Often in the midst of a conversation there are a lot of extra references going on that cannot be seen from an outside point of view.
Personally, I demonstrate an ability to both interpret and present an unusual amount of (subtext) that makes it hard for people to fully understand or get exactly what I am saying, partially because there are often a lot of references to things that I am making either to things I've said to them in the past, or to things that they don't know about (which is the reason I made sagepedia in the first place). In light of this, I am also known to intepret things as having
and it is a constant battle between believing that the subtext is actually real or to be believed, and between thinking that "no, I totally made it up, and it is to be treated as a joke." This was once addressed the first time I ever took mushrooms, when I was sitting on top of that orange thing we used to have in our living room and thought to myself that "all the things you thought you were alone were true" amidst a long stream of other similar like statements, and only know this because it was the one and only thing I wrote down from that particular trip.
Charlie's Question Edit
Charlie once said to me, I think in the context that we were listing things that we didn't fully understand about the other person, that he sometimes didn't know whether there was actually subtext beneath what I was saying, which, besides being wholly uncharacteristic of our relationship, which largely remained in the dark for most of it (and continues to), unfortunately broke the rules of indirect referral, and therefore I was forced to stay quiet on the subject, however much I might have liked to examine the issue in detail with him.
Often with autistic people, there is subtext which would, normally be implied if the person weren't posessing these certain qualities, however it is missing in this particular circumstance, and for that reason, relationships are made difficult since one person is dealing with one line of reasoning about their behavior and the other person is dealing with another. Often a sort of equilibrium is needed to be achieved, and this can be worked on through time, with a certain amount of practice. Another case where this equilibrium might be essential or necessary is if the two people are of differing intelligence, or more specifically, the specific kind of intelligence that is necessary to produce subtext, perhaps called subtextual intelligence. However, this is a situation which is a bit harder to demonstrate.
subjects in this exmaple were known to consistently be repeating the following statement "Wow, I didn't know that they actually just weren't thinking anything about this all to begin with," which points to the common phenomenon of one person reading into a situation and "forcing" it to mean one thing, while the other person interprets what is going on literally and interprets absolutely nothing extra into what is going on. In these situations it is kind of necesary to note this, since it is not really possible to turn the subtext making machine off in just one circumstance, the other option is to simply note this and accommodate accordingly.
Another, seemingly similar situation where this applies are instances/circumstances in which one person Pretends that they do not see the subtext of the situation, whether it be for the purposes of humor, or else for the more subversive purpose of manipulating the situation, and in this case it will always be useful to prove to people that other times, and in other or certain situations, you will not be able to understand the subtext in a situation. This causes one of two potential affects, potentially leading to the same conclusion, which is that, either the other person will think that there never was any subtext to begin with, or else they will conclude that you are missing something, and will endeavor to clue you in to the thing that you may potentially be missing. (Unless of course they can tell that you're pretending or don't believe that you also don't see through what is going on, and therefore...)
When is this Useful Edit
This "technique" is useful in situations where for whatever reason you don't want to see the situation the same way that they are seeing it. An obvious example might be if someone is demonstrating sexual innuendo towards you, and you want to remain aloof and appear to not interpret what they are saying as anything other than the literal words that they are speaking to you. In this circumstance, you might choose the path of pretending there is nothing going on, in the hopes that they will be unable to continue their sexual allusions without your help, simply in the form of understanding what they are saying.
I'm sure you can probably imagine other situations where this technqiue might be useful, beneficial, or necessary, and for this reason you will be able to do this and/or take part in this procedure on the off chance or whether or not you are "enlisting your serves" and for the sole purpose of this and/or making this happen.
Like other particular experiential phenomena, there is the opportunity for you to share your experiences on the subject in the comments section below, for example, if you have ever pretended you did not see the subtext in a particular situation, or if you were suspicious either during or after the event, that someone with whom you were corresponding, actually saw the subtext that you were noticing and therefore acknowledging, but refused to acknowledge it for any particular reason.
see: retroactive pattern manipulatio for examples of when this type of reasoning might prove useful to put forth right in retrospect, as in the example, for example, that you would want to make something known to somebody that you had an interaction and/or a relationship with in the future.