For me, I think naming is not as important as understanding what it is. We all understand Fourier transform, Banach space, Peter-Weyl theorem, Pauli matrix. If we rename just one of them, what would we call?   

As someone who used to work as a translator and is very inquiring about how an idea forms and evolves, I have some chances to observe how a same concept is translated to different terms, and how a same object is renamed several times in different contexts. Perhaps this practice is exotic in academical mathematics, and I admit that I have zero experience in graduate research, but *cognitively* I don't think our brains are that different.  

When does a perfect name come? *When you are in a rush.* When you are in a rush, you don't have time to think about correctness, you just want to make it quick to solve another important, urgent problem. Your brain will cut all unnecessary information about the object, leaving just enough bit so you can jump to conclusion, or in this case, a name. Those unnecessary bits may be essential to for the concept to form at the first place, but unfortunately, don't really relate to the surrounding concepts in the sentence. The surviving bits that constitute the new name are the ones closer to the surroundings. So even when the original name is short and accurate, it will be replaced by a new name that fits the context.¹  

In research, you are expected to be accurate, and you have plenty of time to learn it, but the principle is the same. My advice is to try using the concept to study many more ***other concepts***, and see how your mind reacts with it when you are in a rush. You can also discuss *those other concepts* with your colleagues, and see how they complete this sentence when you are stuck: *"you mean the ______?"*   

Of course in the realm of cognitive science and linguistic, sometimes you have to accept a sticking bad name. But lucky for us, this is also the realm of math, and unlike *jellyfish* or *pineapple*, *non-abelian fermion* or *group without inverses* aren't that imaginative, so they will always invoke an unpleasant feeling when reading it. Hopefully one day we can go around them, and let them rest in peace.  

Here is a challenge, inspiring from the small-world network: try explaining a topic by introducing only 6 intermediate terms. This will force you to twist what you already know about it, so that you can view it in a different perspective. You have to be bold to cut off the details that rock your soul, but by then the big picture will emerge. Only after seeing the big picture that naming can become a piece of cake.  

I have an article for this, you can check it out: [Making concrete analogies and big pictures](http://lyminhnhat.com/2018/07/16/1-making-concrete-analogies-and-big-pictures/?utm_source=Stack%20Exchange&utm_medium=answer&utm_campaign=The%20Sphere).  

<br>  

<sup>¹ This is my own theory, but is inspired from Gentner's [*Structure Mapping Theory* ][1]</sup>  

[1]: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/38bf/b182de181738eb50e142e215c67f4cbb4fe3.pdf