While it's true that "statistical correlations do not imply that a particular group is blamed," they are nevertheless routinely used to (incorrectly) assign root causes, and from those causes to insinuate blame—or at least undermine cultural positions implicated by the statistic. That's all my example of cognitive decline was intended to suggest—e.g., people use the statistical (pseudo) "fact" that cognitive capacity declines with age as justification for continued ageism (and ageism triggers behaviours that lead to cognitive decline). In the past, retrogressive conservative perspectives have, without a doubt, used single mothers as emblems for the decline of modern society. All I'm suggesting is that single mothers, and their offspring, are almost certainly embroiled a decline of an entirely different kind and order.

I realize you're not suggesting this is biological. But you do seem to be suggesting that the "cure" is to be found in a return to some broadly conservative notion of the nuclear family. All I'm saying is that such a cure only makes sense if you assume that the decline of the family is the root cause. I don't think it is—or at least I don't think it's safe to assume that it is based on the studies you've cited. Your example of the male role model statistic is just a flip-side. As with age-based cognitive decline, you can observe the current state of a system and draw statistically valid "conclusions" which are nevertheless not causes, but rather effects. I think the cause for the horrific behaviour highlighted by the article goes (much) deeper than absent male role models. That's all I'm saying.