Working at the scale of product design and user experience, it is easy to see what a user is doing as against their own personal interest. What I've found is th

Working at the scale of product design and user experience, it is easy to see what a user is doing as against their own personal interest. What I've found is that there is usually some kind of motivation for some things to be done. It might not be strictly rational, but more often than not, there is some kind of narrative or view from which that particular action, belief, or rational makes sense. They are often unexamined. So I probably shouldn't have said "aligned to human interest", because the scope of that interest is different among individuals (for different aspect of their life). That scope is dynamic. It could be self-interested, or interest of the immediate family or community they belong to. Thank you for bringing that up. As far as the rigidity -- I appreciate your view and comment on this. I admit too. It may be obvious to you that the post-conquest syncretic culture is different, but it was a blind spot for me. I didn't even think about that. I say all of this to say that the lens (view) in which we see all of this isn't itself always seen by the person looking through it. In my case, I know about the idea and I can still miss it. However, I have learned tbat many arguments that talk past each other happen because the view from which people argue from are not always called out or clearly defined. There are things that can be dismissed simply because it doesn't fit the view. Re-reading your original comment -- perhaps it's better stated that, while you don't have to couple the original culture and technology, for something to be practiced now, those technologies need to be coupled with the current-day culture.