Meta beliefs about jargon: There are some benefits to using a new word free of existing connotations, but costs often exceed the benefits. In the first stage only a few insiders know what it means. In the second stage you can use it with most of the community, but you need to translate it for casual members and a general audience. In the third stage the meaning becomes diluted as the community starts using it for everything, so you’re basically back where you started.
In addition to the tendency for jargon to be diluted in general, jargon that’s shorthand for “I see pattern X and that has very important implications” will be very powerful, so it’s almost certain to be misused unless there are real costs (i.e. social punishments) for doing so. A better method may be to use existing phrases that are more linguistically stable.
Some draft proposals:
Carl is engaging in motivated cognition → Carl has a conflict of interest/Carl is deceiving himself/Carl is quite attached to this belief (depending on which one is applicable)
Carl is wrong about something and it’s influencing others → Carl is a bad influence
Everyone in the community is saying X → Our community has a systemic bias regarding idea X
Alice is “blatantly” wrong about X → Alice has substantial disagreements with us about X
Most of these proposals sound quite confrontational, but that’s inherent to what’s being communicated. You can’t use jargon for “Alice is saying dangerous things” within earshot of Alice and avoid social repercussions if the meaning is common knowledge.
At the time I wrote the OP I wasn’t so much advocating for a new word, as drawing attention to the fact that there’s a particular important concept that English doesn’t really have. I had “maybe we should actually have a new word” as a hypothesis to consider, but after a day of reflection and this comment I basically agree “yes, a new word would probably just get misused and defeat the whole purpose.”
Meta beliefs about jargon: There are some benefits to using a new word free of existing connotations, but costs often exceed the benefits. In the first stage only a few insiders know what it means. In the second stage you can use it with most of the community, but you need to translate it for casual members and a general audience. In the third stage the meaning becomes diluted as the community starts using it for everything, so you’re basically back where you started.
In addition to the tendency for jargon to be diluted in general, jargon that’s shorthand for “I see pattern X and that has very important implications” will be very powerful, so it’s almost certain to be misused unless there are real costs (i.e. social punishments) for doing so. A better method may be to use existing phrases that are more linguistically stable.
Some draft proposals:
Carl is engaging in motivated cognition → Carl has a conflict of interest/Carl is deceiving himself/Carl is quite attached to this belief (depending on which one is applicable)
Carl is wrong about something and it’s influencing others → Carl is a bad influence
Everyone in the community is saying X → Our community has a systemic bias regarding idea X
Alice is “blatantly” wrong about X → Alice has substantial disagreements with us about X
Most of these proposals sound quite confrontational, but that’s inherent to what’s being communicated. You can’t use jargon for “Alice is saying dangerous things” within earshot of Alice and avoid social repercussions if the meaning is common knowledge.
All good points.
At the time I wrote the OP I wasn’t so much advocating for a new word, as drawing attention to the fact that there’s a particular important concept that English doesn’t really have. I had “maybe we should actually have a new word” as a hypothesis to consider, but after a day of reflection and this comment I basically agree “yes, a new word would probably just get misused and defeat the whole purpose.”
I’ve edited the OP to make that more clear.