I think there’s different levels of jargon. Some deserve to stay and everyone should know about them, even non-technical people, but many are only useful for technical people in a field and are okay for that purpose, but feel like “inside baseball”. The problem is not a lack of technical terms or that they’re used, there’s a real necessity for them by technical people, the issue is not putting enough work to find less technical or simpler definitions for non technical people. Monoid is certainly universal enough that people should just learn what they are. But its typical definition could still be improved somewhat for non-technical people. Monad probably is in the same category. I get there’s always a tradeoff with being absolutely precise vs more understandable, again the issue is not enough effort is put into finding simpler more clearer description, people are just said to learn all the technical jargon and definitions. I don’t know why we’re so allergic to thinking of additional simpler or more understandable alternative definitions for non-technical people. At the end of the day although unwillingly jargon also acts as a gatekeeper making a subject seem more confusing or difficult than it has to be. We tend to converge on technical definitions over time, but not as well on non-technical ones. The only reason I can think of is that it doesn’t seem worth the time and effort, since technical people are the ones who need definitions the most and technical ones are probably the best, and non-technical people care less and have less need for knowing the subject at all, so why bother? Just cram anyone who wants to become an expert or learn through the technical definitions. But I doubt the current status quo is the best we can do.