stizzleomnibus
Decisively Human
Ironically, this kind of mental self-deception (looking for something hard enough you'll find it one way or another) is a large part of the lyrical theme of Construct. I will say, however, that I think her preconceived notion was based on trust. I trust that the artists of DT are brilliant and will expand my mind a bit. In the case that something strange shows up on the album, I assume that there's a wise reason for it and I try to wrap my head around it. For example, take the way that For Broken Words just sort of ends, without really recapitulating after the bridge. Or how None Becoming, despite being filled with the big ideas that make a great album closer, doesn't have the long buildup or long outro one might expect of a track in that position. There are a lot of weird choices on the album, and reflecting on them is how we grow. In this case, I think the listener in question had to spend some time digging into the album to figure it out, since it's so far outside the metal fold at times, but that doesn't mean she tricked herself into liking it. Sometimes you have to figure out how something could work to see that it most certainly does. Like how chess or sudoku are both really boring games until your brain starts running excitedly down the branches of the game; it's not particularly interesting until you start to get the inner workings.
Beethoven's a good example of immediate appeal and true depth, but what about Prokofiev? At first listen you might assume he's insane, but finer consideration reveals the magic in his compositions (try Tocatta in C, for piano). How about Ravel's Scarbo? Hugely controversial in its time as an overworked, hyper-technical atonal composition, but spending some time with it lets you see the beauty.
Dali's a good example of your point, too. I've always loved his Meditative Rose, which has a very shallow, blunt kind of beauty to it (big goddamn rose in a blue sky), but the real mastery is in the details (the dewdrop, the silhouettes, etc). However, what about art that is not beautiful or appealing at first, but which excels on its details? I'm not much for visual arts, but a lot of the more abstract stuff like Picasso or Munch or even the Mona Lisa are very well regarded critically despite the near-complete lack of immediate visual appeal.
Basically, I think it is possible for work to be unappealing at its surface, but to truly click after a few listens. In the DT case, I think they get most of their fans from the metal community but mix in a lot of elements from outside of it. This is hugely pleasing to those of us in the margins of musical taste (I don't really prefer a particular genre), but it's challenging for many listeners. I think that's a good thing. Those listeners should be challenged to grow, and if they trust DT enough to invest the time to understand and grow their tastes, they should be encouraged to do so.
Try living in Detroit.
I know!!! I got pretty late into that song, but I'm totally addicted to it; I love the change between the heavy chorus riffs and the very industrial ones of the verses. 
