I understand generally one should read existing answers before giving another one. This can avoid duplicated answer, add more votes to them, and even when the existing answers miss your point, they can still provide useful information that you can use in your answer. However, is there a case that it is acceptable to not doing that, especially on questions about research/theory/concept?
In this example answer, after skimming the existing answers, I don't see how it matches the typical answer for this kind of question. Usually the very first sentence of the answer will point you to the concepts with links, in an affirmative tone, and rest of it just elaborate it more. On the other hands, answers that are just speculations from the answerer can't start with that tone, and however it tries to be concrete it cannot touch on the very core of the problem. This is the pattern I see in all of the existing answers.
What I mean is that, although technically you don't know without actually reading it, it is not worth to know either. There is a difference between not wanting to do homework because you want others do it for you, and not doing it because you have something more efficient to do than doing homework. The phenomenon that without giving the correct concept at the very beginning the reader will be confused is called schema. I think Buddhism also describes it as conceptual proliferation.
I have a feeling that reading them wouldn't help me write a better one, and I think you can actually know where it goes without reading them. Even if they have information that is useful or duplicate to my answer, that information usually should be rewritten completely, so it's hardly called as duplication.
Is this a good reason to not reading existing answers before giving your own?
Note: the example link is just an example. I'm trying to generalize to the whole network.
Related: Do you read others' answers?