>>14380672If you answer a technical question for someone who didn't even begin working on the groundwork needed to understand the relevant context it'll be meaningless to them at best and more likely will mislead them into "learning" an interpretation of the answer that isn't anywhere close to correct.
People naturally want to apply what they know already to new topics and that's what makes misunderstandings happen e.g. It's common for school children to assume arithmetic with fractions is the same as whole number arithmetic applied to the numerators and denominators, which results in wrong conclusions like 1/2 + 2/3 = 3/5. Or averages with adults in the business world who don't realize a simple average of 5 days of sales activity or customer service phone traffic will provide warped and misleading aggregate metrics because simple averages don't weight by the different counts of what you're averaging from each day.
You see this with physics where people who didn't study it formally skip the mathematics part and start coming to conclusions like "you can alter reality with positive affirmations because you're an observer."
The more abstract and built up with prerequisite systems a topic is the farther off someone who doesn't work with those systems will be when they skip to the conclusions and use their common sense and every day knowledge of the world as they experience it. In more abstract and built up contexts the things common sense tells you to do are less likely to correspond with how those contexts actually work.
