Thanks. I was a little miffed that the article automatically assumed that, as you said "a higher number" is "at least a proxy for some type of success". It's ju

Thanks. I was a little miffed that the article automatically assumed that, as you said "a higher number" is "at least a proxy for some type of success". It's just such a terrible and short-sighted assumption to make. This will remind me to stay away from the "Scientific American" in the future.