Intentional Action and Asperger's Syndrome:

Post Reply New Topic

From what I read in the article, it sounded optional to get the cup but he chose not to get it but he got it anyway because the cashier put it in that cup. That's why I said it was an accident. If the kid said to me he didn't care about it, I would have not put it in that cup. I would have put it in a different one. If he wanted the special cup, he would have to ask for it.

About the money, he knew it cost him a dollar extra because he was informed. He still chose to pay for the smoothie so therefore he paid an extra dollar on purpose.

I answered the NT one but only cause I know how they think. I think we are right but normal is predicated first order thinking.

I got that he asked for biggest drink, and that he paid, and there was no dispute over payment, so he intended to pay the price in the specific circumstance throughout the transaction. If the price happens to be one dollar more than 'x', then that is within the range of his intent.

This is further evidenced by his being described as having brought (not stolen) the product.
So to me he intended to pay the cost of the product, and if that can be described as 'one dollar more' (which in the text it was), it's still within the scope of the customer's intent, as can be inferred from their having acted accordingly.

As for the cup, I did not know he was going to get it until he did. I do not see what the cup has to do with anything. I do not think the customer parted with their money by accident, but I have no idea if he knew he was going to get the cup for all I know, he was as surprised as I was, so that could have been by accident.

So I do think the customer intended to pay for the drink, at the price he did pay, that was no accident. But I have no idea about the cup. Maybe he knew, maybe not.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. After reading the responses in this thread and on the site, it has to do with interpreting and how we see it and NTs. I just happened to see it the NT way. Guess that means I'm cured. Nah I'm borderline.

It still confuses me. He was informed about the cup that came with the biggest drink, and he was informed about the extra cost that came with the biggest drink. I don't see how the situations are at all different. They are both outside of his intent; his only intention was to get the biggest drink. He went along with getting the cup and having more money taken, but he didn't pay attention to either - only to the size of his drink.

I didn't know he wasn't paying attention. I assumed he knew.

Funny how people interpret the story differently.

Well, he said he only cared about getting the biggest drink, so to me it seems that he was the passive recipient of any conditions attached to that, rather than purposefully intending to get the cup or pay the extra dollar.

If I'd been buying the drink, both would have been unintentional.

I suppose it does depend on who's buying the drink and what his motives were.

My intention would have been to quench my thirst, not to go for some gimmick.

My family find promotions like this irritating when all we want to do is to have a drink.

As for coupons on cereal packets and free gifts inside, that's an entirely different matter for some reason. Perhaps because we don't eat the cereal where we purchase it? Maybe because cereal keeps longer or the toy inside is of more interest than some silly cup?

Maybe that's the difference, what we see as superflous details, perhaps might be more meaningful to NTs somehow.

That's what I would have though. I don't understand this at all.

You wouldn't intend to pay one dollar more either, but obviously he intended to give it when he asked for the drink and was told it was one dollar more because he wanted the drink and he'd have to intend to pay it when asking for the drink because otherwise he wouldn't be paying enough.

Please can someone explain this? I really don't get it.

Er...just about...

But he explicitely stated that he didn't care about those details... therefore the details are superfluous, no? They didn't seem meaningful, important or relevant to him, from his reaction...

He was informed about a cup, but I can see no indication that he was informed of any connection between the cup and its size relative to other serving sizes on offer.

I can see that the person was informed of the cost (in the second scenario) and went ahead and paid it, so they intended to pay the cost (which happens to be one dollar more than some otherwise unspecified amount), but I cannot see that he was informed that the biggest serving and the Mega-Sized smoothie are the one and the same.

I cannot see that the customer knew that there was not a bigger size that would not come with a commemorative cup. If the customer did not know that the Mega-sized was the largest, then getting the commemorative cup was not by intent. I know that the customer intentionally paid over the price described as one dollar more, but I do not know that they handed over money intending or even understanding that they would get a commemorative cup.

"Before ordering, the cashier told him that the Mega-Sized Smoothies were now one dollar more than they used to be. Joe replied, ‘I don't care if I have to pay one dollar more, I just want the biggest smoothie you have.'"

To me, this implies that he knew the Mega-Sized was the biggest size there is.

Before ordering the second time, after the earlier transaction. How could information given during the second transaction effect Joe's intent during the first transaction? There is no mention of a time machine.

I chose the NT answer.

It's pretty obvious though. In the first one, he said he DIDN'T want the commemorative cup (implying he wanted a normal cup), and he got the commemorative cup, thus unintentional.

In the second one, he was clearly told he would have to pay an extra dollar to get a bigger size, and he says he doesn't care if he has to pay a dollar more, and he will get the smoothie anyway, thus AGREEING to pay a dollar more as a necessary sacrifice to get the smoothie, thus intentional.

1 + 1 = 2.