The curse of knowledge is the difficulty people have in imagining what it is like not to know something they know, which makes experts poor at explaining and at predicting what others will understand. Economists Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein and Martin Weber named it in a 1989 experimental paper in the Journal of Political Economy.
You assume others share your background, so you skip steps and use jargon.
03
Feedback is weak
Listeners often do not say they are lost, so the expert's confidence goes unchallenged.
Where you see it today
Prompting AI models
Anthropic’s prompting guidance suggests treating its model as “a brilliant but new employee who lacks context on your norms and workflows”, and testing a prompt by showing it to a colleague with little context. Experts’ prompts often fail for the same reason their explanations do: the missing context is invisible to them.
Not just experts
Birch and Bloom (2007) found that adults’ own knowledge of how an event turned out made it harder for them to reason about what another person, who lacked that knowledge, would believe. The bias affects ordinary adults, not only specialists.
Strategy that does not travel
Chip and Dan Heath (Heath & Heath, 2006, Harvard Business Review) argue that executives hear abstract strategystatements as summaries of concrete knowledge they hold, while front-line staff, lacking that background, hear only vague phrases.
Instructions files for coding agents
Software teams now keep written instructions for AI coding agents that spell out conventions a human colleague would pick up informally. It is the curse of knowledge in reverse: writing down what you would normally assume.
Curse of knowledge vs related biases
Curse of knowledge
What goes wrongCannot imagine not knowing what you know
ExampleAn expert's explanation skips steps
Hindsight bias
What goes wrongAfter the outcome, it seems predictable
Example“We should have seen it coming.”
Illusion of transparency
What goes wrongOverestimating how well others read your inner state
ExampleAssuming your nerves are obvious to the room
False consensus effect
What goes wrongOverestimating how many people share your view
Example“Everyone agrees the old tool is bad.”
Information asymmetry
What goes wrongOne side knows more than the other
ExampleA seller knows the car's history; the buyer does not
How to spot and avoid it
Test your explanation on someone outside your field before you send it.
Start with a concrete example, then give the general idea.
Cut or define jargon; assume the reader has none of your context.
When prompting an AI, write down the goal, context and constraints you would normally assume.
Ask listeners to explain the idea back, rather than asking “Does that make sense?”
The Business Engineer lens
The curse of knowledge is a common reason AI tools disappoint experts: they leave out the context they take for granted, and the model fills the gap with guesses. The Business Engineer’s view is to build for what agents actually need, which starts with writing down what a colleague would simply know.
A cognitive bias in which people who know something find it hard to imagine not knowing it, so they explain poorly and misjudge what others understand.
Who coined the term curse of knowledge?
Economists Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein and Martin Weber, in a 1989 paper in the Journal of Political Economy.
How do you overcome the curse of knowledge?
Use concrete examples, cut jargon, test explanations on outsiders, and ask people to explain the idea back to you.
Why does the curse of knowledge matter for AI?
Prompts written by experts often omit context they take for granted; AI developers advise writing prompts as if briefing a capable new employee with no background.
The complete explainer, cleaned up and reformatted for mobile.
The Curse of Knowledge refers to the difficulty experts face in communicating complex ideas to non-experts due to information asymmetry. It hinders effective teaching, public speaking, and marketing efforts. While it benefits experts’ communication within their circles, it poses challenges in engagement and may lead to miscommunication. Examples include technical manuals and industry jargon.
The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias where individuals who are knowledgeable about a topic have difficulty communicating with others who lack that knowledge. This bias occurs because experts assume others share their understanding, leading to unclear explanations and poor communication.
Characteristics of the Curse of Knowledge
The Curse of Knowledge is a cognitive bias characterized by a disparity in knowledge between two parties in communication, where one possesses more knowledge than the other.
This bias often makes it challenging for individuals with expertise to simplify complex ideas for those with less knowledge and may result in a loss of empathy. Here are the key characteristics of the Curse of Knowledge:
Information Asymmetry: The Curse of Knowledge occurs when one party in a communication exchange possesses significantly more knowledge on a particular subject than the other. This creates an imbalance of information where the knowledgeable party struggles to relate to the less-informed party.
