That's been my interpretation for a while, at least with Quirrell developing Harry to be his new host - take over the body of he who saves the rest of the magical world, from you.

I think I figured out Quirrel's ultimate scheme.

Va pnaba, Ibyqrzbeg cbffrffrf Uneel, gnxvat pbageby bs uvf obql.

Va ZbE, gur ernfba Dhveeryzbeg jnagf Uneel nyvir, fgebat naq vasyhragvny vf fb ur pna znxr uvz vagb uvf arkg ubfg, guhf nyybjvat Zntvpny Oevgnva gb tebj haqre n fgebat yrnqre. Gur Qrzragngvba ng gur ortvaavat bs gur lrne jnf fb gung Uneel'f zragny qrsrafrf jbhyq or jrnxrarq sbe shgher nohfr. Dhveery'f fngvfsnpgvba ng Urezvbar'f qrngu (orsber urnevat gur hcqngrq cebcurpl) jnf va nagvpvcngvba ng shegure ihyarenovyvgl.

Well, I suppose I need to learn to improve my writing skills, then. I expressed thankfulness at the help, and weariness in the face of all the effort it will take to capitalize on it. Then again, I have always had trouble understanding sarcasm, such as why people would choose it over more direct forms.

Thank you very much, Dany, much obliged. Now I'll need to go through that huge reference pool and sort the useful from the useless... (Not sarcasm, I mean all of this in earnest).

This is unlikely; if we're going for the idea of autism being correlated with nerdiness, we must also go with the idea of autism being correlated with poor social skills, and polyamoury is a whole other kind of social network. Also, very few nerdy people I've met were autism spectrum.

That's just a hunch I've developed while looking into polyamorous people on dating sites. Older poly people seem to be more counter-culture types, but many of the younger ones were folks I would associate with the nerd/geek/autism-spectrum mind cluster.

Trying to avoid personal vices by not acting or thinking like the people who had the vices I wanted to avoid. For example, wanting to be a great scientist, and suppressing this desire without realizing that it wasn't actually possible for me to aspire for one thing, dislike m motivation for it (fame and accomplishment), and try to come up with a better one- the actions conflict with each other, yet I really did think that the only reason I wasn't pursuing that path already was due to a disruptive home life. This is probably true, but to this day I can't tell if I was flinching away from the fact, or if I was that distracted that I wasn't thinking deeply enough.

Trying to extrapolate cognitive science and theory of mind without assistance (or at least familiarizing myself with Egan's Law) by observing and altering my thought process, and subsequently having a 3-month long dissociative episode involving many suicide hotlines, a significantly lowered GPA, and a "ruined before it started" romance.

I have made several serious misjudgements that are all instances of mistaking "I find this easy" for "this is easy in some general sense". Finding something easy is indeed evidence in favour of the thesis that it's easy, but it is also evidence that you are particularly good at it. I've mistakenly ignored the latter.

I think it will be difficult to find good research about Polyamory, since only a very small percentage of people are living the poly lifestyle. In a previous comment I estimated the frequency as something like 1/3500 in the SF Bay area and likely much lower elsewhere. Here is an interesting BBC News article about a polyamorous group.

Polyamory has a long history (under various names) as a lifestyle component of certain ideologies. Polyamory and utopian socialism have often been found together, from the early Christian Adamites, to the Radical Swedenborgians, to the counterculture hippies in the 60s/70s. These groups have tended to flame out after a certain period of time. I do think that polyamory may be sustainable for a certain niche of the population that is mentally unusual in some way (probably autism-spectrum.)

That uses the word "moral", which is well known to hide many mysteries. After fissioning someone, how would you judge if your prediction was right or wrong?