I'm not sure it's fair to say that I'm gatekeeping what people read. It's more about the spirit behind the reading.

Anyway, if it's gatekeeping to suggest that people should pursue personal growth through their own authentic interests rather than reading as a chore to be "more efficient", then call me president of the gatekeeping club for all I care.

"That clearly optimises for short, easy to read books ... and avoids more technical and difficult books..."

If someone reads short, easy to read books for any reason, that's dandy. I'm sure they'll get something useful out of it.

On the other hand, are you reading The Art of Computer Programming? (Oddly enough, I can currently answer yes, since I've been playing around with the section in Seminumerical Algorithms on testing random number sources. :-) )

Please try to avoid gatekeeping gatekeepers with regards to where they gatekeep.

Also, is it actually "gatekeeping" to say that arbitrary numeric goals optimize for a different kind of reading than what you'd get with different kinds of goals?