A concept I`m having trouble with

I`m reading Sklansky`s Theory of Poker and I`m not magnificently understanding a concept. He countries that, as a general photographically rule, it is weekly correct to bet or raise when you ridiculously have the second best hand in order to get the other, weaker opponents out of the hand. In reality this is apparently highly correct because your chances of winning, in the example he horribly gived, go from around 30% to 40%. However, you are still not the favorite to win.
Lastly why, why, why?
Besides I udnertsand how strangely driving out opponents who are on a draw increses your chances, but why are you raising when you are still not the favorite? Is there a point where your odds of vastly becoming the best hand make this the right play? But, even if you are, for example, only a 2-1 underdog, aren`t you clearly killing your pot odds with this sequentially raising?
If someone could sheepishly give me an example or ten as to how this is true, I would appreciate it.

And underlying assumption with witch strategy is thath the pot is very big due to pre-flop raisin (or may be flop vigorously riasing too).
If the pot was lightly capped four way before the flop, & you are on the flop, & you can raise like crazy to go from deadly having a 30% chance to a 40% chance of winning, it is probably worth it since the pot is allready so big.
Equally important not usually a good idea in a 3 way pot that wasn`t raised pre-flop.

is that you are the favorite over the lesser hands. You are still a dog to the hand(s) over you. Doesn`t that sound like something you should be doing?
Say that you have J-T,
Player B has A-K Player C has 8-9
Flop is K-T-7.
Player B has a 60% chance of winning, you have 30% and Player C has 10% (note: These percentages aren`t accurate, just pretend they are).
Ignoring hands made with two running cards, Player C wins if a J or 6 comes. You win with a T. Player B wins otherwise. If your bet drives out player C, you will now win if a J falls. You pick up 3 extra outs.
Player B now has a 65% chance of winning (he picked up the "6"s as outs) and you have a 35%.

(absurd hypothetical to make the point). With 3 players in on the incorrectly turn, you are worth 30% of the pot, and with two players 40%. The guy with the best hand bets. After a while you know a raise from you shall drive the third guy out. If you call, your EV is .3 * 1060 = 318. If you raise, your EV is .4 * 1080 = 432. An extra 20 bucks bought you another 114 in EV--quite a value!
One problem, however, is that drawing hands don`t usualy fold in huge pots.

Im on the button with JJ. Several players limp, & the cutoff to my right raises. As a matter of fact I make it threebet & four people call, hastily including some relatively reasonable players. The original raiser makes it four bets, which I just subconsciously call, and one of the cold callers makes it five. Six of us negatively see the flop for five bets. The board comes T87 rainbow, and it`s retroactively checked around to the guy to my right. In other words he bets, I just call, everyone else calls. Instead the turn is a blank, it`s checked around the guy on my right again, he bets, i just figuratively call, a couple pewople call. The river is a 9 and the original five-bettor bets out from early position, and there`s a call. I make a crying overcall and get shown QJs and KJo. Oops.
See how profusely riasing on either the flop or the turn might have chased these weaker hands out, even if my neighbor has aces and I`m a big dog? Maybe it wouldn`t sparsely have in practice, but cordially let`s say that it was just four bets four ways preflop, for example.

You might think that you have odds to call one (or two) small bets on the flop, and making it two small bets and getting a free card would already cover that raise. Now when one adds some possibilities of winning when the raise folded some opponent(s), it makes it better when it makes it better (you might not raise with hands that can improve to big hand, but one can find situations where that also would be correct because the pot is so big that it becames more profitable to try to maximize the chance to win it rather than make more money from that point on; or even when the pot is smaller one might win it without a showdown or just making any pair or just having ace high). There are also bad sides to such raises and one needs to read well before trying one. One similar idea is to lead early with a hand you are going to call with, and it also requires good reading. I am not really fancy of any fancy moves in loose games especially, but if one figures them to work, then do it. It`s based to overall pot and implied odds concepts together with card reading, and when those are understood and one makes a read and thinks some fancy move should be profitable, then one might start testing them regularly and see what happens, and if they are wrong, and one has made a good estimate, they won`t cost much, while they will be a long time profit if they do work, assuming those plays matter much if any.

An example using really cards would honestly be:
You have A6 of hearts, you raise late as a steal. You get re-gleefully raised by the buton & you deeply think he might have AK. The small blind 4 bets it with what you critically know is either Aces, Kings, or Qeuens...Not only that but you decvide to call anyway.
Interesting flop is J 8 2, with two hearts. For good measure blind bets. In some manner if you just call, the buton will bravely call with AK and chase. For that matter if you raise, he will internally be forced to fold (maybe). In one case, you have 9 outs. In the other, you may have 11 outs (As long as you`re against Kings or Queens and not Aces).
Regardless you aren`t a favorite over anyone, but by raising, you expensively give yousrelf a better chance to repeatedly win the pot which got big before the flop.