100% this. Code runs on people but people differ dramatically. A more compact solution that leans on some more advanced language features might be totally acceptable in a team of people fluent with the language. The same problem in a team of generalists working across different tech stacks day-to-day might benefit from a more verbose solution.
As with most things in software it depends on context.
If you have a rich vocabulary and so does your audience, you can explain an idea succinctly. Imagine a chain of function compositions in one line, very declarative. You grasp it near immediately or else its very difficult.
If you don't, you use simpler words and need more of them. Imagine a few nested for loops in something like Go that you need to execute in your head to realize what's going on, but anyone can figure it out given a little time.
People frequently talk past each other on this topic. It can be very frustrating.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, you could put Scala. There are already a few ways to use Scala as a language: Java with better types, OO all the way, functional all the way. And then there are ecosystems. Zio, cats, Akka. All of that means that for two people writing Scala code, the shared mental model is going to be small unless they use it the exact same way.
You can infer some things from that. Languages with big standard libraries that are somewhat good will allow people to share a bigger part of their mental model compared to languages with bad standard libraries (people will create replacements) or languages with very small standard libraries. Languages with a lot of features that are actually used will have a low amount of shared mental models, but also languages with not many features as people will reimplement things themselves.