My guess is that almost all people who read a lot are undisciplined readers. They don’t have a “reading habit”. For them reading is a glutinous, impulse driven process.
People often say that writing improves their ideas. Really this illustrates the dream-like quality of ordinary thought.
Just like dreams are full of contradictions you don't notice, ordinary thought is as well and you only notice them when trying to express it.
If 0.1mg dose of a drug can massively alter the behaviour of a 100kg human (nine orders of magnitude ratio) then the idea small groups of individuals can change massive social systems should seem at least plausible.
People rarely talk about it but I do think many people who are relentlessly seeking knowledge are acting out of compulsion, thinking the next piece of information will save them, not noticing it never does.
I feel like chatGPT is really good at this "feels like you're saying something but really saying nothing" mode of talking that some people are also really good at and I'd love to understand how it works.
The chief value of this post is demonstrating that the philosophy majors who promote this sort of thing are not only hopelessly blinkered, but full of contempt for people like you