How about you let Lumifer speak for Lumifer's rejection, rather than tilting at straw windmills?

I think it's valuable for discussion to make clear statements. That allows other people to either agree with them or reject them. Both of those moves the discussion forward. Being to wage to be wrong is bad.

There's nothing straw about the analysis of how most people who are not aware who Simon Anhold happens to be will pattern match the argument. Simon Anhold makes his case based on non-trival empiric research that Lumifer very likely is unaware. If he would be aware of the research I don't think he would have voted down the post and called it bullshit. I even believe that's a charitible intepretation of Lumifer's writing.