Even worse, their approaches often fall under Architect Astronauts, blabbering about abstractions and patterns much more than about actual business domain concepts.
Time and time again, just building it has proven a much more fruitful concept than producing thousands of pages about the architecture before building. Even in projects where forethought is required, the usual documents are about specifications and business considerations, not whether you will use the Facade Pattern or the Ballsack Ring pattern.
Furthermore, while Gang of Four was cool, everyone now is proposing their own patterns and names and there is, nor will ever be a consensus, so you are forced to learn thousands of disparate namings for intersecting or repetitive "patterns" and architectures that have no bearing on software itself nor any significant history other than Uncle Bob posted it on a blog post. It's never the Nasa Mars Rover pattern or the OpenAI metrics pattern, it's always a thought from an online architecture pundit.
It's starting to feel like Software Architecture is the frenology of software. Just safely disregard it and continue reading about more tangible topics.