Isn't [the difficulty of judging questions] the same with answers? I don't see why it wouldn't be.

If you come up with a good (or even convincing) answer, you've already front-loaded a lot of the analysis that people need to verify it. All you need to do is write it down -- which is enough work that a lot of people don't, but less than doing the analysis in the first place.

Isn't [familiarity discounting for questions] the same with answers? I don't see why it wouldn't be.

It helps, but not as much. Patching holes takes more original thought than finding them.

This only makes sense if people are rational agents.

It makes sense if people respond to karma incentives. If they don't, there's no point in trying to change karma allocation norms. The magnitude of the incentive does change depending on how people view the pursuits involved, but the direction doesn't.

Given that you've already conceded that we irrationally undervalue good questions and questioners...

I didn't say this.