Where you say "learn to see the simplicity and things become clear" I believe that is too general. A lot of times that will be the case but sometimes it doesn't hold up.
Take an actual example such as my debate with TAJ and S of T. One sees a complex system of parts dovetailing and working together as is seen in nature. The simplicity seems to be to recognize that the system has a design and if something appears to be designed then the simplicity suggests that their is a designer.
If that concept is rejected, then the simplicity suggests that the system occurred because of random interactions. Mathematically, there is a possibility that this is the case, though it's probability is extremely small, it is finite.
If random chance is rejected, the option is to proceed to the next step which you state above; The tendency thus becomes looking for complex explanations rather than simply abstracting out the simplicities. Often imaginary data is assumed or supplied to "explain" that for which the underlying simplicity has been overlooked.
I believe that TAJ and S of T are engaging in this activity. You agree with them and call me ignorant but all I am doing is following your recommendation of trying to abstract out the simpicities.
I'm just stating an opinion and may well be wrong but my question to you is, why would a person doing what you yourself suggest is a correct approach to analyzing a complex problem be called ignorant.?