates the many magical mechanisms which seem to eliminate death, preferring to just talk about it instead. Similarly, he comes up with hypotheses as to how magic works, but never bothers to investigate them beyond speculation. Additionally, a lot of the "solutions" to problems Harry has are relatively unsatisfying: Harry often circumvents a problem by "clever" applications of the rules, but because the rules of magic as given both in Rowling and in Yudkowsky are ill-defined and even self-contradictory, this seems less clever and more like arbitrary author fiat. Harry is also given a small time machine early on in the plot, and so more often than not, the solution to his problems is, "Use the time-turner again." Finally, I personally found the writing style to be generally in need of editing—not terrible but certainly not polished—but I consider that to be a smaller problem than the above plot-related issues. EDIT: All this doesn't mean that you shouldn't like it! These are just problems that I had with the work. [^1]: The bit where Harry tries to experimentally prove that P=NP is probably my favorite part of the entire thing.
- saraid216 12y ago
  While I think the line you were fed about its premise was incorrect, I don't think you read as far as chapter 28, did you? The thing is... HPMOR isn't about the scientific method. It's about rationality. It's not a story about distilling a universal theory of magic or triumphing over death; it's a story about a kid who's had a rationalist education fumbling his way through a world that refuses to actually make sense.
  - andolanra 12y ago
    I read well through chapter 70. I did imply that scientific investigation shows up a little, after all! I agree that the line people gave me wasn't correct, but I've heard that line enough that I felt it was appropriate to dispel that particular notion. Perhaps also germane is that I am not personally a believer in Less Wrong-style rationality, and so the intellectual content of the work was not relevant to me except in the detached way that philosophical or political or religious schools can be interesting to non-adherents (which is one reason I read as much as I did.) Whether the story accomplishes its actual goal, then, is something I can't judge, but I can say that, as a non-rationalist (irrationalist?) I didn't find it to be a good or engaging story. But as I said in my previous comment, this is my own reaction, and I include it for informative reasons, not because I think others should necessarily share it!
    - mtae 12y ago
      May I ask what about "Less Wrong-style rationality" you disagree with?
      - andolanra 12y ago
        This is the kind of thing which could very easily turn into a flame war, and is much further off-topic. I'm not interested in that kind of argument right now, so all I will say in this thread is this: My personal experience with Less Wrong-style rationalism, to simplify the situation aggressively, is that it has a core of good, useful tools (Bayesian reasoning, strict positivism, utilitarianism) that I have no problem with. However, when pushed too far, those tools tend to break down—but the rationalist answer to that breakdown is all too often to embrace the model and discount the reality. This general refusal to regard their core tools with suspicion results in beliefs which are paradoxically irrational: when faced with e.g., utilitarianism condoning torture to prevent mild discomfort, the rationalist response is not, "Perhaps human experience does not map straightforwardly to integers—we should re-examine our tools," but rather, "As our mathematical tools are of course correct, we must believe in this conclusion." This belief in math-over-matter is a major part (though not the only factor) in my skepticism towards the kind of rationalism promoted by Less Wrong.
calibraxis 12y ago
I did enjoy HPMOR, but there's many reasons why people wouldn't. Take one in common with the Harry Potter franchise — consider that "J.K." Rowling's publisher asked her to hide her gender. [1] Obviously there's many absurdities in such a system. Unicorns and horcruxes are perfectly fine — but god forbid you have a lead character who's (say) a black girl. Whites and males can't be expected to empathize with her! I can enjoy a product while acutely aware of such things, since our backwards culture leaves little else to conveniently enjoy otherwise. But decided not to go to the local Wrap Party, given: the sort of people most likely to know about HPMOR, lesswrong.com posts, and what I researched of the local organizers. Better things to do with my day. [1] http://www.harrypotterspage.com/2010/10/03/transcript-of-oprah-interview-with-j-k-rowling/ http://www.harrypotterspage.com/2010/10/03/transcript-of-opr...
- judk 12y ago
  It's kind of funny, by now most literate folks must assume that an author who concels their name must be a woman.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
I thought it was joyless and leaden and sacrificed the characters on the altar of the author's own obsessions. At times I was wondering if the author had any familiarity with the material beyond a wikipedia (or tv tropes) summary.

