Basically, I reckon these studies aren't worth the funding or effort put into them. That's a fair whack of people who have been asked, but still not a fair proportional representation of how people behave according to their musical tastes. As GratefulFan intimates, there are folk who like a variety of music with some preferences over others. I reckon that for every single one who was asked, there will be at least one or two who are exactly like me, for example:
I love rock, like a little metal, a little classical and admittedly some cheesy pop. I absolutely despise rap but like some soul and hip-hop. I am completely indefferent when it comes to country but don't mind a little easy listening and some jazz. Folk is hit and miss but there are some Scottish tracks that simply make me proud to be Scottish. Obviously, Queen are my preference, but they are primarily rock with a mix of just about everything else. If you need any stats to go with this, I am 30, male, like going out and spending time with family and close friends, work hard and am creative in my job but lazy concerning and uninspired by other aspects of day-to-day life, i.e DIY, cooking and housework. I am avid when it comes to collecting stuff, though, and do keep things reasonably clean and tidy. My collections must either be by genre and alphabetised or, in the case of Queen, be chronological.
So where the hell would I fit in this breakdown of attributes?
Was that even part of the Prof's hypthesis?
36,000 people out of the billions and billions of folk there are in the world does not make for enough evidence to conclude that anything is closely related. And this is what the taxpayer is funding, is it?
It ain't about how hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can get hit: how much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!