Thank you. That's a good answer. And you said it so eloquently, too. ' Shoes make our feet stupid'. Haha. That's the first I've heard that. I think I've thought it before. Seems a pretty obvious conclusion if you disregard the past (50?) years of marketing.

Little history plug just for fun: (I'd love to see that exhibit.)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/running-shoes-date-back-to-the-1860s-and-other-revelations-from-the-brooklyn-museums-sneaker-show-180955967/

Yeah, I really started reading one day on this subject, and I guess, over time, I've gravitated towards more minimalist shoes. It's gotten to be all that I wear. Like when I go hiking, I've got to where I'll have on a very thin and flat rubber soled boot, or shoe, even sandal. I suppose I prefer anything that feels the closest to nothing on my feet. I've got a pair of Dr. Marten's boots I've all but worn out; the kind with the new lightweight rubber sole. It's almost a shoe-boot. The Chuck Taylor of boots. They're just heavenly to walk in. (Now my well-meaning mother, who had me shod in a rather expensive and specially fitted pair of uber-padded Brooks running shoes in my HS cross-country days, cringes every time I tell her all the miles I've trod in those shoes, but I'm totally sold on my more minimalist alternative. And, maybe worth noting, the best runner on my team did have a habit of running barefoot at practice; and I thought it was the quirkiest thing anyone could do at the time. But they also consistently won races and even took our guy's team to the state championship, which they won, twice. And now when I think back on it, they had the most fluid and graceful form of anyone, too.) So my go to hiking shoe/boot is either those or a pair of Palladiums. But now, I can even find the Palladium sole to be a bit much. Still, one thing I've noticed with this sort of shoe is that they've worn evenly, perfectly even, and they've formed into a shape that shows my feet are moving near their full range of motion. They're not stiff.

I think studies like this are what proves it:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131385

The difference in the feet of un-shod vs. shod runners is so telling.

I have a partner who's lucky enough to naturally have the un-shod type of feet. And one interesting fact is that he lived his childhood pretty free-rage and barefoot; and as an adult has walked nearly everyday, and often barefoot then as well. Now, I know, it sounds like I'm betrothed to a caveman. It's possible that I am. But, it's also possible those cavemen were onto something with that whole "no-shoe" business.

But yeah, I get your view. It's something you work up to doing. And, I think I've heard it said by few a different people now that once you've mastered proper form, it's not so much the shoe that makes the difference. It's more that you're running properly, and if you've always got a fat pad of rubber under your heel, you're never going to feel the ground enough to figure the proper mechanics of that out.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I already knew the answer. The answer seems common sense obvious. But I was curious of your opinion. And I do appreciate you telling me. I think this is becoming more mainstream knowledge nowadays, thankfully. Good marketing sure is a hell of a beast to contend with, though. I mean would you have believed twenty years ago they'd have us buying bottled water someday? It's madness, I say. Madness. :P