The Definition Gap (Interactive Explainer)
When a Word Becomes a Weapon Nobody Can Explain
Turn your sound on. Click PLAY. Works on any device.
In March 2026, deposition transcripts from ACLS v. McDonald went public. A man named Justin Fox (a former Tesla project manager working under DOGE) sat under oath and was asked to define “DEI.”
He couldn’t do it.
He had flagged over 1,100 NEH grants for termination using that word. A Holocaust documentary got flagged. A film about a Reconstruction-era massacre got flagged.
Over $100 million in research funding — gone — based on a term the decision-maker could not explain when the attorney asked him what it meant.
I have spent six years watching the same collapse happen in my own conversations.
On Facebook. In group chats. At kitchen tables. Someone says “DEI” or “CRT” or “systemic racism.” Everyone in the room is certain they know what it means. Almost nobody can walk you through the mechanism — step by step — of how it actually works.
The science has a name for this.
Rozenblit and Keil called it the Illusion of Explanatory Depth.
A USC Dornsife survey found 96% of Americans cannot accurately explain Critical Race Theory. Over 70% have strong opinions about it anyway.
That distance, between the feeling of understanding and actual understanding, is the definition gap.
What you’ll hear
The Deposition. Fox’s ChatGPT prompt. No definition provided to the AI. No criteria. No guardrails. A hundred million dollars in grants sorted by a word nobody pinned.
The Pattern. The same failure happening at kitchen tables. A fellow Marine argued for two years that DEI puts identity ahead of performance — then proposed exactly what a DEI program does (targeted outreach to broaden a talent pool) without recognizing it. The same person. The same conversation.
The Science. The Illusion of Explanatory Depth. People overestimate how well they understand complex systems — until you ask them to explain the mechanism step by step. Then confidence drops. Fast.
The Numbers. 96% can’t explain it. 70%+ have strong opinions anyway. That gap has a cost.
Three Repair Moves. Pin the term (”What do you mean?”). Ask for mechanism (”Walk me through how that works — step by step.”). Log the definition (”Write it down — the next conversation starts from zero unless someone saves the map.”).
Why I built it this way
This is the first time I’ve turned a What Time Binds piece into an animated explainer. I built the animated slides from scratch and deployed the whole thing as an interactive web experience with narration.
The content drove the format.
The essay I’m writing on this topic runs over 5,000 words. The explainer is a 3-minute entry point for people who want the argument, the data, and the repair moves without the full read.
The full essay — with the Facebook conversation analysis, the Cavanaugh deposition, the McDonald suppression pattern, and the complete MRCI framework — is coming soon.
The connection to the course
The three repair moves in this explainer come directly from Module 1 of Meaning Repair for High-Stakes Teams. The Meaning Risk Snapshot — the diagnostic tool that measures where your team is most vulnerable to this kind of drift — is the first deliverable in the course.
If the explainer lands, the course gives you the full operating system.
Module 1 is free. Always. Start here.
Share the explainer link — the-definition-gap.netlify.app — with anyone who needs to hear: “What do you mean?”
What stood out to me is this—most conflict isn’t about disagreement, it’s about definition.
If we don’t pin the term, we’re not actually having the same conversation. We’re reacting to our own version of the word, not a shared understanding.
The three-step approach makes sense: define it, walk it out, and document it.
But where it breaks down, in my opinion, is emotion.
I’ve seen it—and I’ve done it myself. Sometimes unconsciously. The difference now is awareness. When I feel that shift, I have to pause and ask: am I trying to understand, or am I trying to defend?
Because once identity attaches to an idea, it stops being a learning conversation and becomes a defense.
The irony is, this isn’t about right or wrong—it’s about alignment.
When you slow down and explain something step by step, you either strengthen your position or refine it. Both are wins.
Appreciate you putting structure to something most people feel but can’t articulate.
I find it interesting how this shows up in different cultures. I feel some are more inclined to stay quiet, others are inclined to have an opinion (even if they don't understand it), and a minority seem to actually ask questions to understand better.