This isn't actually canon. The first time Harry gets a hug is here:

The next time he gets a hug is:

This might be the Molly one you remember. He's embarrassed but not awkward about it. That's pretty normal - everyone is embarrassed at being mothered in public.

Harry's next hug:

First hug from peers comes with no awkwardness:

First hug from Hermione is in GoF:

So yeah, I don't think that Harry has any real hug problems.

In any case, I think it would be pretty normal to be a bit hug-awkward with respect to hugs from Hermione. Getting a hug from a girl at age 11 was a pretty big deal -- just one step below holding hands, which was a mere hop, skip and jump away from kissing.

 

None of those quotes address what I was saying.

I'm not saying that Dumbledore is an unfeeling monster or that he lacks even the smallest amount of empathy.

I'm saying that he operates more on cold logic than accommodation, most of the time. Just because a person is a T doesn't mean they are a sociopath that disregards others every chance they get.

If Dumbledore was an INFJ, he would have set monthly meetings with Harry to talk about his life.

If Dumbledore was an INFJ, he would have played a larger role in in being the family that Harry didn't have.

Yes, Dumbledore cared for Harry, but the former lacked the necessary empathy to understand exactly what Harry needed.

Your quotes only prove what I'm saying, in that Dumbledore actually states that he didn't inform Harry of the prophecy or the horcrux because he didn't want to interfere in Harry's happiness.

That right there shows Dumbledore's inability to grasp Harry's emotional state of mind. Harry was never a happy, young boy. He was a boy who had no regard for his own life.

He ran into a death trap at the age of 11 and accidentally killed someone; he fought and killed a basilisk at the age of 12 and, without any care, accepted what he thought was his death; at the age of 13, he was constantly attacked by Dementors who made him relive his parents death repeatedly; at the age of 14, he was forced into a competition that he only survived due to luck, and forced into a ritual where he was tortured and saw a fellow student killed; and the very next year, Albus avoids Harry despite the emotional trauma he went through during the 3rd task; Harry became a societal pariah in 5th year, was mildly tortured, and Dumbledore suggested a former Death Eater, someone who hated Harry, to look into his mind, and Harry saw his godfather killed, and directly after that, Albus finally decided it was the right time to tell Harry of the prophecy.

So yes, Albus had an abysmal understanding of the mental health and emotional state of mind of Harry if he actually thought the latter was happy.

 

You know, you're arguing that Dumbledore has no grasp of Harry's emotions, but all you're proving is that you have no grasp of them. Harry was frequently happy. He loved Hogwarts, he had great friends and 99% of the time he spent there he was very happy. Bad things happened, but Harry shows no signs of trauma.

 

Harry leads students into battle all the time and he a introvert.

With your logic Dumbledore is a extrovert. The way he meets Voldemort in the ministry, Fawkes and Dumbledore flight from the headmasters office are more dramatic. He even ploted his own death making him a martyr.

Voldemort is raging psychopath, devoid of normal human responses to other people's suffering.

A psychopath is self-centered. He wants to be a Immortal God and ALL is social interactions(if you can call then social interactions) is intimidation.

Voldemort doesn´t like working with his underlings,he isn´t a people´s person and he doesn´t enjoy interacting with people(if you dont count torturing was a social interaction).

Voldemort ploted is resurection for a decade and half.Dumbledore isn´t the only one enjoying ploting.

 

I don't understand this. I really don't.

I'm going to try and be simple and concise and unhyperbolic so that you can try and explain yourself in some sort of reasonably coherent manner.

What do you mean by fragility when you refer to Harry's mental well-being?

What do you mean when you say Dumbledore didn't want to interfere in Harry's happiness?

I fear what we're reading isn't what you mean, because surely you don't see Harry as some caricature, who never had a happy moment, and was permanently on the cusp of self-harm because he performed a moral (but dangerous) action once a year?

 

Harry was not happy or emotionally healthy.

Emotionally healthy people don't jump into deathly situations without a moments thought. It would be impossible for anyone to go through Harry's life without being traumatized.

Voldemort loves being surrounded by servants and loves having an audience.

This is the same villain who could've told his servant Barty to portkey Harry, at any point in time, to Riddle Manor, and enact the ritual. But instead, Voldemort waited for the most dramatic moment.

Voldemort is constantly looking for interaction with others. Unhealthy interaction, but interaction nevertehless.

He was so desperate for company, he made a snake one of his horcruxes and keeps it around him nearly all the time.

At no point in the story does Voldemort totally isolate himself. Yes, he may do some things on his own, but being an extrovert doesn't mean you're a hyper dog that needs companionship 24/7.

---------- Post automerged at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

If you can't see that Harry was on the cusp of losing his mind, then I'm not entirely sure we read the same books.

