Asymmetry between complexity of principle and power. Ie., we are easily persuaded that something very complex will be very powerful (eg., a smart phone) -- but

Asymmetry between complexity of principle and power. Ie., we are easily persuaded that something very complex will be very powerful (eg., a smart phone) -- but we intuitively regard something simple (eg., a hammer) as under-powered. Hard to say how well this actually holds, but I'd guess in both cases we arent really enumerating use-cases in our head, we're just using explanatory complexity as a guide to practical power. This is probably more extreme in cases where people have a specific notion of complexity in mind, eg., in academic environments where "tool A" is as simple as "tool B" if they use the same theoretical basis. ie., Tool C is worthwhile if it includes a more complex theory, as therefore it is more powerful.