Curse-of-Knowledge Communication Check
Align expertise with the audience before delivering the answer
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 96%
The Curse-of-Knowledge Communication Check begins with the recognition that experts struggle to imagine what it feels like not to possess their background knowledge. Before presenting an analysis, the communicator identifies what the audience already understands, what decision or answer it needs, and which unfamiliar concepts block comprehension. The expert then distills the material to its essential mechanism, removes unnecessary jargon, and preserves only the complexity required for accuracy. Clear visuals, concrete examples, and direct conclusions help bridge remaining gaps. The output is not a simplistic answer; it is a precise answer calibrated to the recipient. The final test is whether the audience can understand and use the conclusion without reconstructing the expert's entire intellectual journey.
Origin
Kiefer connected Steven Pinker's discussion of the curse of knowledge with his own transition from academic economics to industry communication at Freddie Mac.
Core principles
- 01Expertise can hide what beginners do not know
- 02Audience understanding matters more than technical display
- 03Clarity and precision can coexist with complexity
- 04Start with the decision-relevant answer
- 05An understandable good answer often beats an inaccessible perfect answer
How to run it
- 1
Define the audience
Identify who will receive the message, what they already know, and the practical pressures shaping their attention.
Pro tip Describe one representative recipient rather than an abstract general audience.
Watch out Do not assume professional seniority implies subject-matter knowledge.
- 2
Find the needed answer
Determine the conclusion, decision, or action the audience expects from the analysis before selecting supporting details.
Pro tip Write the essential answer in one sentence first.
Watch out Starting from everything you know encourages unnecessary complexity.
- 3
Expose knowledge gaps
List the terms, assumptions, and causal links that are obvious to you but may be unfamiliar to the audience.
Pro tip Ask a non-expert to flag the first point where the explanation loses them.
Watch out Defining jargon with more jargon does not close the gap.
- 4
Distill the mechanism
Explain the minimum chain of causes and evidence needed to make the answer credible and useful.
Pro tip Use a concrete analogy or visual when it reduces cognitive load without distorting the facts.
Watch out Simplification must not erase qualifications that would change the decision.
- 5
Test comprehension
Have a representative listener restate the conclusion, rationale, and next action in their own words.
Pro tip Revise the explanation wherever their restatement diverges from your intent.
Watch out Agreement is not proof of understanding.
In the wild
Instead of opening with specialist terminology, a housing economist explains that a lender sells an originated mortgage to replenish its cash, after which many mortgages are pooled into securities for investors. Only then does the economist distinguish interest-rate, borrower-credit, and counterparty risk.
→ A general audience understands both the basic transaction and why different risk-transfer products exist.
An analyst begins an executive briefing with the forecast, the two variables driving it, and the decision affected. Model architecture and diagnostics move to an appendix, while a single chart shows how the forecast changes under plausible scenarios.
→ Executives can act on the analysis while specialists retain access to the technical evidence.
Common mistakes
Displaying expertise instead of answering
A technically exhaustive presentation can bury the conclusion the audience needs. Complexity should support the answer rather than become the purpose of the communication.
Assuming shared background knowledge
Experts often omit definitions and causal links because those elements feel obvious to them. The audience then cannot follow the argument even when every statement is correct.
Oversimplifying away the decision
Removing material qualifications can make an explanation easy to understand but unsafe to use. Preserve every distinction that could change the recommended action.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for analysts, economists, scientists, founders, and technical leaders communicating with non-specialist stakeholders.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when the audience explicitly requires exhaustive technical documentation or formal proof rather than a decision-oriented explanation.
From the transcript
“when you, as an expert know something, you have difficulty imagining what it's like not to know that.”
“keeping that in mind and having that empathy, I think is key to becoming a better communicator.”
“if you have an okay answer, but you combine it with great, you know, clearer communication is sometimes a lot better, often a lot better…”
From the episode
Len Kiefer Discusses the Housing and Mortgage Markets (Podcast)
Len Kiefer