Now, try an experiment next you do that. Explain by a completely inapplicable analogy, one that is logically coherent but does not apply to the problem at hand.
You win if your listener calls BS. I win if they don't.
You're probably not explaining anywhere near as much as you think. You're just making soothing noises until they are no longer willing to pursue the matter. You might as well be honest about that fact with both yourself and the client, as suggested in the blog post.
All you're really demonstrating by that thought experiment is that when there's a huge knowledge gap, the more knowledgeable person is well-positioned to get away with spewing a whole mess of BS.
That is obviously true. But it's also obviously nowhere close to being an appropriate (or even smart) way to conduct one's business relationships.
You do not have a "business relationship" if there is a huge knowledge gap. If there's no meeting of the minds, no way to evaluate each other, no way to sensibly compete in a free market, you're well along the path of a provider/consumer relationship or pure faith or at best something like feudalism or lifetime sharecropping.
A good analogy is asking about the business relationship between a parishioner and a priest. Its the wrong tinted glasses to look at the relationship. That doesn't mean it has to be a bad relationship, and no value judgement of inferiority. Its just evaluating the relationship via inappropriate criteria.
Tread lightly, this attitude is dangerous. There are really customers/managers who are not technical that instead rely on your previous words and commitments to gauge what's possible and what is getting done.
These people act dumber than they are, so they can extract more information with which to evaluate your character and disposition.
Again, that's not a business relationship, that is quite literally exactly how feudalism worked. Your liege lord was not an expert on your plot of lands agronomy prospects or the physical state of your knights, so he had to trust you.
Its possible some of the confusion is state based vs action based. If you define business relationship by state, then absolutely anything that happens in a cube farm while wearing a tie is a business relationship, from a free market to blackmail to slavery to blind faith. If you define business relationship by action as a theoretical ideal of how roughly equal participants in a competitive market in a rule of law system treat each other, you get a completely different analysis.
You win if your listener calls BS. I win if they don't.
You're probably not explaining anywhere near as much as you think. You're just making soothing noises until they are no longer willing to pursue the matter. You might as well be honest about that fact with both yourself and the client, as suggested in the blog post.