Not sure what your point is... If mine wasn't clear to you, the article starts with a claim that this 'word gap' is the cause of effects observed later in life

Not sure what your point is... If mine wasn't clear to you, the article starts with a claim that this 'word gap' is the cause of effects observed later in life. It's easy to see the attraction of this, simply talk to kids more, then better adults right? This is hardly cutting edge research, this has been floating around for some time, long enough for people to do some 'interventions,' of talking to kids more and the like, what did they find? Not much difference. Back to the drawing board then right? Nope, not in social science, in social science if the results don't match our desires, we keep trying to beat the square peg into the round hole until they do! What makes this shoddy science is that they assert the 'word gap' to be the cause with no evidence of it being so, and ignore other explanations, things like perhaps there are heritable 'psychological proclivities' that lead to parents raising a child in a particular way, the child inherits some portion and arrangement of these 'psychological proclivities' from the parent, these same 'psychological proclivities' then have an effect on the things observed later in life. So if the social scientists want to do something productive instead of ignoring or bemoaning the fact that there are genuine differences among people, they could explore ways of structuring societies and institutions such that better results for people of all 'psychological proclivities' can be achieved.