I have been following someone's critical chapter-by-chapter criticism of HPMOR for some time now, which might be illustrative. It is admittedly quite long: http://su3su2u1.tumblr.com/tagged/Hariezer-Yudotter/chrono http://su3su2u1.tumblr.com/tagged/Hariezer-Yudotter/chrono Among other things, I've often seen people try to sell HPMOR as, "Harry Potter fanfiction in which Harry applies the scientific method to the magical world of Harry Potter!" And that shows up a little [^1] but is by and large not the content of the work. Harry does very few experiments to verify his hypotheses and is actually a broadly incurious character. For example: Harry is nominally interested in eliminating death, but never once investigates the many magical mechanisms which seem to eliminate death, preferring to just talk about it instead. Similarly, he comes up with hypotheses as to how magic works, but never bothers to investigate them beyond speculation. Additionally, a lot of the "solutions" to problems Harry has are relatively unsatisfying: Harry often circumvents a problem by "clever" applications of the rules, but because the rules of magic as given both in Rowling and in Yudkowsky are ill-defined and even self-contradictory, this seems less clever and more like arbitrary author fiat. Harry is also given a small time machine early on in the plot, and so more often than not, the solution to his problems is, "Use the time-turner again." Finally, I personally found the writing style to be generally in need of editing—not terrible but certainly not polished—but I consider that to be a smaller problem than the above plot-related issues. EDIT: All this doesn't mean that you shouldn't like it! These are just problems that I had with the work. [^1]: The bit where Harry tries to experimentally prove that P=NP is probably my favorite part of the entire thing.

saraid216 12y ago
While I think the line you were fed about its premise was incorrect, I don't think you read as far as chapter 28, did you? The thing is... HPMOR isn't about the scientific method. It's about rationality. It's not a story about distilling a universal theory of magic or triumphing over death; it's a story about a kid who's had a rationalist education fumbling his way through a world that refuses to actually make sense.
- andolanra 12y ago
  I read well through chapter 70. I did imply that scientific investigation shows up a little, after all! I agree that the line people gave me wasn't correct, but I've heard that line enough that I felt it was appropriate to dispel that particular notion. Perhaps also germane is that I am not personally a believer in Less Wrong-style rationality, and so the intellectual content of the work was not relevant to me except in the detached way that philosophical or political or religious schools can be interesting to non-adherents (which is one reason I read as much as I did.) Whether the story accomplishes its actual goal, then, is something I can't judge, but I can say that, as a non-rationalist (irrationalist?) I didn't find it to be a good or engaging story. But as I said in my previous comment, this is my own reaction, and I include it for informative reasons, not because I think others should necessarily share it!
  - mtae 12y ago
    May I ask what about "Less Wrong-style rationality" you disagree with?
    - andolanra 12y ago
      This is the kind of thing which could very easily turn into a flame war, and is much further off-topic. I'm not interested in that kind of argument right now, so all I will say in this thread is this: My personal experience with Less Wrong-style rationalism, to simplify the situation aggressively, is that it has a core of good, useful tools (Bayesian reasoning, strict positivism, utilitarianism) that I have no problem with. However, when pushed too far, those tools tend to break down—but the rationalist answer to that breakdown is all too often to embrace the model and discount the reality. This general refusal to regard their core tools with suspicion results in beliefs which are paradoxically irrational: when faced with e.g., utilitarianism condoning torture to prevent mild discomfort, the rationalist response is not, "Perhaps human experience does not map straightforwardly to integers—we should re-examine our tools," but rather, "As our mathematical tools are of course correct, we must believe in this conclusion." This belief in math-over-matter is a major part (though not the only factor) in my skepticism towards the kind of rationalism promoted by Less Wrong.

calibraxis 12y ago

I did enjoy HPMOR, but there's many reasons why people wouldn't. Take one in common with the Harry Potter franchise — consider that "J.K." Rowling's publisher asked her to hide her gender. [1] Obviously there's many absurdities in such a system. Unicorns and horcruxes are perfectly fine — but god forbid you have a lead character who's (say) a black girl. Whites and males can't be expected to empathize with her! I can enjoy a product while acutely aware of such things, since our backwards culture leaves little else to conveniently enjoy otherwise. But decided not to go to the local Wrap Party, given: the sort of people most likely to know about HPMOR, lesswrong.com posts, and what I researched of the local organizers. Better things to do with my day. [1] http://www.harrypotterspage.com/2010/10/03/transcript-of-oprah-interview-with-j-k-rowling/ http://www.harrypotterspage.com/2010/10/03/transcript-of-opr...

judk 12y ago
It's kind of funny, by now most literate folks must assume that an author who concels their name must be a woman.

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

I thought it was joyless and leaden and sacrificed the characters on the altar of the author's own obsessions. At times I was wondering if the author had any familiarity with the material beyond a wikipedia (or tv tropes) summary.