Sora wrote:
I think you're talking of a more complex deduction that's beyond simple recognition.
I was thinking about the capability of recognising by logical deduction based on access to enough information that whatever and whoever isn't present at one moment does not normally see or hear what's going on during that moment. An example would be... I can only think of a personal one. When I think back to when I was kindergarten, at some point I had developed a shaky concept of that when I was in my room by myself (and keeping really quiet) other objects and people that were not in my room and could not hear me through the door or the walls would not see me and not hear me. (Nevermind that objects can't see or hear but I wasn't entirely sure on the whole people thing yet.)
That knowledge has to be acquired in some form first in order to even begin to recognise that people can decide what information to share, when people withhold information or offer false information, what they withhold/lie about intentionally or accidentally and what their motives for their actions could be.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that it is generally possible to overcome autistic cognitive limitations with logical deduction, or are you saying that you recognized by logical deduction a particular thing?
I don't think what Tuttle said is complex, although I think sometimes explaining cognitive limitations can become complex, especially when trying to cover the various ways other people tend to misunderstand what's being said. Even though I think I have a better grasp of the idea of people lying to me than Tuttle does, I know there are things I do not understand, but trying to explain how and why I don't understand something that I really don't understand can tie me up in verbal or written knots, and end up sounding far more complex. But since it's hard to get people to take "I don't understand this thing you deal with routinely and take for granted" at face value, the increasingly complex explanations sometimes seem necessary to even have a chance at understanding.
At least, that's how I approach things. I don't know if that applies to Tuttle. I do know that I've seen a lot of autistic people describe fairly simple concepts in fairly complex ways, and I know in my case I do it because the simplest explanations are rarely understood.