We all know it isn't really worth bothering with these cable types, but ...
One of the bigger argumentative fallacies constituting the background of all this proverbial noise is this:
proposition A: There are no audible differences between these two cables.
proposition B: Audible differences would be detected in a blind listening test.
Simply attacking B by coming up with reasons why blind listening tests are non-conclusive/flawed/unnatural etc. does nothing to disprove A.
You have to think of it in Bayesian terms:
The evidence - that Lachlan claims audible differences between two cables - is more easily and parsimoniously explained by the hypothesis of sighted biases, consumerist expectation biases, marketing gullibility, object/gear fetishism etc. than by the hypothesis of there being audible differences between these cables that are A.) not traceable in highly resolving electrical measurements and B.) not detectable in blind tests.
All that being said, I do believe there is some truth to the idea that the frame of mind one puts oneself in while doing a blind listening comparison is not conducive to actual perceptual 'openness'. One becomes narrowly focused on minute details, specific elements of music, certain sounds that one attempts to track, store in auditive memory and then compare, thereby easily missing far grander and more obvious differences.
I'm reminded of the famous ape video experiment: Watchers are tasked with counting the number of times balls are passed among a group of players. They watch the video intensely focused on the movements of the balls, keeping track of the number of passes. Afterwards they are being questioned on what they have seen: Almost nobody had noticed the big (person in the costume of an) ape walking through the picture, waving to the camera, etc.
I have had similar things happen to me while comparing audio files. I'm not talking about bit rate or any such thing. I'm talking about different versions of the same track, some with entire musical elements missing (guitars, background drums, violins, etc.). Even though telling them apart is the most trivial thing ever, if you know what the differences are beforehand, I have often found it embarassingly difficult to detect the differences when I didnt know precisely what to listen for. I got lost in tracking minor elements while missing the 'big picture'.
So yes, I do believe the kinds of instantaneous ABX-switching blind tests are cognitively challenging and perhaps flawed.
I also believe that sighted listening comparisons are even more flawed, to the point of utter worthlessness.
The ideal test would imho be a kind of long-term blind listening test, where you live day-to-day with two pieces of gear, never knowing which is actually hooked up at any given day. That way one could break the hyper-focused and constantly self-questioning tunnel vision described above while still excluding sighted biases. Of course it is practically almost entirely unfeasible.