Intentional Action and Asperger's Syndrome:

Post Reply New Topic

I think it's weird to talk about the extra dollar in terms of intentional or not. I mean, of course he had to choose to give the extra dollar, as opposed to not get what he wanted. But it's not like he had any control over the choice to charge the extra dollar.

I would say, he didn't intend to give the person the extra dollar, he didn't intend not to. Rather, he agreed to give the extra dollar.

I wonder if that's the half-aspie answer.

... there's also no mention of a chronological order. I assumed these were two seperate examples, not intended to be consecutive. Where does it state they happened one after the other rather than simply being differently worded examples?

Even if that's the case, that he knew in one example doesn't mean he did in the other.

If you haven't, check out the article linked from that page. Or here's the direct link: http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/a ... -aspergers

Here's a quote from the intro of the article.

After reading the discussion here, I do agree with that.

It also does not state that both incidents happen. They might be independent examples.
To me, Joe purposefully hands over whatever amount of money is described by 'one dollar more' and even states that paying one dollar more is a consideration that would not prevent him buying, so Joe intended to pay it. But there is no evidence that Joe knew that the Mega-sized cup was the largest serving for that particular product when he committed himself to the transaction.

To me the question did Joe intentionally pay one dollar more is equivalent to did Joe intentionally pay? The answer is yes. But this is not so simple with the cup. For instance maybe Joe knew the Mega-sized was not the biggest, the clerk in the store gave it to him anyway, and Joe was too thirsty to argue so paid. If that were true (and there is nothing in the text that requires it not be true) then Joe would have intended to not get the cup, but then formed an intent to not reject it.

To me, the intent to pay the price of the item is clear in the act of knowingly doing so. But none of Joe's acts or words make his intent about the cup at all clear, indeed we cannot even be sure the Mega-sized was the largest in either example, much less that Joe knew that it was the largest (if indeed it was) and therefore knew that he'd get the cup. About the only thing we can be clear about, is that Joe purposefully handed over money equal to an amount described as 'one dollar more'.

Now you are just confusing me! Surely if a promotional item is included with a certain item size, it would be the largest size, no? It makes no sense to promote any other size independently. Therefore, surely it would have been obvious to the buyer that the Mega size was the largest?

No.

I do not understand. I have encountered promotions where all products in a range are included, others where the promotional give-away applies to one size, but not to a larger sized product of the same kind/range.


It was not obvious to me on the information given, so whether or not it would be obvious to Joe, so far as I can judge his intentions, I do not know whether or not Joe knew the Mega-sized size was the largest.

I've never seen an offer where the promotional item is attached to a smaller size. To all, yes... but the cashier specified that one size.

Perhaps the problem, then, is that there's not enough information.

Just about any franchise restaurant has kid's meals with free-toys...the sizes are most usually not the largest on offer, in some cases they are smaller than any other size offered.
The cashier specified 'mega-sized', that does not give me any information about the size relationship of the mega-sized serving in comparison to other serving sizes being sold (alongside). It could be the smallest on offer.


I do not know about 'problem', more like 'cause/s of interestingly diverse interpretations'.

I agree that it is due to pragmatic differences. Here is how an NT would read Joe's statements:

Scenario 1:
"I don't care about a commemorative cup, I just want the biggest smoothie you have."

Meaning:
Literal meaning: I don't care whether or not I receive a commemorative cup.
Possible implied meaning: Don't bother putting it in a commemorative cup, I don't want it.

Result: The cashier put it in a special cup anyway, against Joe's intentions, therefore receiving it was unintentional.

Scenario 2:
"I don't care if I have to pay one dollar more, I just want the biggest smoothie you have."

Meaning:
Literal meaning: It is the same to me whether I pay an extra dollar or not, as my only intention is to buy a smoothie.
Implied meaning: I am willing to pay an extra dollar for the largest smoothie.

Result: Joe paid the cashier an extra dollar, as was his stated intention, therefore paying an extra dollar was intentional.


I'm going to take a stab at interpreting these the Aspie way now:

Scenario 1:
"I don't care about a commemorative cup, I just want the biggest smoothie you have."

Meaning: I don't care whether or not I receive a commemorative cup. (literal only)

Result: Joe has no intention one way or the other about receiving a commemorative cup, and whether Joe received the cup or not, the result would be unintentional.

Scenario 2:
"I don't care if I have to pay one dollar more, I just want the biggest smoothie you have."

Meaning: It is the same to me whether I pay an extra dollar or not, as my only intention is to buy a smoothie. (literal only)

Result: When Joe was told the price, it happened to be one dollar more than it used to be. Joe had no feelings about this either way, and paying the extra dollar was unintentional.


I think what is happening is that Aspies are missing the subtext of Joe's statements. It is true that if you break down the statements using their literal interpretation, that the two situations appear to be the same, and therefore both were unintentional. NTs read extra meaning into Joe's statements though, which supposedly reveals information about his intentions. Who is right? No one knows.

So it's the way it's worded that is causing the confusion, maybe.

No, he said he didn't care. If he hadn't wanted the cup, he would have said, 'don't give me the cup' and they probably wouldn't have. I think maybe the root of the NT explanation is that they interpret saying 'I don't care' about a positive thing as meaning that you don't really want it, whereas saying 'I don't care' about something negative means you intend to go through with whatever despite the negatives.

Here's a thought: what if we have the same situation, but the cashier offers a 1.00$ discount and he still says 'I don't care about the price.' Did he get the discount intentionally?

Possibly. If the clerk conveyed that the discount would apply to the product Joe was buying, simply as an effect of the transaction, before Joe then subsequently completed the transaction, then yes.

I apparently score rather AS; I can understand somewhat how the NT version is justified, but either way it wasn't the purpose so... *baffled, goes off to find a smoothie*


M.

My purpose in getting dressed might be to keep warm, but that does not mean I did not intend to put a woolly hat on.

If someone bought a video game for $49.99 and they said they didn't mean to spend that much, I would find that so hard to believe. How can you not intend to spend that much? Didn't you see the price? I am sure the cashier told you the total of the game when you bought it.
If someone didn't want to spend that much, they don't buy it. If they wanted the game so bad, they did intend to spend that much to get it. That's how I see the extra dollar.