Those weren't journal articles. The one you read and keep linking is mass market news feed sensationalism. And the poor writing is highlighted in , among other places, your confusion - you posted from it a quote of the scientist Wolfers as if it supported your claims. I blame the journalist - it was easy to mistake the meaning of that quote, from the article. And you never checked it with anything Wolfers wrote otherwise. Or you were deliberately misrepresenting Wolfers's views with a quote out of context. Two possibilities. Choose.