I think the reason you're disagreeing is that you're not looking at this from a beginner's point of view.
Generally there are (roughly) three approaches depending on where you are in your journey from beginner to expert:
As a beginner, you need specific, detailed, step-by-step instructions: First run X, then run Y, finally run Z, if something goes wrong along the way, follow these other steps, if that doesn't work, ask someone for help.
Once you've moved beyond being a beginner, you understand how the different steps are connected, so you already know the intermediate steps and just need to be told the task at hand: do an X (e.g. "move these commits onto the other branch").
An expert fully understands all the inner workings and just needs to be told the big picture: this is what I have, that is what I want, make it happen.
If you try to instruct experts like beginners, they will be frustrated because it seems so tedious and you're not giving them the information they want: what you're trying to do. If you try to instruct beginners like experts, they will be horribly confused because they don't know how to make any of it happen without you laying out each individual step they need to follow.
A case can be made that a beginner should learn each individual operation by heart before moving on to the next one (like kata in martial arts) but this style of learning assumes you're willing to spend a lifetime perfecting a single art. It's unlikely git will stick around that long and for most of its users git is just a tiny (though important) aspect of their work.