If you're familiar with the psychological phenomenon known as priming, that may help help to explain the situation. For someone who's suffered through a few too many many blog posts that explain monads poorly, it is possible that simply mentioning the m-word, even in the very last sentence of the article, may inhibit their ability to comprehend the process. Because of that, there's a certain genius to the article's approach: Give folks who've been struggling with monads and arrows the best possible chance to grasp the concept without being encumbered by all the baggage that has built up around the terminology. If they do get the concept, great, and they're virtually guaranteed to realize shortly afterward, "Oh hey, forehead smack, those are monads!"
(Incidentally, for people who've found themselves thrust into this unfortunate situation, a chapter titled A Fistful of Monads probably isn't likely to help much.)
To that end, I'd even go so far as to say your worries about that last bullet point underestimate the audience's ability to understand new concepts when properly explained much worse than the author did.
I am not a psychologist, but isn't part of the definition of priming that it happens before? How would saying something afterwards harm your ability to previously understand something? Well, I guess I could see how that'd be possible, but I'm not sure that's priming anymore.
I don't read every article top to bottom, I would waste too much time doing that. I read the intro, and if I like, I estimate how long it will take me with a full scroll to the bottom. I also read the bottom so I know the point we are working up to. Sometimes the article is too long and I skip an overly descriptive middle section.
By now I probably sound like a shill, but have you tried reading Learn you a Haskell? There is nothing scary about it, it really is very simple and didactic. Chapter titles are funny: anyone who finds a title such as A Fistful of Monads next to a colorful drawing of The Man with No Name scary is beyond help... :)
I disagree I'm underestimating anyone. I'm advocating teaching people. If you never tell them about monads, they can never realize they've been using them on their own, simply because no-one is ever going to mention monads to them. It just doesn't work like that; at some point someone must tell you about them (a blog or a paper counts in this context).
In your haste, you've forgotten one of the key premises of this line of discussion.
How can someone have gotten themselves into a situation where the very mention of the word 'monad' generates feelings of frustration and simultaneously never have heard about monads?
(Incidentally, for people who've found themselves thrust into this unfortunate situation, a chapter titled A Fistful of Monads probably isn't likely to help much.)
To that end, I'd even go so far as to say your worries about that last bullet point underestimate the audience's ability to understand new concepts when properly explained much worse than the author did.