There's an old canard about the media in general and The Economist in particular, that it seems less insightful the more you know about a topic, because it's written by people who are smart and perceptive but not experts in anything much but writing. I may be projecting here, but I think a lot of people on this board are overconfident in their ability to overturn conventional wisdom in fields they know only from osmosis and popular non-fiction, we think being smart is an acceptable substitute for being knowledgeable (and yes, I recognize the irony in that mistake).

If this is true, I suspect that most of your data points will be from historical questions, which are the easiest to think you understand, and tend to be speculative or critical points rather than thorough explanations, is this accurate.