["Signaling"] is standard terminology for a rather important concept and a and it would be hard to discuss most of the interesting subjects on lesswrong without it.
I'll concede that point; I haven't been on Less Wrong much at all in the past year or so, so I wouldn't relaly know.
I don't believe you. If there was a site-wide substitution :s/affect/emotion/ then many usages would either outright stop making sense or at very least mean something different to what they once did. Including whole swathes of the sequences.
You're probably right, but I can't actually think of any examples of this (apart from the phrase "affect heuristic"). I would be interested in learning of one.
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: