The point of communication is getting your point across to the other person and have it interpreted the way you mean it. If the person misinterpreted your words or gestures, then you’ve failed at communicating with them effectively.
Our modern language is outdated and almost everything is subject to interpretation. The fact that sarcasm exists is proof enough, but mannerism, emotions, etc are all taken into consideration when interpreting communicating.
A good example is the situations I would end up in when I go to a place that serves alcohol. I would be offered alcohol or asked if I drink and I would simply reply “no thanks” or “I don’t drink”. When I would say “I don’t drink, people seemed to get a look on their face. The problem here is that I think I’m getting across to them them “I don’t drink”, but what registers in their head is “I watch out for my health, you don’t” or “I’m better than that, thank you.”
A lot of times people get pissed off when the person they’re trying to communicate to isn’t understanding them. Not everyone makes the same associations to words or gestures, but a lot of people who are trying to communicate don’t understand that about the recipient. Often times they end up angry or frustrated towards them. They’ll even resort to calling them stupid or blaming them in a different way. In reality, it’s the communicator’s fault for not effectively passing along his/her message. Not everyone interprets information the same way.
Communicating effectively requires a lot of attention from the communicator towards the recipient. If you see someone isn’t receptive to a specific analogy, use something more familiar to them. You simply can’t explain something to a 10 year old the same way you explain it to a 20 year old. The same applies for individuals.
Avoiding extremely broad words like “right”, “wrong”, “good”, “bad” is good practice. If you tell someone “that was bad”, what are you even telling them? You’re not really communicating anything with them except a very ambiguous message that can interpreted any way they want. Now if you say “cooking an egg without oil will cause it to stick to the pan and burn”, you’re giving them valuable details.
Even saying “you’re not suppose to cook an egg without oil” doesn’t explain anything. That doesn’t help people cook the egg better unless you follow it up with more details. Even at that, you can just skip explaining what they did “wrong” and explain what they’re suppose to do instead .
Finding common grounds to relate to through an analogy is probably the most effective method of explaining a point. For example, if someone plays tennis and you’re teaching them how to swim and they ask “how long will it take me to learn how to drive a car?” You can reply “Just like tennis, you can learn the rules quickly, but you won’t be good until you get more experience”.
If someone doesn’t understand you, it’s your fault, not theirs.