I agree. Most of the best non-fiction books I've read don't have a 4.5 Goodreads score. They spark some controversy (many people expect to agree on a book they read), or they are not for everyone (topic-wise, level-wise, etc). It works the same for everything (movies, food). E.g. the best average score for movies is for the best
average movies. Unless it is so niched that it is only read by people deep into a subject (again, then a high score says little about general quality).
But even for the >4.0-rated books, I find the collection bizarre.
E.g. "Metaphors We Live By" is here somewhere in the middle (at least got 4.08), while for me, it is the single most insightful book about human language as a way of thinking. "Realms of the Human Unconscious: Observations from LSD Research" by Stanislav Grof (4.34), a book that unifies & classifies psychedelic experiences (going beyond "good vs bad trip"), religious experiences, and CPTSD - is not even on the list. But sure - this book is not that popular. Yet, "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett (3.88) is not even on the list - just to name a few.
So instead of pretending that it is some collection of "mind-expanding books", let's make it "Favourite books of hackerkid", assuming they read them. If not, then "a random collection of vaguely mind-expanding books".