Only if the software you're writing is A) aggressively simplified, so as to be amenable to informal analysis, or B) garbage.

If you're only interested in writing garbage, or perhaps you don't even notice that's what you're doing, then the appeal of FP is significantly reduced.

Yes, in theory, and this sometimes works. But it rarely works in general.

In practice, people come to your explanation pre-conditioned with a lot of (often politicized) misinformation, Dunning-Kruger type overconfidence in their own ability, very little curiosity or openness to new ideas, and exhibit the attention span of a 26th percentile squirrel.

People tend to listen very little and are more skeptical of others than they are of their own understanding: instead of searching for ways in which their mental models need adjusting, they try to poke holes in your explanations. They'll repeat whatever objections they've seen or heard somewhere, whether or not the objection is relevant or adequate. This undermines both "ELI5" approaches (because what you gain in simplicity you lose in nuance and correctness) and more pedantic approaches (which require more prerequisite knowledge, experience, or patience).

If you disagree with me because that is not your experience, it's possible you surround yourself with unusually insightful and wise people.