There's an obvious deterioration of his mind that begins in the first book and especially shows in the 5th book. By the 7th book, Harry is using Unforgivable Curses and literally committing suicide, despite the fact he had no reason to even believe that Snape's memories weren't falsified.

Harry did not even look for an alternative, or search for another way. He just willingly walked into his death without any care in the world.

My goodness, if you can't see how unhealthy Harry was then there is no point in talking about this, as you would obviously lack even the barest knowledge of mental instability.

 

Well shit. I need to reread too, I suppose. It's been almost 3 years.

 

I would argue with you, but instead I'm just going to say two words that make you irrefutably wrong:

Patronus Charm.

 

Yes, I feel as if this might be the case.

I feel the comment about my understanding, or lack thereof, regarding mental instability isn't really relevant.

This is a debate, right? If I don't understand the topic, don't you tell me more about the subject from your expert base and I go 'Ah, OK, I wasn't aware of that'?

As it stands, I literally (three weeks ago) just passed my final year practical examination in Mental Health, where psychiatrists deemed my level of understanding of mental illness sufficient to be a doctor.

I'm not an expert, but I feel as if I DO understand mental instability to an extent - so I'm afraid we're probably going to have to agree to disagree, as I believe my explaining more about the subject won't result in you going 'Ah, OK, I wasn't aware of that'. :facepalm

EDIT: Also, Where are your thread opening quotes on Dumbledore and Voldemort from??

 

I don't see how that disproves anything.

Bringing up a happy memory, and even having happy times does not mean an individual is an all-around happy and emotionally healthy person.

 

Voldemort is a fucking Dark Lord. He needs servants. Hitler had a lot of underlings, united Germany,he did a lot of speeches,he din´t kill or torture underlings and he got laid on top of that .
And he was a introvert.

Portkeys don´t work inside of Hogwarts.

Introverts definitely dont interact with anyone.

Having a pet snake just tell us that...Voldemort likes snakes and definitely not because of being Heir of Slytherin.

We started the books with Voldemort alone in Albania and we ended the books with Voldemort abroud looking for the Elder wand.

And you dint deny any of my points...

 

None of that matters if you can't see that a person who -- constantly jumps into their death, kills someone at the age of 11 (even if accidentally), sees multiple people murdered, has been physically and emotionally tortured, betrayed by an entire society -- is an emotionally unstable, unhappy, and unhealthy person.

---------- Post automerged at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

It's quite obvious that you don't know what an Extrovert or Introvert is.

The fact you keep bringing up a person's moral proclivities shows that.

Introverts are simply individuals who prefer to interact within their mind rather than the outside world.

And no, we started the books with Voldemort on the back of someone's head, and ended the books with him dying in front of hundreds.

 

There's nothing to disprove. You've given no canonical evidence that Harry is unhappy, you've only said that he shouldn't be happy. Well, your opinion on what Harry should be doesn't matter compared to what is, and Harry in canon is generally happy.

I really didn't want to have to point this all out to you, as it's a real waste of time as I suspect you're just a huge troll. That's why I said "Patronus Charm", because if you think about it for any period of time you'll see the implications.

Harry tries many different happy memories when using the Charm. That means he has many happy times to call upon. Further, his most reliable source of happiness for the Charm isn't any specific memory but just to think of Ron and Hermione. That is: Harry feels most happiness when thinking about his life in general. That happiness must be genuine because magic itself recognises it as sufficient to power the Patronus Charm.

Now, on top of that we have so many other things pointing towards Harry's general happiness: the way he considers Hogwarts home and is always eager to return there, his love of Quidditch, which forms a significant part of his life, and most of all his friends.

On top of that we have physical and conversational cues: Harry smiles, laughs and jokes frequently.

Oh, and if that's not enough for you, how about the time where Harry explicitly recognises himself as being happy?

 

Where did you get the opening quotes on Dumbledore and Voldemort?

Harry had a hard life, full of excitement and challenge. It was very difficult and certainly will colour his later choices and actions and life.

The things you're referencing are very indicative of risk. From your post above, there is an increased likelihood of Harry's being mentally unstable and unwell.

However, that's all there is. We see Harry, we know Harry. We see what he does with his life after, and a ton of his life before, Voldemort's defeat.

That's what's important. We're able to draw a fairly weighty amount of evidence that Harry isn't unstable. He's certainly not always rational, he's not always right, but he isn't 'unstable' - from what I'm guessing you mean by the term.

First, suicide (although often associated with mental illness) is not a mental illness. So there's that.

Secondly sacrifice is not suicide. We do not describe a soldier who holds a machine gun embankment to cover his platoon's retreat as suicidal. Suicide has a meaning, that meaning is not the acceptance that a situation will lead to your death.

