There is a discrepancy between the meaning of words and the reality of the situations they are applied to. You might hear someone say, "Good food." While they truly mean the food tastes good, and not all good tasting food is "positive" or good in the sense that it is healthy for you. Which to some, is what should matter.What is more and becomes visible with further examination is that the "good" taste is dependent upon the sense of the person tasting it. This, we know, is personal preference, where there is a measure of similarity but also some unpredictable differences. So the usage of the word in the sense of what is "good" is not only incorrect, in the sense that some value "good" as healthy, while it is also incorrect in the understanding that taste is down to a personal preference.The words themselves are incapable of defining the experience what they are meant to share, without the use of more complex expressions and even then they can only act as indicators of personal preference. In many cases they are used in the same format as fact.While only a part of human experience (communication), I believe this discrepancy creates ripples of confusion through the sea of expression of human individuality and society.Similar to Orwell's 1984, these are aspects of communication which limit the more expressive variety of linguistic understanding and slowly re-routes the more expanse out of the system. This occurs when a person who has a wider point of view, comes in contact with a person with a more limited point of view, and the conflict does not result in a positive transmutation of both views. Learning always occurs, but personal growth and internal view point change, sometimes is replaced with ego. When the result is a more distinguished limitation, rather than a reduction of limitations and conflict and a realization of indirect similarity through variety, then the more limited view is pressing the wider view out of it's reach and will ultimately result in a more limited communication experience.For this reason alone, arguing through raw emotion or on the basis of superficial differences, usually does not initiate anything but a degradation of the quality of experience, unless the experiences of differences are based upon truly internal aspect. Even so, the learning experience always occurs, but the learning process can be accelerate by abandoning or transmuting lower aspects of the experience into meaningful ones. This alchemy of reality is occurring constantly within the interplay of the conscious and subconscious mind.The more expressive usage would be to define what is "good" about the qualities being commented on(the context), as well as to incorporate an "I think" or "To me" aspect to the expression. This is yet another context, but it is a constant, that goes without saying.When it goes without saying for so long, in a society which doesn't seek to expand on individuality, individuality is forgotten, and becomes something of an undesirable aspect to the lesser individual, because it is not understood. Unless it is introduced by a third party (neither the individual, or the society commonality as a whole), in a positive and accepted manner, the individual themselves is the only one who can make the expansive change to look to and accept information that is not in their original realm of experience. Your perspective creates your realm of experience in accordance with how much of your free will you give to the forces at play in the world.To include the context of what you are assigning a value to, whether positive or negative, brings about the larger context of aspects, and to restate that it is your perspective alone, indicates that you in essence, include yourself in the equation as well as cease excluding the rest of the world and it's possibilities.