Speaking of Dunning-Kruger...here's a great example. Survey science sits at the cross-section of psychology, business, and mathematics. You can take entire courses on the science of survey design, data collection, statistical treatments of that data, and interpretation of the results. PhDs are granted to people who work exclusively in survey science because it is a bonified discipline. It exists because it DOES provide accurate and informative data WHEN done WELL.
Enter Atex7239 who has "thought about it" and from his armchair and he has had the novel idea that people who participate in surveys may not always be accurate or truthful in their answers or according to him they are likely an, "idiot with nothing better to do." The Dunning-Kruger here is his assumption that all these people who study and implement surveys never thought about participants who are inaccurate or lie or are stupid. He doesn't know enough about surveys to know that those are central topics in the field and that they have been addressed with cold hard science and mathematics. This of course doesn't stop him from declaring all survey data useless and the best part is even after reading this it will likely still never occur to him that he simply just doesn't really understand this topic and he will inevitably just double down.
I'm not making any statement about the OP survey - some surveys are good and some are bad but the suggestion that ALL survey data is useless is ridiculous.