Most “explain it simply” prompts produce explanations that are wrong in a confident voice — the model lops off the inconvenient parts and you walk away with a clean misunderstanding. These prompts force layered simplification: a true-to-the-theory short version, a tiered analogy, a worked example, and an explicit “what you should NOT take away from this” appendix so the simplification doesn’t quietly become misinformation. Pair with concept comparison prompts when distinguishing closely related ideas.
Best for
- Self-learning hard subjects
- Tutoring / teaching
- Writing explainer articles
- Onboarding new team members to a domain
- Exam revision
1. Feynman-style 5-step explainer
Explain {theory} using Feynman's method. Output 5 steps: (1) name the theory, (2) explain to a 12-year-old, (3) point out where the simple version is wrong, (4) introduce 1 added nuance, (5) the real definition.2. First-principles breakdown
Break {theory} into first principles. Output: 4 base assumptions, the logical chain from assumptions to theory, and 1 example of what changes if any assumption is wrong.3. 3-analogy layer
Give 3 analogies for {theory} at increasing fidelity. Analogy 1: simplest, most wrong. Analogy 2: more accurate, slightly harder. Analogy 3: closest to reality, hardest. Mark what each analogy gets right and wrong.4. Worked-example simplifier
Apply {theory} to a real problem: {problem}. Output: setup, the theory steps applied, the answer, and 1 sentence on how the theory simplified the problem.5. Anti-example pair
Give 2 examples that look like {theory} applies but actually do not. For each, explain why it fails and which assumption is violated.6. 3-tier explanation
Explain {theory} at 3 levels: (a) headline (1 sentence), (b) intuition (1 paragraph), (c) formal (with notation). Mark what is lost going from formal to intuition.7. Common-misunderstanding list
List the top 5 misunderstandings of {theory}. For each: the misconception, why it spreads, the correction in 1 sentence.8. Visual / diagram description
Describe a diagram I could draw to teach {theory}. Output: what to draw, what each element represents, and the 1 question to ask after showing the diagram.9. Real-world consequence
What changes in the real world if {theory} is true vs false? Give 3 observable differences and 1 experiment that could distinguish them.10. Historical-context simplifier
Explain {theory} by walking through the problem it solved when introduced. Output: the world before, what was missing, how the theory fixed it, what new questions it opened.11. Adjacent-theory bridge
I already understand {known theory}. Explain {new theory} as an extension or contrast to {known theory}. Mark which parts are shared, which are new, and what new assumption {new theory} adds.12. “What you should not take from the simplified version” appendix
Below is my simplified explanation of {theory}. List the 5 things a reader could mistakenly take away from this simplification. Add 1 line each correcting it.
{paste simplified explanation}Common mistakes
- Simplifying so much the theory is technically wrong — clean explanation, confidently false
- No worked example — reader thinks they get it until they try to apply it
- No anti-example showing where the theory does NOT apply — leads to over-extension
- Skipping the historical reason it was invented — strips meaning from the formalism
- No “what is still hard about this” honesty — sets up false confidence for the next harder thing
- One analogy doing all the work — fragile, because every analogy breaks somewhere