Those with low cognitive reflection scores felt their understanding was sufficient with the minimalist information—any more and their sense of fluency dropped.

Those with low cognitive reflection scores felt their understanding was sufficient with the minimalist information—any more and their sense of fluency dropped. Those who scored highly on the CRT showed a linear increase, where more details meant greater understanding. In most other contexts, I'd say the low-CRT people had a point. It's reasonable to expect that someone will tell you what's important and leave out what isn't important, so it's reasonable to estimate your competence by how well you understand what is presented to you. Your average consumer doesn't know what enzymes do, so if the ad doesn't explain, they conclude that they don't need to know. When the ad starts to explain, they conclude they do need to know, and they rate their knowledge lower. It makes perfect sense. The mistake is not in how they process the details but in their implicit assumption that the advertisement is a cooperative, good-faith interaction instead of an adversarial one.