One of the core tenets of learning "critical thinking", and this is especially true in higher-education where "suspicion" might be a more accurate way to descri

One of the core tenets of learning "critical thinking", and this is especially true in higher-education where "suspicion" might be a more accurate way to describe the approach and what you are taught, is to see all written things as presenting an argument. Written content is expressive, it is useful. And understanding how written words are used tells you a lot about intention and the context for their use (their meaning, essentially). I don't want to say your binary is 100% wrong, but I will say it is dangerous to assert that one form of writing ("Just the facts please!") is somehow more divorced from the systems and contexts of its representation than another ("Give me a story!"). It's far more porous than a simple division might make it seem. While your distinction makes people in group A seem like "dupes" and people in group B seem more "level headed", one could just as rightly say that people B might be ignorant of the construction of what they are studying and so succumb in the very same way. It's very easy to see essence in tradition when you ignore the role of people and storytelling in the creation of tradition. There is a reason why the study of history is, in many ways, more like the study of writing and creating history.