The Dunning-Krueger effect doesn't mean that you should think all propositions you aren't expert in are false. It means you should reduce credence in them. There's no law of mathematics which implies that after you reduce credence in them, your credence in them will be so low that it counts as "not believing in it confidently".
Churches could ask you for your Facebook passwords now, and they don't. So could employers, and while this has been an occasional problem, most of them still don't. This theory seems to imply that they would.
Also Hades in DC comics.
What is a stereotypical male action hero?
Tough. Stiff upper lip. Never cries, never loses his cool, never loses his temper. Never has mental illness, never suffers mental trauma. Handles everything. Knows how to do everything. Never gets in over his head. Never relies on others for help.
The answer to this problem is that few action heroes have all of these traits, but a fair number of them have most of those traits. When people think of an average action hero, the fact that each individual hero lacks a small portion of the traits is going to get averaged out, so the "average" hero has all the traits even though each particular hero only has most.
As for the Death example,
I’m sure there are occasional negative portrayals ... but those seldom qualify as “characters.”
basically defines away the counterexamples. People saying that death is normally portrayed as cruel and evil probably are thinking of those examples, even if they don't count as "characters". Furthermore, excluding examples that aren't "characters" inherently stacks the deck towards happy Deaths because making Death have feelings is characterization, so the same example wouldn't count if Death is evil but would count if Death is affable.
If you can’t answer foundational questions, you literally don’t know what “it” is, so how are you going to make “it” work?
Because your "foundational questions" are not the type of questions that describe what it is. They are the type of questions whose answers depend on whether we can make it work. The answers to your questions would be something like:
Why haven’t we noticed that we’ve been trying to achieve fairness and prosperity on the basis of such a perverse principle?
Because if other principles don't work, picking the one that does work, even if it has problems, isn't perverse.
How could we be so naive as to think that we can make anything work until we figure out what went wrong with our thinking?
Because if getting rid of property doesn't work, this question is based on a false premise--there isn't actually anything wrong with our thinking.
What repulses us from the idea of a society founded on the principle of provide-first?
People are repulsed by running society based on something that doesn't work.
If you can’t even get people to think about an idea rationally, openly, and honestly, how the heck are they ever going to experiment with it properly to gain an intelligent basis for answering the “make it work” question?
If it doesn't work, this question is based on a false premise, because if it doesn't work, they have in fact answered the question intelligently.
Your upshot was that I wasn’t very nice to ownership because I said negative things about it that, according to you, don’t apply. That’s so vague it’s worthless.
No it isn't, I gave a specific example.
There are far more important and foundational questions to deal with first:
Those "foundational questions", however, depend on whether we can make it work. You can't just ignore that there's no way to make it work and yet ask questions that depend on it!
For instance, if it's impossible to make it work, then the answer to "What repulses us from the idea of a society founded on the principle of provide-first? " is "because we are repulsed from ideas that don't work".
You gave an invitation to discuss it, and then got upset when I accepted the invitation and started to discuss it.
"Discuss" doesn't mean "praise".
Responded as I did? Questioned its implications, you mean? That's to be expected when you put out ideas.
Someone who takes a very long time to get answers may be more likely to completely forget the information in the future, may be less able to use the information in real world situations, etc. even though he eventually managed to write the answer on the test. Someone who takes a long time to write the answer down because he has a disability may not have these problems.
So while we don't care about speed by itself, we care about problems that are correlated with speed, and they may be less so for the disabled.