I was reading http://slatestarcodex.com/ and I found myself surprised again, by Yvain persuasively steelmanning an argument that he doesn't himself believe in at http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/22/social-psychology-is-a-flamethrower/

It's particularly ironic because in that very post, he mentions:

I can’t find the link for this, but negatively phrased information can sometimes reinforce the positive version of that information.

Which seems to be what I am falling for. He outright says:

I think some of the arguments below will be completely correct, others correct only in certain senses and situations, and still others intriguing but wrong. I think that modern pop social psychology probably contains the same three categories in about the same breakdown, so I don’t feel too bad about this.

So to sum up, here is my experience:

1: Yvain: "Here are some arguments. I don't fully believe most of them."

2: I start reading.

3: Michaelos: "Huh. All of these seem to be somewhat well reasoned arguments, there are links, and I can follow the logic on most of them."

4: At some point, I forget the "Yvain doesn't believe this." Tag.

5: I then read his summary which points out that these also have entirely opposite summaries which are also justified.

6: I find myself flabbergasted that I've made the same mistake about Yvain's writing again.

Based on this, I get the feeling I should be doing something differently when I read Yvain's articles, but I'm not even sure what that something is.