{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025738798856053385, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011439466158245948, 'mean_word_length': 5.6455696202531644, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Letters: Questioning the “Miracle”

Page (October, 1972) presents a convincing case for disputing the popular reports of the results of the Milwaukee Study. Limitations in specifying the independent variable, sampling techniques, control procedures and assessment of the main dependent variable, are close to the hearts of most researchers who deal with those problems on a daily basis. Furthermore, the obscurity of the study's hard data is clearly cause for concern. However, one aspect of Page's argument is open to a counter-interpretation. A biological frame of reference would predict the concomitant physical retardation and intellectual acceleration of the experimental group reported by Heber. Rather than infirming the effectiveness of the experimental program or casting doubt on the sampling procedures such a "contradictory" treatment effect may be a dramatic demonstration of neoteny (Dobzhansky, 1962; Lorenz, 1971) which results in the retention of fetal characteristics after birth and excessively retards postnatal physical growth.