Difficulty in Simplification: Those afflicted by the Curse of Knowledge find it challenging to convey complex ideas in simple terms. Their expertise and deep understanding of a subject make it difficult to break down concepts into more accessible and understandable language.
Loss of Empathy: Experts often have difficulty fully understanding the perspective of others who lack knowledge in a particular domain. This can result in a lack of patience or empathy when attempting to explain concepts to those with less expertise.
Use Cases of the Curse of Knowledge
The Curse of Knowledge can manifest in various real-world scenarios, affecting communication and understanding.
Here are some use cases that illustrate its effects
Teaching: Educators may face challenges in explaining complex concepts to students when they are deeply immersed in a subject. The Curse of Knowledge can make it difficult for teachers to relate to their students’ level of understanding and convey information in an accessible manner.
Public Speaking: Speakers who are experts in their field may struggle to connect with non-expert audiences during presentations or talks. They may inadvertently use jargon or complex terminology that alienates their audience.
Marketing: Marketers may unintentionally use industry-specific jargon or technical language that confuses their target customers. The Curse of Knowledge can hinder marketers from effectively communicating the benefits of a product or service to a broader audience.
Benefits of the Curse of Knowledge
While the Curse of Knowledge is generally considered a communication challenge, there are some potential benefits associated with expertise and precision in communication:
Expertise: The Curse of Knowledge can lead to enhanced understanding and precision within expert circles, where individuals share a common level of knowledge and can engage in detailed discussions.
Precision: Those affected by the Curse of Knowledge can communicate with precision and accuracy among knowledgeable individuals, leading to more in-depth and nuanced conversations within their field of expertise.
Challenges Posed by the Curse of Knowledge
However, the Curse of Knowledge primarily poses challenges and can lead to miscommunication and difficulties in engaging non-expert audiences:
Miscommunication: The risk of misunderstandings between experts and non-experts is significant. Experts may struggle to convey their ideas effectively, leading to confusion and potential misinterpretation of information.
Engagement: The Curse of Knowledge makes it challenging to engage non-expert audiences in discussions or presentations. The use of technical jargon and complex terminology can alienate and disengage listeners, hindering effective communication.
Examples of the Curse of Knowledge
Technical Manuals:
When technical experts write user manuals or instructional guides, they may inadvertently use industry-specific terminology and assume a level of knowledge that the average user doesn’t possess. This can lead to confusion and frustration among consumers who struggle to understand the instructions.
Industry Jargon:
Professionals within a specific industry often use jargon, acronyms, and technical terms that are unfamiliar to those outside the industry. When they communicate with clients or the general public, using this jargon can create a barrier to understanding.
Academic Research:
Researchers and scientists may find it challenging to communicate their findings to the broader public. Their specialized knowledge can make it difficult to simplify complex scientific concepts for a general audience, leading to misunderstandings or disinterest.
Medical Consultations:
Doctors and healthcare professionals sometimes struggle to explain medical conditions and treatment options in plain language to patients. They may unintentionally use medical jargon that leaves patients feeling overwhelmed and uninformed.
Legal Advice:
Attorneys and legal experts may have difficulty explaining legal matters to clients who lack legal expertise. Their use of legal terminology can make it hard for clients to grasp the implications of their cases fully.
Engineering Projects:
Engineers working on construction or infrastructure projects might face challenges when communicating project details to community members or non-technical stakeholders. The technical nature of the information can lead to misunderstandings or opposition.
Key Highlights of the Curse of Knowledge
Information Asymmetry: The curse of knowledge occurs when there is a significant difference in knowledge levels between the communicator (who possesses expertise) and the audience (who may have limited or no knowledge of the subject).
Difficulty in Simplification: Experts often find it challenging to simplify complex ideas because they are deeply entrenched in the subject matter. They may struggle to break down concepts into understandable terms.
