On this page
Amira shows Tomasz a chart and points to one specific spike.
— Tomasz, what exactly is causing this jump here?
— Okay. Let’s start with what this metric actually measures…
After a moment, Amira interrupts:
— I know how the metric works. I’m only asking about the assumption at this one point.
Tomasz is trying not to leave anything out. Amira hears that someone has just assumed she does not know the basics of her own work.
How does Empatyzer help choose the right level of explanation?
Empatyzer helps you see that a full explanation can help or hide the answer in details. It also helps see how to match the context to the interlocutor's knowledge.
Features that can help:
- Comparison: Shows where you differ in areas such as detail, information overload, and audience knowledge, which helps you understand why "You don't have to start from scratch" may mean differently to you.
- Tips: Offer guidance on how to talk to this particular person in a "You don't have to start from scratch" situation to maintain the meaning of the message and reduce the risk of unnecessary defense or misunderstanding.
- Talk to Em about a specific person: Allows you to describe to Em the situation "You don't have to start from scratch", take into account the profile of both parties and prepare a specific version of the conversation or message before reaching out.
What really happened
Tomasz wants to be precise and avoid giving Amira an answer she cannot follow because some piece of context is missing. So he starts from first principles. But Amira is asking about one specific gap and already understands everything around it. For her, the full explanation is not extra help. It carries an additional message: “Tomasz assumes I don’t know the basics.” That is why detail can feel patronizing even when the speaker has no intention of talking down to anyone. The problem is not the length of the explanation by itself; it is a poor estimate of the listener’s starting point.
What the research says
Communication works better when speakers accurately judge what the other person already knows and what they still need. People make errors in both directions. Sometimes they assume too much shared knowledge because it is difficult to set aside what they themselves know — the curse of knowledge (Birch et al., 2017). At other times, they explain material the recipient already understands, which can feel like a challenge to that person’s competence. Research on unwanted and patronizing explanations at work, including studies of mansplaining, shows how negatively people can react when explanations are unsolicited, cover material they already know, and are delivered in a way that implies lower competence (Smith et al., 2023). The mechanism in this scene is not about gender itself. The core issue is an inaccurate assumption about the other person’s knowledge.
How to handle it
Calibrate the starting point with one question: “Do you want the full chain or just this part?”, “Where exactly are you stuck?”, or “Can I start from the assumptions, or do you already have those?” The listener can help too: “I’ve got the basics — just show me where this step comes from.” The general rule is: a good explanation does not start with everything you are capable of explaining; it starts with what the other person actually needs in order to take the next step.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can help Tomasz and Amira see that there is no single correct length for a “thorough explanation.” Tomasz’s profile may favor building from first principles and checking every assumption, while Amira may want only the specific missing piece and hear a return to basics as “I assume you don’t know this.” Before the conversation, Em can suggest one calibrating question: “Do you want the full chain, or just step four?” Tomasz keeps his precision while Amira gets control over the level of detail. In cognitively diverse teams, that tiny habit saves both time and relationships. Micro-lessons reinforce that respecting another person’s knowledge does not mean always explaining less; it means checking where the explanation genuinely needs to begin.
Sources
- Susan A. J. Birch; Patricia E. Brosseau-Liard; Taeh Haddock; Siba E. Ghrear (2017). A ‘curse of knowledge’ in the absence of knowledge?. Cognition, 166, 447-458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.04.015 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.04.015
- Chelsie J. Smith; Linda Schweitzer; Katarina Lauch; Ashlyn Bird (2024). ‘Well, actually’: investigating mansplaining in the modern workplace. Journal of Management & Organization, 30(6), 1790-1808. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.81 10.1017/jmo.2022.81
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.