what's wrong with presenting everything in the correct abstraction to start with?
Whether you a public school math class, or a git tutorial online, you always get the same thing. A list of procedures for using the tools in the most common cases you are likely to encounter. This seems like a good idea in the move fast and break things ideology, but what do we notice about people's skills in the real world? No one knows how git works, and no one knows any math by the time they leave high school.
Give people a set of tools and prove to them that it solves every problem in some domain. If they can't solve the problems using the most primitive, complete toolset you can give them, then the case where they solve the problem is the edge case.
As an example, often, we will have students write fractions in "lowest terms", then only present students with fractions in which the numerators and denominators only share a few, small common prime factors. But checking prime factors is absolutely the hardest way of solving this problem, and unless you're exhaustive in your search, you can't have any confidence that you actually have solved it.
Students are intrinsically aware that this wold be tedious in general, and it gives them anxiety to know that they could have missed something, or not tried sufficiently large divisors. They have no confidence in their tools, and rightly so. The only reason they can solve these problems at all is because the instructor gives them problems which can be solved this way.
The origin of the question "when will I use this in the real world?" is the instinct that the tool you have been given is only for edge cases, and cannot be relied upon.
I think you are exactly wrong in your assessment. Getting into the weeds is the only way to learn, because almost everything in the world is weeds, some of those weeds just happen to be called crops.