None of it. I was commenting on the implications of the information that the article presented. However, particularly with that line about twitter, it seems

None of it. I was commenting on the implications of the information that the article presented. However, particularly with that line about twitter, it seems to imply that modern methods of communication are more about confirmation than discussion. In particular the article's point about how much is lost in text-based communication. If I state an unpopular opinion, someone reading it might very well fill in the "blanks" with the picture and voice of a pimply 14 year old, which would allow them to more easily dismiss said opinion. I think it would be interesting to more closely examine how prevalent such projective behavior is on message boards. My personal experience has (unfortunately) been people will almost always stick to their guns online, even after their perspectives have been thoroughly and undeniably refuted, even after their own allies tell them they've lost. Best case scenario they'll lose composure completely and look like a fool rather than admit defeat. In person, however, people will often admit that an opponent may have a point and other such courtesies. While there is an argument to be made that this is all superficial courtesy, it would also stand to reason that in person an opponent has less room to rationalize, and can detect things like passion, enthusiasm, or level-headedness that are impossible to deny. These traits could lend subconscious credence to an opponent's argument. Basically I just want to take the researchers' findings on text-based communication and examine the issue in greater detail.