I double back and resolve the ambiguity rather than continue ahead to find myself in an argument taking past each other because our fundamental assumptions diff

I double back and resolve the ambiguity rather than continue ahead to find myself in an argument taking past each other because our fundamental assumptions differ. That very thing has happened to me enough times to become entirely fed up with it to the point that I strive to stamp out ambiguity when I come across it. Such an approach seems to work well so far, or at least leaves me better off than I would be without it. All that aside, my approach seems to be clearly different from the norm, and does cause some friction at times (although I would argue less friction than would arise if left ambiguous) which definitely has me wondering if I've not taken a wrong turn somewhere along the way. I certainly would like to better learn to deal with it, assuming that dealing with it is a means to more effective communication (note here how I avoid the ambiguity trap by including my interpretation of your ambiguous statement)