> Someone, otherwise perfectly competent, placed under pressure, suddenly performs at a level commensurate with a junior.
I find it weird to use corporate jargon, words such as "junior" to refer to someone's performance during an incident. I feel like it would mostly be used to demean someone, not to illustrate that they've made an inexperienced decision.
Author here. I did this intentionally as I figured it would be the easiest way to communicate the idea to the broadest audience. 'Junior' is used in the sense of "lack of experience" here, not as a term of condescension.
> Someone, otherwise perfectly competent, placed under pressure, suddenly performs at a level commensurate with a junior.
I find it weird to use corporate jargon, words such as "junior" to refer to someone's performance during an incident. I feel like it would mostly be used to demean someone, not to illustrate that they've made an inexperienced decision.
Author here. I did this intentionally as I figured it would be the easiest way to communicate the idea to the broadest audience. 'Junior' is used in the sense of "lack of experience" here, not as a term of condescension.
I see. Maybe we're used to seeing it in different contexts, for me it's a very corporate-loaded word, hence what I described.
OP here. Thanks for sharing!