Based on dunning-kurger, you would expect everyone who is less knowledgable than you to actually think that they are more knowledgeable, so you could say that t

Based on dunning-kurger, you would expect everyone who is less knowledgable than you to actually think that they are more knowledgeable, so you could say that they are acting with somewhat honest intentions in their attempt to correct you. But then this also acts in the opposite direction as well, in that you might think you are more knowledgeable because you are, but you might also think it because you aren't. So, how do you know if you are "right" to be insulted? You probably would need multiple orders of magnitude difference to be sure, but that's very rarely the case. That is to say, it's probably best to be charitable with my interpretations of others. I feel often the issue ends up that I am more knowledgeable than the other, but only slightly more, so my instinct says that they are off. However, I can't express it well enough, because I can't absolutely describe all the circumstances in which their advice is correct, and all the circumstances in which their advice is not, and then prove why it's not applicable in this specific case. If I could do so, I'd explain it fully, there would be no complaint from the other, and it'd be a great teaching moment. So then maybe such situations where someone is trying to correct me, but I can't give an absolute response back indicates a gap in my self-held expertise. And either way, experts can learn insights from those who are noobs (though often not in the way that the noob intended).