This is a very good observation. I think certainly the most useful application of the "map and territory" metaphor in my everyday life is that I am now able to make someone's implicit motivations (disguised in semantic disagreements) explicit and obvious to everyone involved.

I find that often when I have a discussion with someone who isn't familiar with A Human's Guide to Words or Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action, the conversation often ends prematurely because I can't seem to tactfully point out when someone is arguing over semantics or confusing the map for the territory. How do you guys approach a discussion where your partner seems to be making these types of errors?