If these really are synonyms, then doesn't signaling win by having fewer syllables?
Whoops, I was unclear. When I said it seems like "it's usually used to mean exactly the same thing", I meant that some people on Less Wrong use it that way, not that that's the correct usage.
Using it as a synonym of emotion would indeed be wrong, but I haven't noticed people using it that way. Got a concrete example?
I suppose the only example that comes to mind is the term "affective death spiral", which doesn't seem (to me) to have anything in particular to do with affect rather than emotion. I'm tempted to declare "affect heuristic" an abuse of the term as well, except that "affect heuristic" is a term that's actually used by experts.
I also disagree with the definition you gave, though; it fails to capture what I see as the defining quality of affect that distinguishes it from emotions in general, which is that it has only one axis which runs from good to bad.
Is that your best guess based on seeing the term used many times, or do you have some other type of evidence? That "defining quality" doesn't seem to agree with what Wikipedia says at all.
I suppose the only example that comes to mind is the term "affective death spiral", which doesn't seem (to me) to have anything in particular to do with affect rather than emotion
I think the name is derived from the affect heuristic.
Every so often, someone on Less Wrong uses a word wrong.
What does it mean to use a word wrong? Can't we use language however we want, as long as we manage to successfully communicate? Well, yes, we can, but we shouldn't. Jargon terms, in particular, are used by professionals in a certain field in order to communicate concepts that are applicable chiefly in that field. They often have very precise definitions—"incunable", for example, means "book printed in Europe before the year 1501", and "sweet crude oil" means "petroleum with a sulfur content less than 0.42%".
The thing about precisely-defined terms like these is that if you use one of them in a way that's at odds with its official definition, you can cause people to have more misunderstandings later on. I admit I can't think of a great example, but "obsessive–compulsive disorder" seems like a decent one: people often say "I'm so OCD" to mean that messy things annoy them, which seems like it could lead people to misunderstand when people actually have obsessive–compulsive disorder.
There are just two words I don't really like LW's usage of: