1 + 1 = 2. 2 * 3 = 6. The Sun rises in the East. Water Molecules are made up of Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms. Science and Math consist mainly of definitive, precise, objective assertions, validated by logic and experimentation. 1 + 1 cannot, in someone's perspective, become 3. And Water Molecules cannot have Helium Atoms in another part of the Universe.
As an engineer, my Universe too, was therefore precise, well-defined and logical, with quantified, measurable truths. Yes or No were the acceptable answers to any question. Just as computing today doesn't require nuanced understanding of digital signals - the signal exists or it doesn't - the world didn't require nuanced understanding and analysis of emotions, body-language, non-verbal signals, positioning, subtle cues and localized mores.
Reality has come a long way since then. I currently am fascinated by the blacks and whites, by the 0s and 1s, by the Yesses and Nos of days-bygone, and I long for their simplicity and logic. While Yes and No simply mark two ends of a broad spectrum of pretty much everything, human language has evolved over the centuries to refer to the infinite possibilities in between.
I imagine that if we were a logical species, two gestures, noises or standard signals would suffice to cover the entire gamut of human communication. Perhaps a high-pitched grunt for a 1 and a low pitched grunt for a 0. We have, however, decided that definitions are limitations. Therefore, we shan't define as long as it isn't absolutely necessary. Ambiguity is the soul of freedom.
The ridiculous world we conjure for ourselves in the process has so many interpretations, it ceases to amuse us. In mathematical parlance, our nuanced freedom-of-opinion entitles us to opinions that aren't simply 0 and 1, but 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 ... 0.9, 1.0. Soon, that won't suffice as there would be sufficient differentiation created between the 0.2s and 0.3s, that it would require the creation of 0.23s, 0.25s and 0.27s.
But it doesn't stop there. So far, it has been easy. Our pursuit of individuality and freedom soon results in the statement: "What does the spectrum even mean?" The spectrum is, after all, just a super-set of all possible responses to a question that is posed to humanity as a whole. But there is one problem: the spectrum can only be defined when the question posed is understood as the same by all in question. If the question can be interpreted differently by N different beings, this would result in N potentially different spectra as potential responses to the question.
And therefore, the ineffectiveness of communication. If we cannot establish a premise, how can we begin a dialogue. Your understanding of God, Religion, Science, Law, Discipline, Freedom, War, Honour, Pride, Wealth and Love are all different from mine. It's astounding that we manage to talk the amount we do.
Or maybe, we're just hedonistic creations dissipating energy by exercising our jaws to produce sounds to no particular effect.
