In Adler’s (How to Read a Book) terms, I think lots of folks don’t naturally learn to do his “third reading”[1] simultaneously with the first two readings (or maybe at all?), and tend to read a book only once, or to read it more than once but doing the “same” reading each time. That plus some assumptions that the social proof of a book getting recommended by, say, Bill Gates and being a bestseller means it must not just be a whole bunch of lazy crap that sometimes contradicts its own citations, can explain a lot of things slipping by a person that, viewed with hindsight, were pretty sketchy.

Certain social science or liberal arts programs are pretty good at, if nothing else, pushing students to get better at that “third reading” and developing a heuristic, automatic sense for when a piece is behaving in a maybe-dodgy way, but I think a lot of other programs aren’t, so even educated people, at least those who don’t just naturally pick the skill up young, may take a rougher road to it, if they ever pick it up. (Yes, I’m aware that my calling out some social science training as a good way to hone that skill is funny, given how much junk science, pop and otherwise, centers around the social sciences)

[1] Adler’s three readings are: 1) coming to terms—that is, seeking an understanding of the basic assumptions, definitions, context, et c, the author is operating under, and the basic thrust or topic or goal of the work; 2) Understanding the author’s argument, message, points and so forth; 3) critical reading—is the message any good? Does it hold together? Are the definitions and premises well-considered, useful, and applied consistently? Does that passage there look a bit iffy, is perhaps worded like the author’s trying to get away with something, and maybe needs a closer look? If such-and-such part crumbles on closer examination or consultation of other sources, what of the rest is salvageable, if any?