 

I think we just need to agree to disagree. I'm never going to acknowledge that external ques alone denote a person's overall happiness.

The fact he constantly runs into deathly situations is proof enough for me that he is not all that happy with his lot in life.

I wrote the opening quotes, myself.

I just think we see different things. No matter what a writer tells me, I'll never be able to accept that someone in Harry's situation is not mentally unhealthy. I've seen too many people with similar lives to him and not one of them was even remotely close to being healthy.

 

Thank you, but I don't think we see different things. I think we're choosing different things.

You say no matter what a writer tells you, you'll come to your own conclusion.

In a fairy tale - like jack and the bean stalk - we can accept that the character is shallow, and suspend the natural sequelae that might arise in a person who undergoes that sort of experience because we're told they don't happen we can interpret the character to mean things based on the events of the story, we can interpret the characterisation in different ways depending on how we've read the events of the story but it does have to be based on the story.

People are taking issue with your personality types because your applying them based on your personal beliefs, not on interpretations of canon events. If you want an unstable Harry who suits x y or z, you have to write him, or place it into the gaps of canon, but it's not there as canon stands. J.K didn't write that character. He literally overcomes magical personifications of depression. That's the kind of hero J.K. was writing.

I think it's an unusual position to take because your refusing the possibility that anyone can endure shittiness like Harry and manage with it. You don't believe anybody could, hypothetically, while at the same time accepting a setting where a whole heap of more fantastical physical and emotional things occur. What do you think of Dobby, for example? Most people would see him as a heroic character and he went through a lot more shit. By the end, at the end even, he dramatically overcame it.

Ultimately, if you're not listening to what J.K's saying then you're not really talking about her Harry Potter, are you?

 

There are certain things I simply cannot accept.

Magic and dragons? Yes, those things are impersonal.

But if a writer tells a story of a man who witnesses his beloved family tortured then killed and, one month later, he has a smile plastered on his face and is singing "With a Little Help from My Friends," I'm going to come to my own conclusion on the matter. Either the man did not really love his family and is a psychopath, or he was so traumatized that his mind has yet to fully accept the situation at hand. Even if the author tells the readers that the man in discussion loved his family with all his heart and is now relatively healthy and sane, I'm not going to believe it.

 

This is an entirely fictitious scenario you just invented and nothing akin to what Harry experienced.


Consider these facts against your arguments:

Numerous people have had far more traumatic childhoods than Harry was exposed to and developed into perfectly healthy adults.

Numerous, healthy people have exposed themselves to life or death situations in an attempt to help people they don't know.


Just because you personally cannot imagine doing so, or have never personally witnessed it occurring, does not equate with the idea that these things are impossible. You are projecting. And further still, you're projecting on to a fictional character whom the author of has given clear indications in opposition of your position.

 

Harry Potter had no respite from the traumatic events, however.

And those that have grown up with worse childhoods than Harry do not overcome it immediately. It takes a few years for a person to rehabilitate themselves from traumatic experiences.

And Harry did not have years of peace and rest -- within the series -- to overcome the trauma dealt to him in life. Nay, it actually kept adding on, year after year.

 

You keep arguing based on what you feel Harry should have felt, rather than what the author, who is a far greater authority on the psyche of her character, is telling you happened.

Here are the facts: Harry had a very rough life, fraught with grief and loss and danger and violence at a lot of turns. He also had a life filled with people who loved him and cared for him and brought him joy. You're arguing that he should be emotionally and mentally unstable based on the latter, without considering the fact that as a character, one of his defining traits is his remarkable resilience. A lot of the things that would knock people down for the count he just shrugs off and comes back up swinging. Some may need years of peace and rest to overcome the trauma dealt to them in life, he's simply not one of them. Even outside the bounds of fiction, there are people who've faced a great deal of tragedy in their lives and come out quite well-adjusted.

Also even though several people have explained, you are willfully ignoring the fact that Harry is not suicidal. Nowhere in the story does he purposely seek out death because he's depressed and is looking for an escape. What he is is foolishly, wonderfully brave, reckless and loyal to a fault. He'll happily face the prospect of death if it means it'll save someone - repeatedly in canon this is the only type of situation that warrants him diving headlong into danger and putting his life at risk.

Speaking as a fellow INFJ, no, he would not have done this, and that's even without considering the reasons out of psychology. One aspect of being an INFJ is that we value independence, both in ourselves and in others. If Harry seemed to be on a downward spiral you best believe Dumbledore would be there to help pull him out, but otherwise he's content to stand back and allow Harry to grow in his own right, especially as Harry seemed to have been doing far better than he could have ever hoped. Monthly meetings are simply ludicrous, and seeing how Harry had Hermione and the entire Weasley family to call his own, I'd say he was pretty well set in that regard as well.