"It should be obvious that we don't have any high-level intuition on how to use computer interfaces - how could we have evolved one?"
How could we have evolved <the capability to deal with something new> is a question that applies to everything that's ever evolved since the beginning of time, so the implication must be wrong.
Every new capability is adapted from a different "purpose". That doesn't mean that any new capability is equally feasible.
It irritates me how people observe that smart people say counterintuitive things, so they gravitate towards counterintuitive things as though they were automatically smart. It's a major antipattern in thinking in general.
> How could we have evolved <the capability to deal with something new> is a question that applies to everything that's ever evolved since the beginning of time, so the implication must be wrong.
Ok, you explain me how evolution can trim our species for something that appeared less than a generation ago (and didn't kill a lot of people).
How could we have evolved <the capability to deal with something new> is a question that applies to everything that's ever evolved since the beginning of time, so the implication must be wrong.
Every new capability is adapted from a different "purpose". That doesn't mean that any new capability is equally feasible.
It irritates me how people observe that smart people say counterintuitive things, so they gravitate towards counterintuitive things as though they were automatically smart. It's a major antipattern in thinking in general.