oh it sure does, but the how of it is weird to explain...

of course it does that. it's a cultural artifact which reflects the process it developed out of. that is the general way a brain works. as we search for things, our instinctive subconsciously-directed actions to find our comfort zone and stick to it. the problem they're describing with google is analogous to trying to tell someone a difficult truth. they prefer to first bend toward their comforting delusions, and it takes an amazing subtlety (or a conscientious argument) to influence a stupid person to hear all the right ideas in the right order so that they can personally infer a painful truth. the self-humiliating recognition of ignorance doesn't sit well with anyone's feelings. avoiding that end-result (which is pretty much last on the "want" list) is what drives people to define their relationship to the world. it's very gratifying to feel supported in a safe little bubble where you don't even have to pay attention to anything but your self-satisfaction. challenging your own preference for ego-boosting activities is what keeps people dumb already. how popular would google be if its algorithm responded to people trending to reinforcing disprovable belief by producing results filled with obvious, painful truth which contradicts the way people want to believe? goog's all like: i see you like religion still, let's sow some seeds of doubt in your search results mwah ha haha

well, being a math prodigy is fine and all that. just, the thing is that it means he probably spends a lot of time with mathematicians. and if he's working on a refinement of special relativity, i hope for his sake that he doesn't get mired in the same thought processes which turned the field of physics into an quagmire forty years ago. yes, it's necessary to understand where we are to see where we're going, but frankly if you listen to a modern physicist, they are so utterly lost in the minutiae of particle decays that they're missing the right-in-their-face boots-on-the-ground reality. the last few decades of research have brought us practically nothing except the word "string". and even then it is inconsistently applied, poorly conceived of, and utterly obtuse to a layperson anyhow. sure kid, it's neat that someone proved the photon can be particle or wave purely on circumstance. but if you start obsessing over trying to make a followup experiment to prove some minor particle effect, you will end up just as gobsmacked by the new reality as the rest of the physics faculty.

Yes the fact that human sexuality involves human emotion and intimacy is worth bringing up. But i think you are being a little bit hopeful there. I don't think the average Joe Bloggs is going to sit and explain those parts terribly well even if they already are trying to explain the facts of life. If a child is already being socialized by parents who are warm and understanding, they're probably also learning most of the fundamental skills to achieve satisfying emotional intimacy with a future love anyhow. If they aren't, because the family home is maybe awkward or slightly dysfunctional, then sure it would be great if they had it pointed out to them by someone, but i'm pretty sure they would have to either learn how to do so by themselves, through personal growth, or perhaps be a bit of social failure. A big part of why young kids get something from porn is just to see the technical aspects, what goes where, what moves does one use, how can a woman have sex with a donkey? What you're suggesting, Tom, is a much more elementary set of social skills, which hopefully they've already picked up on before they're even actively interested in porn.

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: "Way to go, sport!" (you started a new game!)