Pretty good. I have something to say about this part:

> most people are in fact “asleep” about most things most of the time, not super thoughtful in how they develop beliefs

Which is later echoed, but differently, as:

> the average person just doesn’t know much about your hyper specific thing

This is skirting around whether they have a duty to know about your thing. The first phrasing suggests they do, the second suggests not.

Given that your thing is probably stupid and wrong, and life's too short, it seems reasonable to me that most people can't give you good arguments about it unless you invite them to take a pleasant and entertaining walk around your reasoning and maybe sleep on it and come back later. If the subject can't be made pleasant and entertaining, you're probably out of luck. This unfortunately still applies even when your thing is genuinely a great insight.

There is a pretty small set of things I think people have a duty to know in our very open and comfortable first world.

Civics is the main one that is being catastrophically neglected as pointed out by some other comments here. A majority of the discourse in every political space completely fumbles this(USA). Conservatives openly desire a king above the constitution. Centrists believe that a highly lopsided balance of power can somehow be fixed with moderate responses. And leftists are nearly 24/7 frothing at the mouth with “why WONT THE DEMOCRATS DO SOMETHING” without any apparent understanding of how majorities and pluralities dictate action in our government.

I wouldn’t guess higher than 5% of our political dialogue reflects anything higher than a grade schooler understanding of civics, history, or politics. Which is damn near the only thing we MUST know about to keep the ship upright here thanks to technology and abundance. And we still fuck it more and more every year.