This feels like a good rule of thumb to me for nonfiction: read authors who are Ph.D. working for many years who are writing about their work, as opposed to journalists who jump from subject to subject with each book they write.
Funny you mention "Thinking, Fast and Slow." If you read this book, you need to do your research on the "replication crisis." I dropped a link to an LW discussion on the topic below. Otherwise, I agree with you. Even every day news articles can throw you off.
That book, similar to most of the other "popular psychology/economics", could be a three page pamphlet that would cover all the ideas. The rest of the book is just endless repetition of that with countless anecdotes to make it seem like data and hard science.
This is funny - you mention two opposite cases and in the end give an example to one of the cases without explaining to which exactly. Is it on purpose?
The GP probably does, but it is kind of funny that they chose a really bad example of an expert. In light of the replication crisis, "Thinking - fast and slow" has been heavily criticised, and rightfully so.
In my opinion, it belongs more in the pop-sci category more usually written by non-experts.
This book is a good illustration of why it's better to read history. Most of the research in it failed to replicate and with incredible arrogance the author tells you that "you have no choice but to accept that the major conclusions of these studies are true" refering to priming research - thinking of Florida makes you walk slower, that kind of thing.
e.g. "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman