I do too, but it’s extremely limited.
I understand highly patterned people the best: the people that follow various repeating scripts.
I take the time to learn their scripts and then I can interact with them better. Until I know their scripts, I limit myself to whatever is the standard situational script (work, home, at a restaurant, group of friends of a friend, stranger-on-a-bus).
When I was little, I just assumed everybody thought what I thought and if they didn’t, there was something desperately wrong with them and I’d steer clear.
Mindblindness they call it but I don’t believe that’s a good term at all.
Over the years though, I realized people are very stereotyped – probably due to a book “Scripts people play” on the back of my toilet as a kid – or maybe “I’m ok / your ok” – some kind of positive psychology – along with what I learned from Joseph Campbell and common mythologies.
Good shortcuts for people scripts.
So, that’s how I infer beliefs. I try to figure out what script they’re reading from and anticipate “what’s my line?” and hope for the best.
If you could tie my experience into Pierce’s philosophy, that’d be great. I couldn’t tie my life experiences into Simon Baron-Cohen’s Theory of Mind — the supposed expert on autism for decades. His Emotional Quotient material is good but I think he’s misrepresented the lived experiences of autistic people with his “mindblindness” notion.