(DISCLAIMER: The following is based on my own experiences and may not agree with your own. These are just things I've personally observed to be true. And of course these are just tendencies rather than absolutes.)

Do you often see biologists without CS backgrounds making those kinds of mistakes about CS topics that people with CS backgrounds make about biology topics?

I also have a background in CS and biology, with some math and physics, too. I've also observed the tendency of people mainly trained in formal sciences (e.g., CS, math, logic) who's schooling involves a large amount of deriving things from first principles, to make this mistake (this is also true of more mathematically inclined physics majors and certain flavors of economics majors). They often think that what they know is enough to derive a novel insight from first principles, when the further you get from physics, the less true that becomes as the nonlinearity and sheer complexity of the world starts to interfere.

Different areas provide different ways of thinking with different strengths and weaknesses. They aren't mutually exclusive in the sense that learning one makes it harder to learn the other, but they require a non-trivial depth of study to pick up so most people tend to get mentally siloed unless they either study one of those other fields or somehow pick it up through a more non-traditional route (which absolutely happens, but is less reliable).

If you want an example of the type of things biologists tend to be weak at, I'd say quantitative thinking (at least relative to other sciences). Biologists tend to be the most math-phobic of the natural sciences, so most have a mental ugh field around most math. You'd be shocked how many grad students can't do some fairly basic stuff. Many undergraduate programs barely require calculus, though that's slowly changing, and you'll often get some exposure to some elementary probability and combinatorics in your introductory genetics class. And it's shocking how many people with whom I studied evolution and comparative physiology and anatomy didn't come away with some degree of probabilistic intuition.

Other fields I've studied to variously minor degrees that train particular mental habits or develop particular skills and perspectives that I've found valuable are psychology and the study of cognitive biases, cognitive science, computer programming and software engineering, chemistry and biochemistry, literature, economics (both the traditional kind and the more modern behavioral kind), probability, game theory, history, anthropology and a few others.

Fields I suspect train other mental habits/skills/etc. that I lack and haven't yet studied include poetry, martial arts, dance, jazz and/or improv, music theory and music in general, drawing, deeper dives into the topics I've already encountered, and probably a ton more that I'm can't remember.

Really the more wide ranging your curiosity is, the more well-rounded you become. And since most people don't bother leaving their silos (maybe a handful of others at most), you can after many years start to put together all sorts of insights that others find non-obvious (though they will still rarely be novel).

(I think nowadays people might call these "mental models", but learning about mental models directly through a description in a listicle has always seemed less useful than studying the fields themselves and indirectly building the mental model yourself.)