Well I would have thought communication and socialisation is one of the most essential things in life at least if I judge from myself. Maybe a misunderstanding?
Let me explain my position in a bit more detail. We send and receive signals to and from others. But, I am convinced that what is sent cannot ever be precisely what is received. The frames of reference and internal neural connections of each of us is unique so each interpretation of a message has nuances of greater or lesser degrees of difference from that of the message that was sent. For simple messages the disparity doesn't create practical problems. For more complex messages, such as embodied in artistic products as well as those for messages for which the frames of reference are strongly colored by emotional and instinctual components, the chances of isometric conformance are nil - this is true even when there is "agreement" between the sender and receiver
. Like the song goes, we just hope that we are "close enough for love". So the assumption that there is a unanimity between two people is a delusion, which is revealed when the ground conditions undergo alteration (think: divorce, contract lawsuit, an artwork being unmasked as a "fake", etc.) Too often, I believe a "desire for communication" masks an urge to impose ones own frame of reference on another, however it may be dressed in altruistic garb. Given what I have outlined as the ultimate essential failure of communication, I do agree that our mucking around in this territory is one of the most important things we attempt and that we should, of course, continue. We also hope not to have to confront traumatic events that reveal the underlying disconnect.