I'm not saying that folks were not more than willing to not only take the bait but avidly willing to fund the programs. I just have difficulty reconciling the cynical acts of Art Baker with experimentation. To me, there was no hypothesis, no control variables, no data collected and no peer review.
If there was a hypothesis, there would be something considerably more different than a mere shift in dialect. A hallmark of such would be out right weirdness, instead of just a harsher regimen.
If there were control variables, then it would not be assembled in such a makeshift manner. Mattresses in an abandoned hangar? Well, maybe. But what about the actual programme?
What was the data collected? How was the data collected? Was somebody walking around with a clipboard? Or did Art solely rely on parent-volunteers to do the data collection?
What was the peer review? Were there psychiatrists who came in and observed and gave their thumbs up? If so, how often did this happen? How did they express their thumbs up?