Considering it normal to understand what is logical

The essence of 'inability to communicate' is that speaking logically makes you even less understood, so when someone who has fallen into a state of incomprehension says it is 'meaningless,' it does not equate to 'incoherent.' It is just like someone who knows decimal notation looking at binary notation and calling it 'meaningless.' There is nothing 'incoherent' about binary notation.

Rather, it is simply a person who does not know binary notation or lacks understanding, which is also a lack of linguistic comprehension.
A lack of linguistic comprehension results in a difference in the scenery one sees. The more one can understand, the more correctly one can see the scenery from a higher vantage point. Binary notation is also scenery for those who understand it.
The scenery for someone who does not know binary notation is from a lower vantage point, and the visible range is narrow. Someone with linguistic comprehension thinks, 'That makes sense,' that it is 'meaningless' from this vantage point. What they deny is the subsequent 'incoherence.' Even if it is 'meaningless,' it is not 'incoherent,' which is why it results in 'inability to communicate.'

For someone with linguistic comprehension, the situation where one is not understood even when using the more logical binary notation is an emergency. This is because if you try to make it easier to understand, you are told it is 'meaningless' or 'incoherent.'

This is the essence. The fact that speaking logically makes you even less understood is the essence of 'inability to communicate.'

Mutsumi Imai's view of 'inability to communicate due to differences in schemas' is one way of looking at it, but what is missing there is the point that 'mutual understanding is still necessary.' While the static reasons and structures are due to 'differences in schemas,' I do not think Mutsumi Imai has elucidated or explained the 'inability to communicate' in its dynamic aspects.
And the dynamic reason is the fact that even if you logically convey 'differences in schemas,' the 'inability to communicate' is not bridged.
Therefore, the essence I have stated this time—'the fact that speaking logically makes you even less understood'—holds up as the dynamic essence of 'inability to communicate.'
Whether or not one thinks it is normal to aim for mutual understanding even becomes an evaluation criterion. The fundamental question of whether both parties have the will to understand existsseparately from 'differences in schemas'.

The 'inability to communicate' cannot be solved by the conclusion of static 'differences in schemas' alone.
I think that unless we focus on the dynamic 'fact that speaking logically makes you even less understood,' we will not be able to move toward solving the 'inability to communicate.'

Therefore, I believe that knowing about this lack of communication can play a role in solving this dynamic 'inability to communicate.'