# Authorial Intent And Abduction

I don't think that the author's intent is the meaning of a text.

But not every text is literature. Some texts have pragmatic purposes.
Like, to make others act. And authorial intent is everything in
those situations.

For example if someone says "Could you close the windows?" on a
cold day, you should guess the intent and give the person a blanket
too. It is not a matter of diverse interpretations.

However many people can't guess authorial intent in those situations.
And I have realised that they just might be bad at abduction.




As I wrote in the past, abduction means reasoning from an effect
to its cause.


B
If A, then B.
---------------------------
Therefore A might be true.

B is an observation. A is a hypothesis.


It is uncertain. But it gives you lots of information in exchange
for that.

To overcome the uncertainty, there are some methods. Like Occam's
razor. Which means you should choose the simplest hypothesis that
assumes the fewest.

In the example above, B is that the person wants to close the
windows. You should guess A from that. What makes the person want
to close the windows.

The person could be in fear of eavesdropping. But that assumes a
lot and thus less probable. So it is better to choose a simple
hypothesis instead: the person is cold.




Also I guess what autists lack is the knowledge that what hypotheses
induce B. Though this is not limited to autists.

But I think it is possible to learn consciously. Since it is not
that different from what a detective does. It is just that they
have to do that manually. Instead of instinctively.