IIRC, Dunning-Kruger refers to the specific phenomenon where an expert in a subject underestimates the depth of their own expertise and think that the things they know are more commonly known.
For instance, I’m working in data analytics. If I vent my frustration that the data model I’m supposed to build is bullshit, because a dimension key composed of several attributes is formatted differently in two different fact tables, but I need to conform it to cross-reference between the two and it’s a mess to untangle, you’d probably agree on the “mess” part, but might not understand a whole lot of the rest unless you’re familiar with the field. I’d intuitively assume that “conform it” would need some explanation, because that’s a slighly more complex term than the rest, but experience has taught me that most people would have trouble following at “data model” already.
IIRC, Dunning-Kruger refers to the specific phenomenon where an expert in a subject underestimates the depth of their own expertise and think that the things they know are more commonly known.
For instance, I’m working in data analytics. If I vent my frustration that the data model I’m supposed to build is bullshit, because a dimension key composed of several attributes is formatted differently in two different fact tables, but I need to conform it to cross-reference between the two and it’s a mess to untangle, you’d probably agree on the “mess” part, but might not understand a whole lot of the rest unless you’re familiar with the field. I’d intuitively assume that “conform it” would need some explanation, because that’s a slighly more complex term than the rest, but experience has taught me that most people would have trouble following at “data model” already.