> If you engage the syntax with your System 2 thinking (prefrontal cortex, slow, the part of thinking we're naturally lazy to engage) rather than System 1 (automated, instinctual, optimized brain path to things we're used to)
You might not have intended it this way, but your choice of phrasing is very condescending.
Re-reading it I can see how it could be perceived by some people as such, thanks for pointing it out. There's probably better phrasing or adding more context could make it more amicable:
The goal was to explicitly tell people not to bother "just reading it" as one (and by one I mean myself and most people I know, surely there are exceptions) is naturally inclined to do unless something is particularly piquing our interest.
Without engaging in active, conscious effort, syntax that is different than what we're used to (specially something as established as SQL) where the changes aren't groundbreaking at first glance can easily make us dismissive without realizing the benefits. And after seeing it too many times with all kinds of technologies that stray away from the familiar, I just want to prepare the reader so that their judgment can be formed with full use of their faculties rather than a reflex response.
You might not have intended it this way, but your choice of phrasing is very condescending.