And please see my comment up a level but still below my original comment. Long to story, the IC, by definition, shouldn't be afraid to use the word meta-cognition; it ultimately exposes its analysts to another area of study that could / would broaden then. The irony being, this is what this book is championing.
If the IC is too good for dog fooding then we're all in big trouble.
Not Thinking About Thinking?
IDK. Given the intended audience, as well as the general process / mindset he's championing I don't ssee how meta-cognition is a tough word. I mean, if you don't know it doesn't that literally force you to reconsider your thinking.
Meta-cognition - given the source, the target audience, the subject matter and the context is hardly a fancy word.
Now, "cognition" is an easy enough word to define to an acceptable approximation (namely by giving the synonym "thinking").
However, "meta" is a concept less frequently encountered (or at least, explicitly described) in everyday life, and would probably require a few examples to convey. Part of the issue is that you are defining the general concept of "X relating to X" in order to describe the specific case of "Thinking relating to thinking".
If your listener already has the concept "meta", then, yes, this is fine, but if they don't then you are like the mathematician attempting to define the most abstract version of a problem to the physicist who only wants to solve a single, specific case.
Yes. Of course there are. But if those people exist within the target market for the material then challenging them to look beyond their own (thinking) bounds is __exactly__ what he's prescribing, yes?
And not challenging / the status quo is exact opposite.
Put another way, if you're in the IC or getting info from the IC and the use of the word / concept meta-cognition scares you then something is very very wrong.
The audience here isn't TMZ viewers. Is it?