Its something more than simply not agreeing about a topic, which is one thing and fine but the fact that someone else can not and in the end simply choose not to get their head around something, decide against even bothering to seek to know and understand but instead decide that their prejudged ideas or preconceptions are more reliable in any case.
I've thought about it a lot because a lot of the supposedly most open minded people I've met are in fact the least open minded after all, being open minded seems to only mean to give assent to their opinions, this is really, really the case among individuals who've really spent a lot of time intellectualising or rationalising their own beliefs, often adding a great deal of unnecessary complexity in the process, such as with post-modern relativism and the like, which usually mean relativity of others beliefs or beliefs they feel opposed to rather than their own beliefs which consciously or unconsciously are pretty damn inflexible.
The other thing I've experienced is that some of the most supposedly frustrated in this way, more desiring of dialogue and clear communication, are also the most ideologically entrenched and what they mean is instead that they want agreement or resonance with others. I first encountered that in the libertarian capitalist circles at the end of the nineties and I thought it was very interesting, I definitely agreed with them that there was a lot of discussion which lacked clarity, such as talking about "free" services to the public when what was really meant was "tax funded" services, but still came up against their own version of that kind of communication barrier.
I've read a little from Habermas about this but not a great deal, he seemed to think that if clarity was possible most social and other problems would dissolve themselves.