Philosophical consideration: maybe that bias would also incorporate some assumption of familiarity (https://xkcd.com/2501/), and a further implicit expectation that this familiarity (aka unwritten/tribal knowledge) would also implicitly contribute to the raw material necessary to rebuild from some baseline axiom.

In other words, maybe everyone says only X Y and Z from their field is necessary/the most important, not (just) because nothing else is on their radar, but because when they think of their field, simply just mentally reasoning about X, Y, or Z is all it takes to take into account all the connected associations, without the feeling this reasoning takes much mental space or effort; and maybe this is an interesting mental fallacy.

Yes well I don't think Feynman's answer is the one single thing to be passed down myself, I am talking about its generalization in a conceptual, philosophical or mathematical sense. As for if this differs from Darwinian evolution perhaps, and perhaps they will both be subsumed under a comprehensive evo-devo-eco theory which is then generalized to a discipline agnostic model. Since they are two pieces of this triad it is difficult to choose between them.

Hi I just saw that you created https://cubetrek.com/, have you tried fatmap.com? I tried to answer on your topic but it was already locked. So I thought about dropping a message here, if you want to create another thread we can also talk about maps there.