If you believe otherwise, you are tragically misinformed and miseducated.
Using "me" in subject context is, besides being wrong, a social low-class marker. It does not come naturally to English speakers; it only ever occurs through exposure to the misuse.
I'm a bit skeptical of this overall, but it's obviously complicated to get data that filter out the effects of sociolectal solidarity. (Can you get people to speak "naturally" but without priming them to speak or to avoid speaking in a particular register or sociolect!?)
which can become conventionalized and eventually part of native speakers' intuitions even though they can be contrary to a more logically consistent or simpler understanding of agreement.
> Using "me" in subject context is, besides being wrong, a social low-class marker. It does not come naturally to English speakers
This is not even a theoretical possibility. There are no low-class markers that don't come naturally, because no one is going to make an effort to present themselves as low-class.
It takes obvious effort to overcome received habits from one's local idiolect, as for example underclass people did in England, last century, deliberately adopting an (imperfectly reproduced version of) the overclass rhotic affectation in an attempt at economic advancement.
You are getting really disingenuous, now. Who are you performing for?
If you believe otherwise, you are tragically misinformed and miseducated.
Using "me" in subject context is, besides being wrong, a social low-class marker. It does not come naturally to English speakers; it only ever occurs through exposure to the misuse.