Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Joe and the Mega-Sized Smoothie: Language and Asperger's

Page 2 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

25 Mar 2011, 12:12 am

Amicitia wrote:
I think it has to do with the Aspie "resistance to change".

Aspies interpreted "intentional" to mean "what Joe intended when he walked into the smoothie shop". NTs interpreted it to mean "what Joe intended after gaining additional information".

To an NT, it's no big deal for Joe to change his mind (his intentions) when he learns that the situation is different from what he anticipated. But Aspies get stuck on what Joe was thinking before he talked to the cashier. They refer back to his original plan/intention, even though they understand that Joe is now facing a different set of circumstances.


I don't think this is so. Joe is given the new information and then says he doesn't care about it. Joe himself has asserted the irrelevance of the new information.

I found this problem a few days ago and it blew my mind. I believe I have the solution. I find it truly stunning. If anyone is interested in the topic it's worth noting that another study found that Aspergers people scored broadly similar to NTs in determining intentionality when the cost was not an additional dollar but environmental damage. Machery, the author, has a whole philosophy relating morality to judgement of intentions. I invite (nay, request!) discussion.



ediself
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Oct 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,202
Location: behind you!!!

25 Mar 2011, 4:09 am

I don't understand how getting the cup would be unintentional and paying the extra dollar would be intentional. To me, both cases are the same: he only wanted the smoothie, but in the first case he got a gift, the second one he had to give something. You can't say that he paid "intentionally" because first of all, that makes no sense. He HAD to pay if he wanted the smoothie.
I think the difference may be here: an NT might have thought about it and decided he didn't want to pay the extra dollar and taken a smaller cup. NEVER in my life have I done that, and it relates to "socially awkard penguin" (see other thread) : I may think: "oh no, that's really expensive" but never would admit to it in front of a stranger. I would pay just to avoid singling myself out. So I would pay unintentionally. The NT person, on the other end, would probably only pay if he wanted to pay, thus DECIDED to pay. NTs never unintentionaly pay.
Maybe I'm trying too hard to understand what they mean by "he paid intentionally" when he didn't know beforehand that he would have to pay if he ordered this smoothie.