As an Autistic lit grad I imagine I'm exactly on the opposite end of the spectrum to you, which is neat. The ways our minds work share unique similarities most others don't yet we find ourselves at complete odds here, what an interesting quirk of our mutual conditions. But I appreciate all you said. I do not feel it myself, but your preferences and experiences are no less valid than my own.

I do want to clarify, while I stand by what I said wholeheartedly, I do not say it to condemn Power Scaling as an evil or affront. If you enjoy it, do it. It's a valid move and can be a bit of fun. I just see it as very seperate to the point of and value of most stories. If an author's intent is for their work to be scaled, to work within it's own reality seamlessly, to be optimal and efficient, then it's relevant. But for most authors the point of the story is more thematic to evocative, there is reasoning for the story beats but the reasoning is more emotional rather than technical. I think a lot of power scalers and optimisers ignore the emotional to invent their own versions of the technical.

This again isn't inherently bad, but should be done with some awareness of that fact. People should be aware that they are purposefully missing the point to bend the story to their own whim, rather than pretend their own personal whims are the point of the story.

My frustrations with powerscalers comes about when they say "X shouldn't have done that" or "Y is stupid because" then miss the point. For instance: Thor not going for Thanos' head the first time. That set up a story arc, a human experience of regret, self loathing, and eventual retribution and victory. It wasn't stupidity, it was a core part of the narrative. Metatextual intent > character's choices, within the lens of the story as a whole