Denotative

"I realise I model things, people, processes, interactions, everything. They are all systems with rules, which require evaluation,  precise descriptions and language. I can't not do it. It is subconscious but comes out in language."

I'm interested to understand whether you think this is around trying to convey context to the other party so they more clearly understand why you have reached the conclusion you have, simply something you feel you need to do to process the "abstraction" at hand for yourself, or a bit of both.

I think in my case, I enjoy sharing insights I believe I have come to, and feel the need to create a "bridge" for the other party to help them get to where I believe I am. Sometimes, it feels like trying to serialise parallel interacting thoughts (lower level abstractions / systems?) in relation to the topic at hand, into language, for the purpose of conveying to the mind of the other party. And that can come across as quite dry.

Let's see how effectively I've managed to achieve that this time around

Certain writing requires precise wording. But when you don't need to write like that, can you?

The fact people have problems with the questions on the AQ50 and  have to think about the intent of the question, rather than just answering it, shows there are issues with processing the words. I think the literal meaning is taken, not a broader contextual one.

I have always answered questions based on what I think the intent of the question is, not based on what the words actually literally say. There is a translation layer based on experience, but it is effortful.

Asking for clarification to simple questions suggests an internal model is needed before the concept can be understood. But once modelled the answers are almost instant.

Ambiguity causes confusion and deadlock, rather than being glossed over. It is an example of a processing difference 

And when writing (or speaking I think) informally can you include emotion, either through the use of emotive words, phrasing or implication from context? I don't think I can.

In some discussion with AI I realised I didn't interpret the sentence the same. I was missing the emotional context. I need to check more, but it aligns with other things. I get emotional responses to things I think are factual, and vice versa. Yet I don't see the difference.

In a work conversation it is less obvious than in close interpersonal ones. When you get an unexpected response, try and remember the wording and then see if AI (or you, later) can see what was wrong.

I think there is less bluntness than just factual accurate speech that lacks emotion.

It can be obvious, or more subtle, depending on how much you have learnt or adapted your communication.

Words that are used incorrectly jar or jump out instantly because they break the accurate modelling. They are are hard to ignore because the processing system throws an error.

I have been thinking for months, identifying differences and traits and looking for the underlying causes, so I can work around them.

....and sometimes it's that words sound similar and people get them mixed up, e.g. 'fortunate' and 'fortuitous', 'dilemma' and 'dichotomy' - resulting in entries for the 'irritating phrases' thread!

I wouldn't know I've tried both of those authors and couldnt get on with them.

Authors like Virginia Woolf and James Joyce are noted for their depths of emotion. Unfortunately it eludes me.

I remember being taught to write like this at school, especially in science lessons, English often dosen't seem to have the depth of emotional expression that other languages do, so maybe thats why people slightly misuse a word?

What a very well written piece. Thank you for the addition to my vocabulary. Also, the addition to my understanding.

I now realise that most of my career made use of denotative writing; perhaps even assisted by my autism? Until I was 30 I was a research engineer needing to write lots of accurate and unbiased reports. The same applied to the engineering development sector of my work where I wrote technical manuals. Finally, as a telecommunications consultancy proposal manager, the majority of my work comprised writing competitive bids for overseas work, mostly to countries where English wasn't the mother tongue. Without being free from emotional, cultural or implied context the volumes of work I submitted were likely to be misinterpreted and risk rejection.

But I'm still not certain whether it's the technical world that performs better in its rawest form without emotion, or just that it's my communication that lacks it. 

As with everything: there's a time and a place for things. Selecting the right time and place is the challenge.

Words have meanings. Up does not mean across or down or even not moving. It means up as in above. w

I cannot deal with people who say a word in order to imply something that is different to what the word means.