In fact, that is exactly what I meant to express here. As engineers, when we select a switch, the switch’s name comes from the supplier’s product manual. As mentioned before, switch developers usually name the switch after its physical structure/mode of operation; at the same time, at least in Chinese, switches are also named for their spatial characteristics(shape). But when the device gets into the hands of the operator—say, a pilot—they will rename the switch according to their own context. Take the engine fuel switch as an example: from an engineer’s perspective it means simply on or off—that is its design intent—but from a pilot’s perspective it is a remote-control device, and because that remote control is implemented via electrical signals, our pilots prefer to call it an “electric gate”(sorry for not exact translation from Chinese) rather than a “switch.”
As a result, engineers and pilots develop different contexts for the same device depending on their purposes for using the switch. This is what I mean by a divergence of mindsets: engineers choose, design, and operate according to their own mindset, while pilots use their own understanding. I have a dedicated research project on this topic: cockpits slang and its cultural impact on cockpit engineering development. I don’t know whether my European and American colleagues have done similar research; to me, this is a subtle and fascinating subject, and whenever an incident occurs I tend to think about this connection to some extent.