It seems you are correct that there is a misunderstanding between us. You say that it is really simple and that there is no problem at all, but you do not explain why. You restate that you just have to ask someone if your understanding of something is correct or not, but that does not provide a level of certainty that I am talking about. An simple example would be if you have interpreted a situation ir a couple words slightly differently than how a person meant them, but through describing to them what you think they mean and them affirming that you understand, they instead misinterpret what you are saying and falsly affirm your understanding. This may seem like an impractical hypothetical, but I have had this happen to me multiple times in my life because some topics are complex or sometimes people have varied enough meaning that a misunderstanding cannot be solved through just asking the person for clarification. You misunderstand the fundamental problem with communication because your solution does not account for this. I am also not overcomplicating anything. If you think for a moment about what you know, belief is a fundamental part of knowledge. Do you know anything that you do not believe to be true or false? You would have to show that you can know something without believing it and not simply state that you just know things without involving belief. Saying that you can know something without belief is not an argument. You are just making an unsupported claim with no justification by doing so. Belief is essential to knowledge because if for example, I know that lets say I am a certain height, or weight, or I am a certain age, or even something like I know that I am holding dirt in my hand. I have to believe that my senses do not deceive me when holding the dirt and I have to believe that the measurements of such things as weight, height, and time are accurate, at least relative to some overall standard that they are based on. This example demonstrates the necessity of belief to have knowledge. You cannot know anything if the reasons for why you know something, are not actually the reasons that something is true. Or in my sheep example, which clearly demonstrates this, if you ‘know’ there is a sheep in the field, but there is only something that looks like a sheep, but you are wrong, then how can you claim to just know it? You would say you know if because you believe that the thing you saw was a sheep. If you disagree then you would have to be purposefully intellectually dishonest and ignore the fact that we all use belief as the basis for knowledge. And something is not being made to be more complex than it actually is just because you do not see the complexity or choose to ignore it.