Also no, explaining things well is very difficult. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much bad explanatory writing out there. If you think it's easy, then you are either naturally skilled at it, or you are actually bad at it and don't realize.

But you don't need to follow any advice if you do not seek to get ahead (i.e., better) in some sense. So, that doesn't make sense as a counterargument. OP's point is that you can become better at explaining, but that on its own does not add value. This is quite evident in scientific writing. Plenty of well-written papers are rejected if they do not provide sufficient value.

Of course, you might be the great exception, a perfectly reasoning actor, which we hear so much about in thought experiments.

Can you give an example of writing that does this? Is it more about making declarations (with sources I hope) to nudge the reader to your beliefs? I'm not sure how you convince intelligent people without some explanations.

Examples of explanations without convincing can be found in most academic writing.

It doesn’t just randomly happen to be convincing. The convincing part is why it works at all.

ALthough, I think that the first link is a better version of the two.