This is partly due to how many disciplines Bitcoin touches, and no one can be an expert in all of those.

Some bitcoiners will read Saif's books, which focus on the monetary side and talk about Austrian economics, and they'll conclude Bitcoin is the perfect form of money, with all the benefits of gold and none of its drawbacks, while skimming through the technical aspects and ignoring issues like the security budget, miner centralization, the risk of contentious forks, quantum threat etc.

Most of Saif's readers won't read Micah Warren for example, and most math heads are probably not that interested in reading Mises, and even less so in anything to do with politics or sociology.

Bitcoin is too complex for most bitcoiners to understand, and there is reflexivity in it, e.g. the differences in people's understanding can affect its future.

Also, Bitcoin adoption relies on proselytizers and orange-pillers, who understandably tend to idealize, simplify, reduce nuance to catchy phrases etc. to reach and inspire the masses.