No, I agree, which is why I said I was being hyperbolic, pedantic and overwrought. I think my tl;dr sums it up. The article wasn't particularly bad, and it wa

No, I agree, which is why I said I was being hyperbolic, pedantic and overwrought. I think my tl;dr sums it up. The article wasn't particularly bad, and it was an opinion piece, but the linked research was more interesting, yet didn't support the claims at all, so why even link to it? I didn't mean to imply that you have to answer all of those questions in a piece of research, but that trying to answer any one of those pieces would be more useful and interesting than the speculation. Even absent rigorous research, when I have a conversation about this kind of thing with friends, we pretty quickly try to hone in on some reasonably precise definitions of what we're talking about. Defining the question is half the fun of the discourse for me a lot of the time. edit: and besides.. listing all those criteria made me look super smart ;)