Loss of Empathy: Experts may have difficulty empathizing with those who lack their level of knowledge. They might underestimate the effort required to bridge the gap in understanding.
Miscommunication: The curse of knowledge can lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings, as experts may assume that others possess the same level of knowledge and context as they do.
Engagement Challenges: When experts fail to communicate effectively with non-expert audiences, it can result in disengagement, disinterest, or frustration among the listeners or readers.
Solutions: To address the curse of knowledge, communicators must consciously strive to simplify their language, use relatable examples, and seek feedback to ensure their message is accessible to a broader audience.
Disruptive innovation as a term was first described by Clayton M. Christensen, an American academic and business consultant whom The Economist called “the most influential management thinker of his time.” Disruptive innovation describes the process by which a product or service takes hold at the bottom of a market and eventually displaces established competitors, products, firms, or alliances.
Value migration was first described by author Adrian Slywotzky in his 1996 book Value Migration – How to Think Several Moves Ahead of the Competition. Value migration is the transferal of value-creating forces from outdated business models to something better able to satisfy consumer demands.
The bye-now effect describes the tendency for consumers to think of the word “buy” when they read the word “bye”. In a study that tracked diners at a name-your-own-price restaurant, each diner was asked to read one of two phrases before ordering their meal. The first phrase, “so long”, resulted in diners paying an average of $32 per meal. But when diners recited the phrase “bye bye” before ordering, the average price per meal rose to $45.
Groupthink occurs when well-intentioned individuals make non-optimal or irrational decisions based on a belief that dissent is impossible or on a motivation to conform. Groupthink occurs when members of a group reach a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the alternatives and their consequences.
A stereotype is a fixed and over-generalized belief about a particular group or class of people. These beliefs are based on the false assumption that certain characteristics are common to every individual residing in that group. Many stereotypes have a long and sometimes controversial history and are a direct consequence of various political, social, or economic events. Stereotyping is the process of making assumptions about a person or group of people based on various attributes, including gender, race, religion, or physical traits.
Murphy’s Law states that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. Murphy’s Law was named after aerospace engineer Edward A. Murphy. During his time working at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949, Murphy cursed a technician who had improperly wired an electrical component and said, “If there is any way to do it wrong, he’ll find it.”
The law of unintended consequences was first mentioned by British philosopher John Locke when writing to parliament about the unintended effects of interest rate rises. However, it was popularized in 1936 by American sociologist Robert K. Merton who looked at unexpected, unanticipated, and unintended consequences and their impact on society.
Fundamental attribution error is a bias people display when judging the behavior of others. The tendency is to over-emphasize personal characteristics and under-emphasize environmental and situational factors.
Outcome bias describes a tendency to evaluate a decision based on its outcome and not on the process by which the decision was reached. In other words, the quality of a decision is only determined once the outcome is known. Outcome bias occurs when a decision is based on the outcome of previous events without regard for how those events developed.
Hindsight bias is the tendency for people to perceive past events as more predictable than they actually were. The result of a presidential election, for example, seems more obvious when the winner is announced. The same can also be said for the avid sports fan who predicted the correct outcome of a match regardless of whether their team won or lost. Hindsight bias, therefore, is the tendency for an individual to convince themselves that they accurately predicted an event before it happened.
Gennaro Cuofano is a CRO and tech executive who has worked in AI since late 2015, starting with bringing NLP, natural-language generation, voice and chatbot products to the marketing industry. His background is in law and finance: he holds a Master's degree in Law and an International MBA with an emphasis on corporate finance (LUISS Business School and the University of San Diego, 2012), and worked as a financial analyst at a real-estate investment firm in San Diego and as an assistant controller. His work focuses on business model strategy, business engineering and, more broadly, structural analysis: how companies make money, read from their own filings. He created FourWeekMBA and leads research there and at The Business Engineer, his newsletter on AI and business strategy, with over 95,000 subscribers and more than 1,000 published analyses. His writing has also appeared on Entrepreneur (for example, How to Digitize a Family Business in Europe) and HackerNoon. Find him on LinkedIn and Substack. See how we source.
