If we were talking about two and three year olds, that'd be different, but IIRC, these programs begin with newborns.
The problem, in my opinion, is not with introducing things the
baby didn't ask for or isn't interested in (although, as I said before, I can't see the point of doing that with an infant), but that it doesn't actually accomplish much. Yes, your child can learn all the tricks and games, but the fact is that Doman's Institute has yet to produce a single genius. Not one child can be shown, not a single example of a child who grew up and actually had this encyclopedic knowledge or the ability to do high level mathematics or anything that his programs are supposed to teach. The most comprehensive study of the programs, methods, and children at the Institute for the Advancement of Human Potential showed that kids who had been through the program were less likely to take joy in learning than other children their age by the time they were eight years old. That was the only difference between "hothoused" kids and children who were allowed to develop at their own rate. It may seem that Doman's methods are all about love of learning, but the studies don't bear that theory out.
All of the ideas about children learning more/better/faster when they are very young are just that-- ideas. They have all been proven false; neurological studies indicate that if anything some pruning of synaptic pathways must take place before a child can learn most things (including higher reasoning skills). There are indeed critical periods, but they only exsist for a very few things: primary language, gross motor skills (crawling/walking), emotional connection/attachment. There is no critical period for learning math, or science. Some studies indicate that nearly any child without a profound hearing deficit can indeed be taught perfect pitch, and they can all be taught to appreciate fine music, but that nothing can make your child a musical prodigy or prevent that from developing (aside from severe abuse).
I understand the desire to "fill their heads with something useful," and I actually make an effort to do that, but not in any formal, structured way. My kids are very bright, and I wanted to take advantage of that and help them to achieve their potential, but the fact is, I can't see any possible benefit to formally teaching my son to recognize Tesla or Bach. He's picked up a startling number of things just going about his regular life; for example, I love Vivaldi and my husband does too, so for the first 8 months of our son's life, we played some every day. We stopped for a while and started up again just recently. I put the CD on and my two year old son ran into the room, shouted "Vivaldi! It's Spring, mamma!" and started dancing. :LOL Totally unsolicited, and we didn't make any effort to teach him, but he learned it. He's learned the alphabet pretty much through osmosis, and shapes, colors, and all sorts of other things just from playing with his cousins and listening to people around him speak.
The point I'm trying to make is that you can't make your child more or less than they are (unless you're abusing them.
) If your baby is a genius, he's going to be a genius no matter what you do or don't "teach" him as an infant. If your child is going to be average, he's going to be average regardless of how much time you spent "building encyclopedic knowledge" with him as an infant. I understand wanting to encourage your child, I desperately want to encourage my own children, but they will be what they will be. It is my job to see to it that my children become the greatest people they can be, that they have the opportunity to live up to their potential; I think that we're doing that as best we can.
