I think that is a far assessment, and I agree.
What bugs me about what this guy did was he skewed the data to justify his preconceived thoughts about peoples prejudices. It seems to me he had a mind set that people judge, or even worse discriminate based on preconceived mind sets. Then he set up a lie and went about proving it by playing off peoples naivete, trust, and unwillingness to be confrontational.
On the other hand, it does help to confirm something I have always suspected. That is, if an outgoing person comes in, spills their guts to a photographer, and communicates it well; it is going to be easy for the photog to develop a shoot in his head and the client will probably get good results and feel it represents him well. However, if a introvert/humble person comes in and has a hard time communicating or (more importantly) selling themselves, then that person may not end up with a good representation of them-self if the photographer was not able to get them to open up. And once again, the humble person gets the shaft. However, this is where a photographer needs to be a really good people person to effortlessly draw information out of people and assess what is important and what is not. The technical side of photography can be taught for the most part, but to be really good at portraiture it would seem to me that you also need to be a really good people person and great communicator in order to be consistently good across many different personalities. Probably the same for most good leaders.
Sorry... way off topic. The rant lives on.