When I first read the post, I thought you were going to say something along the lines of:

"Evolution has optimized us to strip away the irrelevant features when it comes to vision, since it's been vital for our survival. But evolution hasn't done that for things like abstract value, since there's been no selection pressure for that. It's bad that our judgments in cases like the K&T examples don't work more like vision, but that's how it goes".

Indeed, saying "let's make the problem worse" and then bringing up vision feels a bit weird. After all, vision seems like a case where our brain does things exactly right - it ignores the "framing effects" caused by changed lightning conditions and leaves invariant the things that actually matter.