It's fascinating how something as simple as communication can get so complicated, right? I couldn't agree more about the importance of collaboration and understanding the dynamics between sender and receiver. In my line of work, I'm in hrdf training, effective communication is absolutely crucial. I've seen firsthand how misunderstandings can lead to all sorts of issues. Your point about the sender having more control over the variables is spot on. It's like a delicate dance where both parties need to find that perfect rhythm. And experimenting until both are happy? That's golden advice. It's all about finding that sweet spot where the message gets across without any misinterpretations.

I totally agree that things can get dicey around step 4, especially when emotions come into play. It's a delicate dance between sender and receiver, and maintaining patience and resilience is key. Your advice about experimenting until both parties are happy is golden. It's all about finding that sweet spot where everyone's on the same page.

I understand why people do give up ( it is Human nature) but we are really more in charge of the variables than we would admit especially if we agree to collaborate. My analysis may or may not help.

BASIC COMMUNICATION ESSENTIALS for GOOD COMMUNICATION. Mainly verbal.

An example of (my own) analysis. This is composed by recalling a lecture (and course) on STRESS MANAGEMENT some 20 years ago without recourse to notes.

1. There has to be a purpose behind the desire to communicate. It could involve guessing, surmising and estimation, but most humans would find it difficult to live together without communication.
2. A signal of some sort needs to sent out into the space between sender and receiver. It could be smoke, light, paper and printing, sound or elecro-magnetic and liquid /spring waves of any type as long as there is a sensor/translator at each end
3. It must be strong enough to reach the receiver and have no absorption or reflection in between.
4. Once at the receiver it must be absorbed by the sensor AND IMPORTANTLY make a change in the receiving apparatus.
5. Once absorbed the receiver must in some sense and maybe by a different transmission method send a message from receiver to sender that a change has taken place in the receiver.
6. The sender must be able to absorb and interpret the signal from the Receiver.
7. Repeat the processes 2 to 6 until the receiver interprets the intended
8. Repeated testing of the retention by the receiver is necessary if effectiveness of the communication is worth saving for the future
   9 Retention heavily depends on the style of presentation of the sender e.g. Pleasant versus threatening.

Things really start to go wrong badly at No 4, usually when a poor response dismays the sender who may or may not revert to more drastic means in e.g. LOUDNESS, novelty, exaggeration, repetition, insult, praise, flattery, Coercion, lying, bribing {cf politicians}, lose patience.
The responsibility is initially at any rate a joint one between sender and receiver. It then becomes a battle to see who is stronger more resilient or patient. However the sender probably has more control over the variables of sending listed above. Then the receiver can change variables in their own way and alter the course of any agreement necessary.
The best advice for preventing a ding-dong between sender and receiver is to experiment until both are happy.

I'm sure that the way people communicate is important....what is really important to me is finding people that want to communicate, and not so much just want to have their say, thats important also, just not in the realm of communicating where the interest is in the exchange of ideas, with the intent of getting to know each other.

wrt meaningful communication, I contend that misunderstanding is typically incredibly easy, and (real) understanding is typically incredibly hard.

Perfect example: drump and anybody who actually knows anything!

Communication with those who are not open and curious is mostly a waste of time.

As someone once said “The meaning of communication is the response you get!”

Communication implies a two (or more) way exchange of information involving comprehension on all sides as a given.
Sending out ideas (or indeed nonsense) in to the world that is incomprehensible is not communication in any sense of it is at best blustering and at worse simply a cacophony.
Those incapable of comprehending should make that fact known so as not to waste their time and that of their interlocutor when a more appropriate more simple form of the same communication maybe be forthcoming.

The problem with putting it that way is it seems to imply that a failure in communication is the other person's failure to find the same value in your observations that you do. While they may not comprehend your words, have you comprehended theirs?

Each person is a world unto themselves and good communication is that which does not fail to translate between those worlds.

Right, telling and saying doesn't always equal effective communication.

That involves feedback, observation and understanding the audience.

Communication implies comprehension, but it is easy enough to think the other person understands you when they don't. I've found this a frequent problem when talking to other so called english speaking peoples, eg americans and poms. They or I might understand the words, but the other pragmatics of speech such as emphasis and pronunciation can cause confusion. Eg you think they are asking a question when they may be making a statement. Written language is much less confusing.