I've stated the common understanding. The evidence is visible in the AES, ASA, various psychology journals and texts, psychometry journals, and the like. It's all over the place.
Your claim about statistical size in cable tests begs the actual hypothesis entirely. It only takes one repeat performer to push that performer's p1 and p2 so far down as to be sure they detected something.
I haven't CLAIMED that the tests represent the entire population, and neither have many other people, so making that criticism is a waste of time.
The evidence is clear: Untrained listeners don't hear as much.
The evidence is clear: Tests that are not time-proxmiate are not as sensitive.
The evidence is clear: Multiple subjects cross-influence and add noise to the test.
Those are well-demonstrated in the literature. You must show that the test you espouse can do as well, despite the long list of demonstrations otherwise, before you have any credibility.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies