> Seems that too many people who discuss on the internet happened for some random reason to read a book, then (maybe) continue to read books in the same vein, a

> Seems that too many people who discuss on the internet happened for some random reason to read a book, then (maybe) continue to read books in the same vein, and are subsequently unable to look out of the ideological pigeonhole they have jumped into. They're like people who read only one side's arguments in an adversarial court case: it's the job of each lawyer to tell the most compelling story he can that's maximally biased on his client's behalf. They're not going to call attention to holes in their story or more probable theories, but rather paper over them. If they've done a good job you'll come out of with false impression thinking they're perfectly right (or even righteous), when in fact they may have been totally wrong. A lot of books are the same way, arguing as strongly as they can for some point of view. People are busy, and like the righteous feeling of thinking that personally know "how it really is" and who the "real" villains are, so they'll often stop after reading one POV, because reading other POVs feels like a challenge to their new righteous-feeling ideology and therefore a challenge to themselves personally.