Just-language, without any irl stuff, probably doesn’t really achieve communication. Because the words don’t carry their definition. And they definitely don’t carry any real experience-stuff (sight, sound etc) either.
It’s just assumed that you’re connecting the word to the definition/experience, in your head, in a way that makes communication happen.
And that’s a big assumption. It might be only 80% congruent. Or 50%. Or 5%. We could be a race of Chinese boxes for all we know.
IRL there is a verification to the process. If I order a pizza and I get a pizza then that’s a pretty good sign that the communication is working.
But on the Internet, where it’s just-language? Forget it. Howling solipsists all the way down.
All forms of communication have advantages and disadvantages. I’m old enough to still have written actual letters to lovers and friends. There’s something to be said for collecting your thoughts - sometimes for days - and putting them on paper in concentrated form.
All in all I think the dangers of misunderstanding each other are just as big as with any other form.
Unless you had some other type of effectiveness in mind.
The ability to refer directly to a shared experience definitely sets that form of communication above other types. Definitely moves it in the direction opposite solipsistic howling. Wouldn’t you agree?
You asked a question with something specific in mind, but that isn’t actually reflected in the question. Well, in the very last sentence it is.
I answered a different aspect of the question.
Effective communication?
Ignoring my question reflects more on the answerer than the process, I’d say.
I didn’t ignore it though. I answered - from my pov.
This is the only bit that hints at the direction you wanted this to go - and you answered it yourself:
I refer to the “The ability to refer directly to a shared experience…” thing.