Why do you think that making the vocabulary more specialized would not only allow, but enforce more rational thinking? Were that so, it could be already realized with established structures - ugly though they would sound - and tested. However, such arificial messages would have to be translated, lossily, into 'human language' and maybe confuse people even more.
(On a sidenote, I used to want to write a story with aliens whose language required that if 'someone does something to someone/something', than the 'attitude' of the object of action must be stated: 'trigger-happy' would correspond to 'hair-trigger'...'never-going-off'. The aliens strove to maximize harmony, always asking themselves 'what can I do to have the object agree with me?', with serial taboos etc. Then they met StarFleet, and went to war with those pervs from Earth...)
I'm working on a conlang (constructed language) and would like some input from the Less Wrong community. One of the goals is to investigate the old Sapir-Whorf hypothesis regarding language affecting cognition. Does anyone here have any ideas regarding linguistic mechanisms that would encourage more rational thinking, apart from those that are present in the oft-discussed conlangs e-prime, loglan, and its offshoot lojban? Or perhaps mechanisms that are used in one of those conlangs, but might be buried too deeply for a person such as myself, who only has superficial knowledge about them, to have recognized? Any input is welcomed, from other conlangs to crazy ideas.