Explain a concept at three levels of depth
Child, student and practitioner versions of the same idea, where each one adds real precision instead of just more words.
Last updated
Fill in the blanks
Assembled in your browser — nothing you type is stored or sent anywhere.
Your prompt
Model-agnostic — works in Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini or any AI chat.
Why this prompt works
- →Banning technically-false simplifications at the child level keeps the easy version from becoming a lie you'll have to unlearn later.
- →Requiring each level to add real terminology or precision, not just length, stops the common failure of three explanations that differ only in vocabulary.
- →Flagging genuine controversy at the level where it matters prevents any of the three explanations from presenting a contested claim as settled fact.
Part by part
- nothing that's technically false just to simplify it
- The condition that separates a good simple explanation from a lie-to-children. Analogies may omit; they should not mislead.
- the real terminology and the actual mechanism, not a longer analogy
- Defines the middle level, which is otherwise the first level with more words. Terminology is what makes the concept searchable and discussable.
- including the caveats and edge cases the first two levels had to skip
- Makes the third level do real work. Without it, expert level becomes the same content in a more formal register.
- Each level should add genuine precision, not just length or bigger words
- The instruction the whole prompt depends on. Three levels that restate one explanation are worse than one, because they take three times as long to read.
Common mistakes
Explain this simply.Produces one explanation at an unspecified level, usually with an analogy that quietly misstates the mechanism. There is no way to tell what was traded away for simplicity.
Explain this like I'm five, then like an expert.Two levels leave a gap where most readers actually sit. The middle level — real terminology, real mechanism, no analogy — is the one that transfers to reading anything else on the subject.
Explain this at three levels of complexity.Complexity is read as length and vocabulary, so the third version is the first with longer words. Precision is the axis that matters, and it has to be named.
Questions
Why does the analogy have to stay true?
Because a wrong analogy has to be unlearned later, and unlearning is much harder than learning. An analogy that omits detail is fine; one that implies a mechanism that does not exist is a debt.
What makes the middle level worth having?
It is where the vocabulary arrives. Without terminology you cannot search, read further, or ask a precise question — so an explanation that stays analogical leaves you unable to learn more.
Should I read all three?
Reading in order is the point — the concept sharpens as the approximations are removed. Jumping to the third level works only if you already have the vocabulary it assumes.
What if the concept is genuinely contested?
The prompt asks it to say so at whichever level it matters. That is often the most valuable line in the answer, because a confident single explanation of a disputed idea is the most misleading possible output.