You do not demonstrate or indicate any mechanism whatsoever that would support this claim.

I don’t need to, try actually talking to an indigenous person, evolutionary biologist or an environmental scientist and if they can stand talking to you for more than 5 minutes they may explain it to you.

You also haven’t shown how being able to communicate is a disadvantage, or how NOT being able to communicate helps learn new concepts?

I don’t need to, that isn’t my point, my point is you are trying to take a shortcut to intelligence and communication that involves hurling empty symbols back and forth at strangers, that will never lead anywhere unless you and that stranger start to develop a unique language specific to that context that honors and remembers that context… and yes we can do that right now but guess what makes human language such a gift to us that it was passed down to us and entrusted in our stewardship? Do you not see how you are spitting on that gift with your words?

Yes, you can always plant a new 200 year old tree if you cut the 200 year old tree down… but you will have to wait 200 years to experience the true complexity and power that is latent in the seed again.

If you think I am arguing for NOT understanding each other you aren’t actually listening to what I am saying, what I am saying is you are lying to yourself about being able to convey anything once you reach the point you desire and admire and seem to think would be a highwater mark for communication and intelligence.

edit another thought on why I used everything here, you are right I was vague and gesturing at like… everything but that really is the point, there is no intelligence without a fecund context in which to weave it together and that requires diversity in as many different axis as possible to increase the likelihood of it being possible in a given context.