Sorting Hat and Gryffindor Weasleys

[caliburncy at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 28667

Hi all, I'm back online after recovering from a partial harddrive 
crash (Grr!!!).  Apologies to anyone who was desperately hoping I 
would respond to their posts (in your dreams, Luke, in your 
dreams...) and was disappointed to discover that I seemed to be 
inexplicably absent.

In re-reading this post of mine, I realize that I am doing a lot of 
semantic nitpicking in it, which is probably not the wisest way to 
make a return.  I hope everyone (especially the posters I am 
responding to) realizes that I am being so hard-headed BECAUSE I 
thought both of these posts were excellent, and not the opposite.  
And, well, I'm just naturally hard-headed.  Sorry about that. ;-)

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., annieclaire12 at y... wrote:
[A very nice post that asks the question:]
> How much of a factor do you think family history is to the sorting 
> process?

Directly?  As in, "You don't really fit in here, but because your 
last name is _____ we'll let you in anyway"?  Hmm . . . I assume not 
much.  I'm being insanely and unnecessarily picky here, but the 
seeming statistical improbability of all the Weasley's ending up in 
Gryffindor is actually irrelevant in the most technical sense.  All 
we need is evidence that each Weasley had traits that sufficiently 
warrant their placement in Gryffindor (which I think is true, and 
could explain why I think so if anyone disagrees), and the resulting 
statistic is then just as likely to be side-effect as cause.  If 
appropriate traits in each case did not seem to provide sufficient 
explanation, *then* we would look to see if perhaps legacy was a 
factor.  (Also how they achieved these traits (nature vs. nurture) is 
similarly irrelevant.)  In other words, the fact that all the 
Weasley's ended up in Gryffindor could make highly interesting fodder 
for a discussion about how far the apple falls from the tree, but 
could not be used to draw conclusions about how the Sorting Hat makes 
its selections.

So I would say that the sorting hat very well *could* take into 
account family history, but I don't think we have any true evidence 
to suggest that it does.  At least, that's my take.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., fourfuries at a... wrote:
[About using a Kiersey Temperament grouping of the Myers-Briggs types 
as an explanation/comparison of the four Hogwarts houses]

This is such a nice and well written post that I feel like a 
serious "party pooper" (I think the last time I used that expression, 
I was five years old . . . it was probably wise to abandon it) in 
saying the following, but I must:

Although it makes for some highly interesting speculation, I think it 
is a little bit questionable to apply one personality sorter to 
another in such rigid terms.  The fact that there may be overlap does 
not mean there is complete conformity.  So, for example, the people 
JKR categorizes as Gryffindor might also have many overlapping traits 
with the traits of the Idealists category, but a firm connection 
between Gryffindor and Idealists becomes a stretch, in my opinion, 
because the *criteria for determination of type* differ.  Basically, 
all I am saying is that correlation is likely only partial and to 
some extent coincidental.  Especially since, to borrow Pippin's great 
explanation applied to canon, the Sorting Hat to some extent is a 
catastrophic means of sorting just like all the other elements of 
JKR's world and to put truly scientific constraints on it is a bit, 
umm, unscientific.

Probably you already realize this so I don't know why I'm pointing it 
out.  Like I said, I am just being a "party pooper".  Please ignore 
me if you wish.

-Luke