He "directly contradicted" an article full of references to actual research, with a single personal anecdote.

I'm not even sure it proves what he thinks it proves. Is he inherently smarter than the rest of his family? Or just more motivated? Or more interested in technology? Is success in computer programming direct proof that someone is very smart? I think a lot of programmers take that as received wisdom, but again I'm not so sure.

Anyway, if a child is one of the rare born geniuses, talking to them a lot will not harm them, and it might feed their latent abilities. If a child is genetically normal, talking will help them too. There is no practical reason to object to this article.

I think we need to ignore titles.

HN doesn't allow changes to the title. People writing articles will chose a click-baity title.

All titles suck.

I think it qualifies if that's all you talk about. Correct the title, then move on to things that are actually interesting.

The purpose of an article's title is ONLY to get a reader to start reading the article. Journalism 101.