Software developers who are taught imperative programming are used to translating their high-level, human thoughts into imperative instructions telling the computer exactly what to do to make the answer they want.

With functional programming, one is able to translate thoughts more directly. Non-programmers actually have an easier time with functional concepts like mapping than for loops, non-local mutation, etc.

At any rate, imperative languages have a legacy of frankly buggy, shitty software. As programs get larger and more concurrent, this problem is getting much, much worse. That's why functional(ish) libraries like Redux are so popular. They can help tame this complexity.

Imperative programming absolutely has its place in certain situations like systems or numerical programming, but it is a poor tool for most things people program. Rust, I think, is imperative programming done right. While it's a bit confusing with all the pointer types, it has the tools needed to safely mutate, etc.

Speak for yourself. I find declarative programming to be far more intuitive, as it lets me think about how I should go from the data I have to the data I want. Thinking about programs in terms of the steps they're taking to do something generally bogs people down with irrelevant implementation details.

I solve problems without thinking imperatively all the time -.- it isn't inherent

That is not what the research shows. Quite the contrary