Possibly. On the other hand, my experience with 'just' is symptomatic not of a knowledge gap, but an _understanding_ gap. A knowledge gap might exist between tw

Possibly. On the other hand, my experience with 'just' is symptomatic not of a knowledge gap, but an _understanding_ gap. A knowledge gap might exist between two peers with similar levels of domain knowledge but slightly differing portfolios, and can thus be resolved quickly via reference to mutually understood reference points. Two astrophysicists might have a knowledge gap between each other. An understanding gap is more like a model gap; the people between which the gaps exist usually have entirely different domains with different useful models. An understanding gap might exist between a salesperson and a developer, or a chemist and a biologist; there might be shared reference points to serve as foundations for bridging the gap, but they're much further up the ontological hierarchy, as it were, and may require entire reconstruction from first principles in the worst cases. This leads to interesting conversation and personal development, for sure, but it's also not a way to quickly resolve what may be a pressing issue. Closing an understanding gap might take a four-year degree, or at the very least, weeks or months of reading and learning. I agree that getting mad about it is not the way to go; but this latter case is where 'just' is most dangerous; to get a bit Rumsfeldian, the unknown unknowns on the part of the 'juster' often run very deep, and would require extensive education to mend.