Well, the article said look how influential peers are. But whether peers are influential is controlled by the parents. Some parenting techniques allow peer influence, and others simply don't. When they say peers are influential, they mean peers are influential in the context of certain common parenting techniques, but not others. Which kind of defeats their claim that parenting doesn't matter so much.

Certain types of (non-violent) parenting suppress the influence of peers completely, but no types of (non-violent) peers could suppress the influence of that sort of parenting at all.

"Certain types of (non-violent) parenting suppress the influence of peers completely, but no types of (non-violent) peers could suppress the influence of that sort of parenting at all."

Wow, I guess she must have completely missed the studies showing this. From the article:

"Despite the reduction in physical punishment, today’s adults are no less aggressive than their grandparents were. Despite the increase in praise and physical affection, they are not happier or more self-confident or in better mental health. It’s an interesting way to test a theory of child development: persuade millions of parents to rear their children in accordance with the theory, and then sit back and watch the results come in. Well, the results are in and they don’t support the theory!"

It's not a matter of studies, it's a matter of parents having full control over who young children meet or do not meet, whether the children leave the house or not, etc

I get the feeling we must have not read the same article as the one I read was all about what the studies show (or rather don't in this case).

My point is not about studies. Maybe you haven't read my comments closely. Which part of this do you disagree with:

There exists at least one parenting technique which completely negates the influence of peers, namely not letting the kid out of the house.