Yes. I think it's pretty obvious: a) it's not any kind of science in the first place b) it is in fact charity and c) it's poorly and unfairly directed charit

Yes. I think it's pretty obvious: a) it's not any kind of science in the first place b) it is in fact charity and c) it's poorly and unfairly directed charity I'm not critiquing the authors. I'm critiquing the dumb social program. The article said it was a "pilot" program and talks about unlocking their full potential. I'd certainly hope that was the point to just about any charitable program - so why pick this demographic over that one?