In the essay dedicated to the discussion of reality, it was put forth that reality is a combination of two concepts (the later dependent on the first): Facts and Models. Models use symbols/words derived from reality in some simple or complex way (which would be a discussion for another essay). These models are used to describe reality in turn. This as you can see is a feedback loop. A separate assay of this connection will made in a later article.
For now consider the following situation.
You posses a set of symbols derived from reality; meaning that each of them is associated to some facet of reality (however complex). That facet could be an object, a phenomenon, an expectation or a consequence that has not yet occurred (prediction) etc. You NOW encounter another facet of reality, that you have notdescribed previously (so its allowed to have been encountered earlier). How do you describe it? If this phenomenon is really just a part of your sentence space from your pre-existing model, then its sufficient description can be made with reasonable accuracy (within some acceptable limits of error). This means that it is made up (is a combination of) of facets that you have already described accurately earlier. But if the facet contains some hidden part/s which has not been previously incorporated into your lexicon (set of symbols) and you still insist upon using the same old lexicon, you' are going to end up misrepresenting it.
This is what it actually means:
You encounter a facet called: A
You describe it with a sentence with the exact meaning of A' because you lack the exact symbols to describe A.
Since A != A' , your mind essentially 'lies' to you strengthening the association between A and A' .
Now, unless the sentence is corrected for with new additions into the lexicon, all description of A as well as predictions incorporating A in some form are flawed. They are probably a good approximation of A. BUT. If the system is chaotic enough, they are flawed beyond any acceptable limit of error, as you build more and more complex ideas built on A' .
Now, apply this to Colloquial language.
When you encounter an emotion or event that you or nobody else described correctly, you automatically inherit all the errors of the description people made earlier when you use the ancient symbols (words) used to describe it. Any analysis you make of the subject in hand is now useless and fantastical from sane point of view, if you describe some complex idea.
This is already happening even as we communicate. I leave it up to you realize which ideas are flawed in this manner.
So. The important but banal part.
What is the solution?
The solution as usual is the hardest one: Vigilance and self-examination of everything ab initio. Only this can garner you the honest confidence of being Consistent with a more Real model.