I believe this discussion is a part of a wider cultural gap and differences in understanding. I have been researching these differences for a decade or two now,

I believe this discussion is a part of a wider cultural gap and differences in understanding. I have been researching these differences for a decade or two now, and would like to understand them better. That's why I would like to understand where you're coming from. First, I'd like to verify: Do you think motivation isn't a human cognition problem? Second, it appears to me you are making a wide array of assumptions about my preferences and my goals, as well as about what I find difficult or easy. For example, you appear to assume that were I to choose rationality (?, i.e. not carrying "negative bias/emotion") I should value speed over of a host of other qualities of interaction design. You seem to imply that committing to a specific kind of interesting, but very quaint visual/interaction style, i.e. the interaction constraints of a terminal UI, are a price worth paying for the speed of operation gained. Am I correct that you are implying this? Keyboard shortcuts are not an exclusive feature of terminal UIs. I have a strong preference for UIs that comply with, for instance, the well-researched heuristics from the field of human-computer interaction. Terminal UIs are generally a lot more challenging to design to comply with them (for general audiences). Also visual hierarchy and a host of other beneficial properties are harder to achieve. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/ Yet, certain types of expert users tend to prefer - in my point of view - extremely arcane UIs, as they fit those users' style of operation. They do not seem to fit mine. I want to emphasize that these are my current preferences, and you may well be right that I would enjoy the speed of emacs/vim usage. So far though, no one has bothered to sell them to me in a way that I personally would find convincing.