Lets say that good gear does benefit people with little or no experience even if they don't how to use it because at least it weighs less so they carry less. Well from the same point of view, carrying less "good of" = heavier gear" = less benefit because of the weight factor alone. Then if I have this "less good gear" but lose ten pounds, have I not accomplished the same thing as buying better lighter gear? What I'm saying here is that the classic lightweight answer of "oh its lighter so its better" is abunch of Huey. Just because a piece of gear is lighter or more expensive does not make it "better", more durable nor more functional.

So maybe we first need to ask "what is good gear vs (not good gear)?"
I think a lot of the value "good gear" that gets applied to things is based on our perceptions of contemporaty design vs how the item functions in the wilderness. A "good high quality" canvas anaorak for deep Canadian cold would be called "el cheapo retro overweight gear" by almost this entire lightweight group, yet the ultralightweight version of the veneerable canvas anorak would not function as well nor be even a tenth as durable as the "heavy (BAD???)" piece of gear.

So anyway we want to say "No no you first need the experience but how can one get experienced first?
Jim