A couple loose thoughts. I was going to add Graeber's Debt: the first 5000 years as a cite. But it's too contentious. I was thinking about Graeber's interview on Charlie Rose. He states facts like about anarchism with the confidence of someone whom others pay to listen to. (students)
Contrast that with some of the PM's whose books I've read. Eric Falkenstein, Jeff McGinn, Aaron Brown. Their prose lacks the polish of a professional rhetor. I frequently find myself quibbling with minor points, or noticing rough patches in the text that don't really make sense. But overall I actually take this as greater evidence that they know what they're talking about.
Take a dubious academic paper like webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6GHJ0FVSNukJ:https://www.aeaweb.org/aea/2015conference/program/retrieve.php%3Fpdfid%3D762+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Why do I think it's dubious? Because it spends the first few pages laying out some "accepted truths" I would read in the paper. It's written for academic fellows. ........
By contrast Red Blooded Risk reads as patchy as if AB had paying work to get on to, things aren't spelled out clearly or knitted together to make perfect sense. It's as if he said "F―k it, that's good enough, gotta quit sometime" which makes sense from a "practitioner". (The vocabulary of "theoreticians" and "applied" etc is a hat tip to academy puffery .....
The other tell tale is a lack of references to academic tropes. The trustworthy authors will sound more confused about the EMH and less confused about options, the academics might say "modulo a sign error" whereas the only problem the traders have is if they can explain how options work from their head, not if they actually get it themselves.
I'm not good at explaining what I think I see when I read between the lines. (One of the things I disliked in literary criticism essays in school. Too much distance between words and thoughts, and it's pretty easy to write words I don't really think just to get the assignment over with.) So I'm sure people won't find my speculations convincing. I'm notating them anyway.