How to Use Conversation Levels to Communicate with Impact

Imagine that one day you become passionate about Thai cuisine. At first you didn't know much about it, but as you become more interested, you start to understand it better: you learn the names of ingredients, recipes, and cooking techniques. After months, and then years, you become an expert chef in Thai food.

You invested months, or even years, of your life. For you, that process was a gradual progression: you went little by little from knowing nothing to becoming an expert on the subject. From your perspective, everything happened gradually.

Now, following the same story, imagine that one day you have to teach someone about Thai food. If you're not careful, you could fall into what we call the expert's blind spot.

Understanding of that phenomenon, also called The Curse of Knowledge, was popularized by economists Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Martin Weber in a 1989 Article in the Journal of Political Economy.

What that means is that as we become more expert in a subject, we forget what that same subject feels and looks like when you don't have that level of experience. And this can be a serious impediment when it comes time to teach, because it makes it difficult for us to empathize with the people we are trying to communicate with or to whom we want to convey information.

Being aware that all of us, regardless of the subject in which we gain mastery, are exposed to experiencing this curse of knowledge is the first step toward achieving clearer communication, even if we are much more expert than the people we are talking to.

To achieve this, it is key to learn to move between different levels of conversation.

Conversation Levels

Recently, American conservative journalist Michael Knowles was invited by a Catholic YouTube channel to do an exercise: explain a technical concept, that of Latin mass. The interesting thing about the experiment is that he was asked to explain it to five different groups of people. That is, the same topic, but at different levels of conversation. And without getting into controversies, or regardless of your point of view on it, it is valuable to see how a professional communicator tries to explain the same concept to different audiences:

Language and Clarity: What Science Says

In 2025, an article called How Non-Experts Evaluate Scientific Explanations Containing Technical Jargon was published in Nature Human Behaviour, which is Nature's Behavioral Science publication about a study conducted by psychologist Francisco Cruz from Princeton University's Department of Psychology.

In this study, 9 controlled experiments were conducted with a sample of 6,698 people who were not experts in scientific topics.

The logic of the study was to expose these people to 3 types of explanations of scientific topics in various formats, controlling the variable of the level of scientific jargon used in each explanation. The study is fascinating.

These were the most important findings:

The use of technical jargon lowers comprehension levels in all 3 types of explanation

In these experiments, people were given scientific explanations with and without technical words. The result was consistent: when the text had jargon, people felt they understood less, regardless of whether the explanation was poor, fair, or good. This decrease is large and statistically significant (negative effects around −0.5 to −0.6 points on a 1 to 7 scale, with p < 0.001). In other words: jargon makes the explanation seem harder to follow.

The use of technical jargon increases satisfaction levels only in circular explanations

The authors compare three types of explanations: very poor ones (circular), medium ones (minimal), and good ones (complete). Jargon only increases the feeling of "what a good explanation" when the explanation is actually circular, that is, weak. In those cases the increase is clear (≈ +0.8 points, p < 0.001). But when the explanation already brings real mechanism (minimal or complete), jargon doesn't help and sometimes even worsens the evaluation.

This is because people feel that gaps are filled

When an explanation is poor, the reader notices that "pieces are missing" to understand well. But if that same explanation brings jargon, many assume that those technical words fill in what's missing, even though they don't know what they mean. That feeling of fewer gaps explains a good part of the effect: in circular explanations, the "sense of gaps" mediates the increase in satisfaction (indirect effect ≈ 0.48).

The results are the same with real or made-up jargon

To confirm that it's not because people actually understand the real terms, one of the studies used fake technical words (made up). Still, the pattern repeats: made-up jargon makes a poor explanation seem more satisfactory because it gives the impression of completing the story. The effect mediated by "perceived gaps" continues to appear (≈ 0.32). In short: you don't have to understand jargon for it to seduce you.

Putting It Into Practice

Keep the "expert's blind spot" in mind

When you master a topic, your head no longer remembers what it feels like not to know it. That is the expert's blind spot: believing that what is obvious to you is also obvious to everyone else. Before explaining something, do a mini mental reset: assume that your audience doesn't bring your context, your vocabulary, or your years of experience. That simple awareness forces you to slow down, organize ideas, and choose better where to start.

Place your conversation at the most appropriate level for your audience

It's not the same to talk to someone who is just getting into the subject as it is to talk to someone who lives there. That's why, before you start, define the "conversation level": how much do they know? What do they need to decide? What matters to them today? If the level is set right, your message falls on fertile ground: you don't bore someone who already knows or confuse someone who is just getting started. It's like adjusting the height of the rim before shooting: it increases the probability of scoring.

Reduce the level of jargon

Jargon is useful only when it's necessary. If you use it too much, people understand less and get lost; if you use it well, it gives you precision without breaking clarity. Practical rule: each technical term has to earn its place. If it's not key to the mechanism, replace it with an everyday word; and if it is key, translate it into a simple sentence or quick example. Less jargon, more connection, and the idea travels complete.

Let's Get to Work

A good exercise is to select a random audience and think about how you would adapt your message if you had to present in front of this audience: