So if you think you know the other’s motive from his reactions, it does not necessarily follow that he knows about it consciously. He will deny any such motive, and quite honestly, as it is in reality foreign to his consciousness. Yet if he denies with fervor, your belief will even be strengthened to absolute certainty. And very probably quite likely so.
So you will think the other a hypocrite, or a deceiver, or even a liar, and perhaps contemptuously turn your back on him.
The other, in turn, will think you a person that thinks everybody is a villain; he might even conclude that you yourself carry such motives as you insist on him having, and that from such a poisoned mind you always suspect others to be as bad as you are yourself. And he will feel – quite rightly will he feel you treated him unjustly. So he will equally contemptuously turn his back on you.
A sorry sight. For both of you are right and wrong at the same time.
You are right – or say, very probably right – in inferring the motive. You are wrong in assuming the other was conscious of his motive.
The other one is right in rejecting your condemnation. It really is unjust as you cannot charge him with something that is foreign to his mind. He is wrong however in denying the motive to be there. He can only deny the consciousness of the motive.
Your pointing to the suspected motive should have made him sit up + talk it over with you. You might have been able, in telling him your observations, to help him realize he actually had that motive. This, of course, takes a good deal of tact and mutual understanding, of confidence in the first place. But it is the only way to find out one’s own self.