[vanderZwan]

This very article is about how the original paper did not control enough for confounding factors:

> Watts and his colleagues were skeptical of that finding. The original results were based on studies that included fewer than 90 children—all enrolled in a preschool on Stanford’s campus. In restaging the experiment, Watts and his colleagues thus adjusted the experimental design in important ways: The researchers used a sample that was much larger—more than 900 children—and also more representative of the general population in terms of race, ethnicity, and parents’ education. The researchers also, when analyzing their test’s results, controlled for certain factors—such as the income of a child’s household—that might explain children’s ability to delay gratification and their long-term success.

[MikkoFinell]

The quote you copy-pasted from the article has nothing to do with my comment.

[vanderZwan]

You complain to GP for not considering that the people who published the original Marshmallow test paper had controlled for confounding factors. In the opening paragraph, other researchers complain about just that.

In other words: a more sensible reading of GP's comment would be as a reaction to said paragraph.

[MikkoFinell]

I asked why OP is dismissing the possibility that the authors considered the specific factors OP mentioned.

The quote you posted did not address that question. That is why it is not related to my comment, like I already said.