Someone took the article personally.
I actually somewhat carefully read the article to see if it ever suggested that fear in response to personal space violation was bad, and I don't think it did. I do think that it poorly supported its case, as a couple of other people are arguing, because just because certain activations look the same doesn't mean they are the same, but it never claimed this was a bad response.
Personally, based on how it feels from the inside, I can well believe that personal space is related to fear, and may activate some of the same circuits as fear, but that it "is" a fear is going beyond the evidence. Especially given the overloading of the word "fear". I am "afraid" of touching a hot oven, but I'm not running around in constant fear. It's a perfectly rational, controlled, situational "fear", not "a fear". Personal space violations strike me as rather more like the rational, controlled, situational case even if we are going to call that a "fear" response, which is perfectly fine scientifically, but serializes into conventional English poorly.
But sometimes the emotion is absent, see generalized anxiety disorder. I wasn't afraid, but if you observed my heart rate, breathing, blood pressure two summers ago you would've thought I was having a constant panic attack. I wasn't experiencing any fear (emotion), if anything it was confusion (I'd not experienced anxiety on that level in years so I wasn't prepared for it again).
I get that "space spaces" and "personal space" both have the word "space" in it. But if we're discussing scientific studies, it's not constructive to compare the two. Unless you have something really substantial (and accurate) that adds to the conversation, I think it's time better spent to discuss the article at hand.
I personally think it's a fascinating insight into how humans interpret physical space and the implications in social situations.
The parent gave a few arguments why he/she dislikes the article (if they are valid or not is another question), that's something you did not do.
Neither did you engage in any follow up comments to yours.
-"Wait, how exactly is [...]?" as if indignant.
- Scare quotes, as in "personal space"
-The "First, [...]. Secondly, [...]." dialectical pattern, suggesting someone feeling attacked on multiple fronts.
- "drop the pretense", suggesting said author was ostentatiously holding up a lie.
- "fear is bad, mkay", characterizing the author as a South Park hick.
- "[...] work just fine, thank you.", subtextually suggesting the person had crossed a boundary of decorum.
- "Oh, and, edit, just because", which is a common semantic pattern of emotional self-defense, e.g. "And another thing!"
- "Please, age of phrenology is over.", a red herring, attempting to undermine a theory by associating it with a formally disproved theory.
- "God. Damn. It.", resorting to frustrated cursing post-rant, suggesting the person has more feelings they'd like to elate.
Generally, when someone responds with language of that sort it suggests the idea struck a chord. My interest in the parent's comment was purely jocose.
...are you sure you're not reading way too much into it because you feel attacked? :)
Also, parent admitted as much: "histrionic", "the article violated my perceived personal belief space", "I am an angry and unpleasant person."