On a model of the inherent flaws of communication and the critical point at which it breaks down

Good communication is the art of least misunderstandings. Communication basically means a transfer from one World of Ideas to another.
I will in this post try to construct a small model of that transfer, and the flaws and potentially hazardous misunderstandings that it can cause along the way.

To make this argument we will assume that we have access to the contents of our mind. After having described the model we will clearly see how a message inevitably is distorted.
This in turn leads to more elaborate misunderstandings in the making of a point or in the more sophisticated attempts of reasoning. Or simply trying to understand each other.

Just for the sake of housekeeping on this blog I will here say some words about the communication between me and Mr. Reed. I consider the communication channels that operate between us to be perhaps the most well-tuned ones.
One might even say that we are somewhat close to understanding one another. And this after missing an appointment clearly 'understood' by both parties - by a month.
This model will sadly show that this notion of understanding is just a silly illusion.

Figure 1. Model of idea "transformation"/transfer

As seen in figure 1, the transfer process consists of several independent steps.
We begin over at the sender's World of Ideas. The message that he/she intends to send may not even be clear to him-/herself. In most cases it has some degree of fuzziness.
Now, that which to some degree prevents the sender to fully access the abstract thought is an unconscious filter.

To here convert the retrieved abstract idea into the sendable stuff we need to put it into a communicable medium. This is where language comes into the picture. Nonverbal 'language' does the trick in many cases, but when we reach a certain point it won't hold. Formulation is the largest bottleneck of this whole process.

This is where the 'tunable' part of communication begins. If care is taken to eliminate known sources of distortion, one can efficiently sharpen the edge of the message.
Then comes the actual transfer. Generally through soundwaves. The written medium (like this one), can also prove to be useful for these purposes. Part of the message might be lost during transfer.

When it then eventually reaches the recipient it is to be interpreted.
This is where the other mind comes into play. Preferences, hopes, wishes and fears will here play role in the subjective act of interpreting the recieved message.
Before this processed message is to be transferred to the other World of Ideas it passes yet another filter. Converting the information into the abstract stuff that this world is made of will cause some loss.

There we have it. If it was fuzzy at the beginning, it is even fuzzier now.

One thing that may lead to considerable misunderstandings is false (or destructive) feedback. That is, one thinks that one is getting through to the other person, when in fact one is consistently misinterpreted.
The other person thinks sense is made, thus sending positive feedback to the sender, aggravating and reinforcing the result.

Another aspect that might come into play is the conscious misunderstanding of the other person. In many cases we don't take the people we know seriously, because we know that they are just like us.
Fallible human beings, that is. So if you, a stranger read this blog, I might be able to make sense. Otherwise the silliness of everything will become abundantly clear.

The conclusions that I feel inclined to draw are these:

1. Verbal communication is unreliable, but necessary to civilisation.
2. One is able to 'tune in' to the other person's style of communication, thus to some degree streamline the process.
3. The transformation between Worlds of Ideas are is not bijective.
4. Communication breakdown happens when one thinks that one understands what the other person is meaning.