I sometimes wonder if this is the result of people falling into one of two categories of how they learned to see the world, deeply or shallowly. I think of myself as looking at the world deeply. I'm often less interested in the immediate response to my action than I am as to why that was the response. I want to understand the cause of things. I've met plenty of people that don't care about this at all, they care that action X yields response Y, and (for the most part, barring specialties) go through life with that as their model of the world. Sometimes I envy these people, as their heuristic approach often yields better projections than I'm able to come up with in certain areas (such as how a person may respond to a complex situation).
Unfortunately, I think the shallow mental model has problems when presented with large systems of behavior as a whole that are foreign. Similar to the average person when dropped into a foreign culture with a different language, someone with a shallow mental model of the world may find a computer, with it's decades of layered systems and skeuomorphic metaphors, if they are even attempting that in the specific instance, may be initially too daunting to attempt on their own. At least that's my pop-psychology theory of the day.
I think there's a correlation here, but I'm not sure that someone's weltanschauung would be causative of digital literacy.
Rather, I think the divide is "I can" vs. "I can't", and the latter limited thinking leads to the sort of limited world view you describe.
It's something that fascinates me - so many lead lives that are essentially proscribed, view reality through a pre-fabricated toy lens - and when confronted with an individual that has chosen something other than default options in life react vigorously and vociferously. I see the same in computer literacy and literacy in general - the "I can't" stemming from a refusal to accept new information which may conflict with preconceived notions.
If anything, I think it's fear of thought for the potential unhappiness that knowledge brings - adding something to the picture can make the overall scene so large and intimidating that many shy away rather than attempting the daunting task of filling the gaps.
I mean, it is daunting - once one has climbed a mountain of knowledge you can see the whole, the foothills, how it joins in coherence - but at the bottom, all you can see is an almighty sheer face. I have learned to be comfortable with the knowledge that I know nothing, despite knowing far more than my fellow man. Knowledge requires humility, as you swiftly learn that you couldn't be further from the centre of the universe or less significant.
I think there's a point early in life when this bifurcation happens - perhaps it's down to whether parents attempt to answer a child's questions about the world or simply reply with "stop asking stupid questions". Perhaps it's down to egoism - you either have to be humble or unspeakably arrrogant to pursue knowledge, and the middle is intimidated.
Unfortunately, I think the shallow mental model has problems when presented with large systems of behavior as a whole that are foreign. Similar to the average person when dropped into a foreign culture with a different language, someone with a shallow mental model of the world may find a computer, with it's decades of layered systems and skeuomorphic metaphors, if they are even attempting that in the specific instance, may be initially too daunting to attempt on their own. At least that's my pop-psychology theory of the day.