Given any topic, there are two types of people: those who try to think for themselves and those who blindly follow the orthodoxy.
The think for themselves category will likely have a shorter wider bell curve and the orthodox category will be concentrated around the proficiency of the narrative.
For those who tend to choose the orthodoxy, they have the advantage of not needing to exert much time/energy while still achieving a decent result (assuming the orthodoxy isn't compromised).
A downside to habitually leaning on this strategy when confronted with novel topics is their ability to think for themselves atrophies (domestication).
Another downside is they risk getting a bad result when the orthodoxy is compromised (being led to slaughter).
I imagine those who choose to think for themselves do so when they suspect the orthodoxy is incompetent or evil. Usually, to be able to consider these suspicions requires having been fucked over by following the orthodoxy at some point in the past (or at least be aware of examples where it has failed for others).
There will always be a midwit mountain. The habitability of the mountain depends on the proficiency of the orthodox narrative.