Your argument all comes down to dismissing the content of the interview. Since you clearly assume the interview is worthless, you aren't even discussing this in good faith, so I'm just ignoring this post.
It didn't at all. It carefully explained why the two activities produced entirely different chemical reactions in the brain. If you're too invested in your process to even consider that a test of one thing may not translate into the performance on a totally different task then perhaps you're taking this all a bit too personally.
Your argument all comes down to dismissing the content of the interview. Since you clearly assume the interview is worthless, you aren't even discussing this in good faith, so I'm just ignoring this post.