I'm sorry for the late response.

I asked whether you had a scientific background that would help me understand your authority to make the claims you're making. Though you didn't answer that question, it's clear to me that you don't have one. It also doesn't really seem like you read the study beyond the abstract.

> You can’t drop ten cents on a 30 minute multiple choice questionnaire, and use that as your foundation for new insights.

Why not? There is evidence that these questionnaires work. You assert repeatedly that the study "can't" do things a certain way. But how do you know that? What basis do you have, other than your own intuition, to say that something is being done right or wrong in a field about which you know nothing?

> So, first and foremost, this is a free-association study, with all the rigor of a Freudian interpretation for responses to a Rorschach test.

What expertise do you have that gives you the ability to make that claim? Why should I believe you when you say that, yet should not believe the authors, who have more experience and more qualifications than you do, and who have cited to numerous sources written by other such persons, when they say the opposite? If you'd read the paper in its entirety, you'd see that the authors cite (numerous, as is common in studies like these) sources to explain why their metrics and methods are valid. All research is built on the back of the research that comes before it.

But even assuming you read only the abstract, there are numerous, rigorous formats for these kinds of surveys which have been formulated and have been found to be valid. Here's an example of a review which covers the validity of Mechanical Turk: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756321...

I'm sure you can find surface-level issues with that review by reading its abstract, too, but the scientific process isn't about common sense or what you think is likely to be true. It's about what is found to be true after testing, which is what that review covers and is what this study did.

> Then they performed some canned statistical analysis du jour on it, so that the paper would have some catchy data visualizations, and filled for 1,000 words.

That you don't understand an analysis or don't know what it means or does doesn't mean it is "canned" or inapplicable, and doesn't mean it isn't valid for this use. What about the nature of the analysis makes it inappropriate? Once again, the authors have clearly indicated where the analysis comes from and why they did it, so, can you dig down and explain why that choice of analysis is flawed?

> They basically asked people to generate a tackling dummy data set for them by completing a survey, so that they could run a sort algorithm on it, and apply a graph to an Excel spreadsheet of answer counts. Except they did it in an academic setting, so that some how validates these results with defacto authority? Not in my world.

You don't seem to understand the scientific process, and you don't seem to have bothered to put any effort into learning about it, either. I'm not contending this study is perfect, accurate, or even totally valid. But I do contend that your critique of it is a series of hollow assertions that follow from a conclusion you reached based on a gut feeling about what is and isn't science, and that, if nothing else, is not scientific.

What you are doing to social science is the equivalent of a marketing manager declaring he knows how to do a software engineer's job better because he read the client-side code and can use a web browser and "it can't be that hard." I urge you to reconsider, and spend some time actually learning about how the scientific method is applied to social science, if only so you can better critique it.