I wonder how you'd do if you were writing (smart) children to whom most grownup sexual issues were theoretical.

I said to Luke when I read that, "You know, Luke, it hasn't happened yet in the story, but I'd already planned out, before I read your post, that when I want to have Harry screw up a conversation with Hermione as badly as possible, I'm going to have him start talking about evolutionary psychology. You literally did that in the way I'd imagined as the worst way possible." (Though the actual chapter didn't come out quite that way when I wrote it - there isn't anything about evolutionary psychology until the very end.)

So I thought of this as a stereotypically male-stupid thing to do, and independently Luke, who happens to be male, went and did it. Can you name a woman who's done the same?

No, I am thinking that the process of making the stone may simply not work for wizards that have begun to age. - That the crafting process draws on the youth of the wizard or witch crafting the stone, - the hair of a child. And it has to be the hair of the crafter - Everyone after Flamel have substituted the hair of some random kid, which just does not work. it is a spell that can only be done at all by a child prodigy, Which explains why it has not been duplicated - Very, very few teenagers and below would try it. This would also explain why he has not mass produced it - He can not make it again.

Also, there is the point that Hermione knocking off a philosophers stone out of the blue would derail everyone's plots in the most hilarious fashion. Flamel's Stone locked away behind insane security? Too bad Dumbledore, there is a second one in a students trunk. Heck, she would probably start selling the darn things.

I removed the word "post." I thought about the altering the word 'written,' but speeches and stories are written just as much as blog posts. "This was written" seemed pretty straightforward for what it is.

The alternative would be:

"But I'm speaking now, for those who have something to protect."

Which I actually kinda like, now that I look at it. Hmm.

And it is "dumbing things down", since the not ignorant general understanding, that is of the well-educated, but not necessarily scientifically-educated, population has similar usages. Where do you think the scientific usages came from?

Children should have netbooks at age 5, and never learn cursive.

My gut reactions are actually more like (1) uneducated radical who really should be trying harder to get a job, (2) drunk, (3) well-intentioned nice guy, (4) a pretty big jerk withoneinthreeormorechanceofapoint I MEAN A JERK (I don't want to signal supporting the privileged rich, sigh).

I know I'm rather insensitive for thinking (1), but the fact that he's clearly decided to drown his problems in alcohol that bugs me. It implies to me he's the type of poor who thinks it appropriate to blow his money on alcohol, lottery tickets, and cigarettes. I have a visceral negative reaction to this variety of poor people. Yes, I'm privileged. Bite me. The beardedness and grizzliness and ripped jeans are justified by his income but to me, alcoholism is not. Explained, perhaps, justified, no.

(2) just seems to me like a part of "one of these things is not like the others". I can trace logical paths for (1), (3), and (4), respectively circumstance (I'm poor, I want money) plus logic (if this happened I would get money), learned belief (caring for the poor is good) plus logic (if this happened it would be good for the poor which would be good), and circumstance (I'm rich, being rich is good) plus learned belief (so there are good reasons why keeping my money is good) . But... where is the logical path from which (2) can be deduced?

I think the problem is that even though people in their heart of hearts know that the chance of IQ distributions being 100% equal between arbitrarily divided groups is impossibly low, we confuse the idea of accepting that with acting upon it. Distinguishing between individuals based on any arbitrary indicators is seen as discrimination. Strictly speaking, it is discrimination in the strictest sense of the word, but the word discrimination is indexed to something intrinsically wrong and immoral, in modern American English at the very least.

and you duplicate an hard disk

a hard disk.

Quite fond of these analogies, I think they'll help me in future.

Would an actual photo of Luke and Alice be better?

Now I'm imagining a picture of Luke with a redacted silhouette of a woman entitled "woman I am not attracted to any more". There are arrows pointing to various lacking physical attributes lacking from an evolutionary psychology perspective, complete with sketches of what they should look like... Perhaps with a supplemental craziness vs hotness chart or two.