My reasoning is based on two things: Firstly, objects have identity and this is a superfluous notion for most cases. Functions just "do things" to their inputs and return the result. Secondly, OOP is fundamentally predicated on the notion of mutation[0], but I think that is totally antithetical to local reasoning (chunking). The latter may just be a preference, but IME it seems to bear out. Mutation seems to be a consequence of the focus on identity, now that I think about it after writing that footnote.
> I couldn't really understand the idea that they were fundamentally new compared to objects (in fairness this was only put forth by a few people)
Just a historical note: First-class functions were invented waaaaay before OOP was a gleam in somebody's eye.
[0] The only non-mutating OOP system I know of is O'Camls version of OOP, but it's not very popular because it's just... unnecessary. It also does away with "identity", now that I think about it.