Thought process is fine, but lead with the plain and simple version. Offer context after you've introduced the topic and described what you're talking about.
I think when you're trying to be convincing of a counter intuitive or controversial point, it helps to start with less objectionable parts of the argument first. If an argument involves several steps, A to B to C ending in D, but D is wildly counter intuitive, some audiences, hearing D first will reduce their likelihood of actually integrating the consequences of A and so on. Maybe someone who's done more research on the psychology of priming would know?
I'm not so sure. A shining example is the essay "One Self: The Logic of Experience"[0]. The first paragraph is just 3 sentences, and the first sentence lays it out:
Nah. It's either the 2nd biggest communication problem, or a side effect of a bigger problem. Depending on how you analyse it.
The biggest communication problem is that you always need to take into account that your reader might be braindead trash. That has two consequences:
1. Unless you expose your full train of thought, expect screeches like "I dun unrurrstand, SPOONFEED ME BASIC REASONING, REEE".
2. Unless you explicitly say something, expect some assumer to claim that you said the opposite. Bonus points if this is due to failure to take context into account, or even notice that the context is missing.
Both consequences have been training writers to idiot-proof their texts with big walls of unnecessary words. And that's the case here.