In what is nearly an internet first, most of my re-responses are of the "sorry, I was actually closer to your position and mis-stated mine" variety:
> It's hard to say therefore that the two are necessarily correlated because we should see academic success tied with decreasing rates of poverty. [..but we don't]
No factual disagreement here. I think that the cases in which it does trade off are important--but not because I think we (the US, if you're a citizen) as a society should double down on education as the sole/primary solution to poverty, but simply because these dynamics are important to understand. As you imply, there are many other things also needed to address poverty as a social concern.
> Saying it's politicized would be objectively and statistically incorrect.
That's not what I meant. I didn't mean to suggest your claim was suspect because it's a politicized area, just that discussions about the implications of claims here need to be undertaken carefully given the chargedness of the subject. You are not an exemplar of that polemic.
> If you are born in poverty, the chances of you rising up the rungs are not very high.
In general, I agree.
> People escape out of poverty due to a lucky alignment of circumstances
"Lucky" does not explain the trends described in TFA. Explanation follows.
> The author directly cites a study which states that tiger parenting has the opposite result on average.
Correct. The cited study does not find a conclusive advantage in the "tiger" parenting style (and finds several potential disadvantages). However, my original claim was narrow: that this parenting style appears, given the other claims of the article to be practicable and effective in the face of extreme poverty. My question was not about the choice between "tiger" parenting and other styles in general; rather, it was
about why it (according to TFA) is (practiced|able to be practiced|effectively practiced) by people in impoverished situations that, as you say, are usually correlated with "poverty as multigenerational sentence, caveat luck".
I have no speculations on why that difference exists, though it's fascinating--and, I suspect, important to some aspects of social progress. If there is research suggesting that there is not such a correlation, I'd be interested in that as well. Let's just be clear: this is about parenting/upbringing strategies that, in contrast to the norm, counteract or appear to counteract the effects of severe socioeconomic disadvantage, not such strategies on balance in other situations.