I also tend to find I underestimate distances in grid systems. I think it’s because in European cities I estimate distance by the number of distinct shapes I can remember on the way there. In a grid, I think my brain smushes all those identical block shapes into one. In a similar way to how time flies when doing a repetitive task.
In a similar vein, I find the Las Vegas Strip is incredibly disorienting with respect to distance. You're used to buildings being of size approximately X and in Vegas the casinos are 10X. So you think--oh, that's just a couple of buildings away. 30 minutes later you're still walking (in the sweltering heat).
And I, by no means mind walking, though there was the time I went to Vegas on a business trip and was on crutches with no weight on foot allowed. Though the high point was that a porter showed me how to use the crutches more effectively; he was an (aspiring?) ballet dancer who had apparently spent more than his share of time on crutches :-)
The first time I went to Europe, I got quite lost in the city (Madrid). The second time was in Paris. I got some free time. So I walked around aimlessly in some neighborhoods, away from the popular tourist sites, appreciating the beauty, the history and the local people I ran across. It brought back the feeling I walked around the Hutongs in Beijing, which I enjoyed so much. Since then, I have been feeling very comfortable in navigating European cities with organic layout. In my case, it does seems there are two navigation systems, and I make subconscious switches based on the layouts.
Does not have to be true and often is not true. Some places alternate alley (single lane, one way) with neighborhood (one lane each direction) and every ~4 neighborhood streets, have a larger street, either with wider lanes or more lanes.
Grid does not have to mean all streets look the same or be of equal weight.
That doesn't sound organic, it sounds like basic transportation planning and street hierarchy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy. Smaller roads flow into bigger roads which flow into main roads which flow into highways.
"By contrast, in many regular, traditional grid plans, as laid out, higher order roads (e.g. arterials) are connected by through streets of both lower order levels (e.g. local and collector.) An ordering of roads and their classification can include several levels and finer distinctions as, for example, major and minor arterials or collectors."
Given an address, like 4012 N Pulaski, I immediately know how far it is from me in the North/South direction and also in which direction on that axis. I also know it's on the West side of the street. The only other important bit not included is how far in the East/West direction. So it's not perfect, but once you know which way, East or West, you're on your way.
Chicago grid
https://www.domu.com/blog/decoding-the-chicago-street-grid-s...
They always mess my wife up when she's driving as well (think easy right vs. hard right when approaching a three way intersection). What gets me is when driving on a diagonal and the intersecting streets bend right at the intersection so that they meet the diagonal at a 90 degree angle. That messes with my head because it feels like you're driving on one of the normal grid streets.
I also find grids less satisfying to walk. I feel they favour cars over pedestrians. I'm always stopping for traffic lights in New York while I feel I can walk mostly without interruption in London. London roads are also more interesting because you don't know what's around the corner.
Conclusion: these are pretty graphs but I think the claims in the first post are overstated. Experiments are required.