For Pete's sake.
I'm a clinician who works in child development pathology, which is why I commented. You have zero idea of what you are talking about. Your unprofessional hyperbole and willful misconstrual of clear statements aside.
>"have never heard or read anybody make such claims that you consider "bog standard child development science"
Reconsider your profession.
>This "down to the month" is pure non-sense for most of the milestones
"Most", you say? Which is it? Are some milestones down to the month and some not? Or are all not down to the month?
"Down to the month" is shorthand for a normative developmental window. So "down to a limited window of months, which together comprise a large percentage of the child's age in months".
Is that better meaningful communication on a public board? Some would instead say "too long and unnecessary". Avoiding such communication being a core communication skill. Or perhaps you are too, say, "bothered" to be able to allow for meaningful communication devices in public. Get a grip.
Those limited, often overlapping, windows assist in defining service eligibility. Overlapping means that differently ordered milestones are possible. Your "different times" of milestone acquisition is limited to the very limited normative windows. Per both the standardized clinical knowledge body and each individual State that adopts those standards. As an expert, you'd know that all normed measurements are subject to statistical deviations in development but sure as heck are also limited by the same. This is super basic. Also, it is generally unnecessary to explain normed scores, normed milestones, and basic statistical concepts on HN. But thanks for the variously pedantic and wrong corrections.
>Young children are better served to be guided by their own curiosity, interest and exploration drives and which parents feed with variable inputs and building upon,
"Variable inputs" is too vague as to be meaningless as an argument. "Building upon" generally refers to scaffolding, which is a single tool used in certain circumstances or when otherwise appropriate. Beyond that, who said that implied basic interaction / play techniques are excluded?
I'm speaking of total language exposure over years, from a host of sources.
"better served" is unprofessional and unclear language. If you mean to say that child curiosity and interest should replace talking and reading to them as much as possible, then you are dead wrong and should reconsider your line of work. However, the reality is that these are not mutually exclusive activities and so at the least we can conclude that your correction is unnecessary (and weird). Many if not most children crave more such interaction than they receive.
>rather than by anxious parents
Who said anything about anxiety? Speaking and reading to children is a natural activity. Some parents do it more than others. Some parents neglect it more than is healthy for a child's development. The constant being that more of it is better for development. If you are trying to argue that point, I'll move on from "find a new line of work" to "I don't believe you in your statement about your line of work".
>feeding them with whatever terabytes of exploitation-
"Terabytes of exploitation"? What? You don't work in child development research, at least not in any meaningful way.
>intended information they think is gonna "serve to maximize IQ".
Its not debatable that maximizing language input, from an early age, maximizes developmental potential. That doesn't mean, nor did I imply, that parents need to do anything but the best that they can in providing children with language stimulation. That means being at least superficially aware of and respecting the relevant developmental science, and trying to meet the best standard that they can in light of it. You seem to have an issue reading extremes into things , which in turn leads to your use of truly bizarre language.