>If it’s not ideology, a better explanation has not presented itself. It can’t be that he just doesn’t understand cross-sectional studies. He can’t be that naiv

>If it’s not ideology, a better explanation has not presented itself. It can’t be that he just doesn’t understand cross-sectional studies. He can’t be that naive. There were just as many cross-sectional studies that disagreed with his theory that he ignored. In looking for an explanation, he might be outside his expertise. Let's ask someone who does it well. https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/01/why_chinese_mothers_are_not_su.html https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/01/why_chinese_mothers_... >You will observe that she is writing this nonsense not in a peer reviewed journal that could take her to task, e.g. McCall's, but in the WSJ. Why would the WSJ want to support "the Chinese mother?" Because if you're reading it, it's for you. Scientists, however prominent, announcing a "groundbreaking" theory outside of the scientific press should always be considered with lots of skepticism.