• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Answer two questions to see if you are an aspie

The problem I see is how can you really ascertain this character's intent? Highlight below for detail after you've been to the article------
In both cases he says he doesn't care about the extra condition, so it's obvious that his only final intent is to get what he's stated he wants, since he states that regardless of the conditions. If he has other intents that he simply doesn't care to share with the vendor, we're merely guessing at them. How does this tell you anything about his intent to obtain something extra or incur unexpected cost? He never states: OH I would definitely like that extra item, meaning he specifically intends to obtain it. He never states: I'll gladly pay another cost so I can have what I want, though he does essentially say I don't mind paying more and you're getting an implication that's because of the high value to him of the item itself. In fact I don't feel the word intent would describe your change or lack of change of the overall goal in this scenario. How annoying
Click to expand...
 
I got both answers correct. Well, I didn't even try looking at the answers!

Still, Aspies may not really understand 'intention' as well as NTs.
 
Geordie said:
I got both answers correct. Well, I didn't even try looking at the answers!

Still, Aspies may not really understand 'intention' as well as NTs.
Click to expand...
I think the aspie answers show a better understanding of intention.
 
:mad: if only these stupid psychologists would go away! what absolute garbage-to simplify ASD in such a manner is an insult to my non-academic sensibilities:mad:
 
Last edited:
Do you say what you mean?- if you answer, "yes" you must have Aspergers!! ???
I have Aspergers and prefer simplicity rather than mixed messages that are written with hidden meanings and subtext
all this mind bending and twisting words, questioning and other such games gives me a huge headache and a rage that would show up on a thermo nuclear detector.
Tip for those who have had enough of psychologists- go to the end of the article -it cuts out all the bull***t
 
Last edited:
oh yeah, if you head in to the longer discussion around the questions they arrive at the same callout we all did. and, my initial assessment of the questions was more in line with the most people answers. the thing that breaks it down in the case of the paying more circumstance is that we dont know how much money the character has, or what else they need it for, and whether that decision has any impact that warrants using a description of intent around their choice
 
To go on a slight tangent on this story.

Chances are that businesses fool themselves by marketing the Large as the biggest and have an "offer" for an even bigger one. The clerk has to point that out clearly and the customer buys the one the clerk tells him... business thinks they actually, intentionally used a clever marketing scheme. It's silly.

As for the entire story itself; I agree with Eon. His intention is to get the biggest drink around, not a fancy cup. The idea of paying a dollar on top isn't of relevance. Heck, price isn't even the issue stated. He's thirsty not broke. It would be, if they had the same size in both a normal cup for normal price and one for a dollar extra to get a commemorative cup.

I actually had this once in a weird way, where McDonalds gave a free glass if you had a menu there. But only if you supersized it. I told them that I rather not and took the medium. That however, was because I had no bag around and I didn't want to haul the glass around all day, lol. So, is that intentional? Depends on what my intention is... my intention was to eat, not get free stuff. And also; I didn't set my mind to "eating as much as possible", I set my mind to "eat enough"... and that can be obtained through a medium menu for me. So was it intentional that I didn't take the offer?
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but the guy in the story stated both times that he just wanted the biggest smoothie. All other factors were irrelevant to him. The only intention exhibited was to obtain the biggest smoothie.
 
antarcticMetal said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but the guy in the story stated both times that he just wanted the biggest smoothie. All other factors were irrelevant to him. The only intention exhibited was to obtain the biggest smoothie.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. The right answer is the aspie answer but the NTs "interpret" the word intentional differently than we do. To a NT the guy in the story knew he was going to spend an extra dollar, so to them intentional means "not accidental" or not an irrelevant byproduct of his decision; spending an extra dollar was an effect of importance he was "aware of."

The reason why a stupid test like this sorts out the aspies from the NTs is we are more literal in our use of language; or to say it better, we want precision. NTs take liberties with logic and are quite comfortable doing so; their use of language is more flexible. They are comfortable with distorting the meaning of important words like intentionality. Unfortunately, for us, the less accurate type of human, the NT, is in the majority.

I can easily see how human evolution might have selected for aspies instead of NTs as the majority human type. Imagine how an NT might feel in a world of aspies?
 
Last edited:
Help me out here- I can't stand people trying to be clever with language-what is the aspie answer and why is it right?? please spell it out as if i am a complete idiot: that way I will understand what the hell you are all talking about-there are nerotypicals and then there are those on the spectrum- There are also science based reasoners and lay people-there are also Americans who write in American and English who write in English-I see a clear distinction here.
Firstly I am a triple diagnosed Aspie
secondly I posses a reasonable understanding of scientific study but definitely a layman
thirdly I am English
In short one concise answer will suffice-I am totally disinterested in overly complicated hair splitting-
I have now become slightly obsessed with this post and its irritating me
To add one more point-the stereo typical portrayal of an aspie being a science nerd/geek is extremely shallow-I am testament to that
I find it extremely difficult to reason with acedemics who do not write with absolute clarity or those that make the assumption that all aspies are the same.
 
To those reading the above post-I mean no offense to anyone-just the academic ego that tends to confuse and frustrate me- I find concepts extremely hard to decipher and often need help when reading as I seriously struggle-it effects me on a daily basis and living alone I can not get people to explain stuff when i need help- sometimes one sentence can take me hours to process-its almost as though I am looking at a noisy blank page. Loomis if you are out there please do your best to explain this to me as simply as you are able.
 
rolo said:
Help me out here- I can't stand people trying to be clever with language-what is the aspie answer and why is it right?? please spell it out as if i am a complete idiot: that way I will understand what the hell you are all talking about-there are nerotypicals and then there are those on the spectrum- There are also science based reasoners and lay people-there are also Americans who write in American and English who write in English-I see a clear distinction here.
Firstly I am a triple diagnosed Aspie
secondly I posses a reasonable understanding of scientific study but definitely a layman
thirdly I am English
In short one concise answer will suffice-I am totally disinterested in overly complicated hair splitting-
I have now become slightly obsessed with this post and its irritating me
To add one more point-the stereo typical portrayal of an aspie being a science nerd/geek is extremely shallow-I am testament to that
I find it extremely difficult to reason with acedemics who do not write with absolute clarity or those that make the assumption that all aspies are the same.
Click to expand...

Firstly, this "test" has zero scientific merit. I am certain the accuracy rate of separating aspies from NTs in this test is very low. So it is only a vehicle for showing, in very rough form, that most aspies will interpret the stories differently than most NTs.

I do not know that I can explain why it works "most of the time" better than this comment on the website I referenced above:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...he-mega-sized-smoothie-language-and-aspergers

The difference in the answers depends on how you define intentionality. The logical and precise way to define it is "what is the guy's goal when he asks for the large drink." My answer is that the guy's intention is to get a big drink and everything else is irrelevant.

However, if you define intentionality much more loosely as in "I am aware that it is costing me an extra dollar and even though I will have to spend a little more I still want the drink. I am fully aware that I am spending more. It has not escaped my notice that you are going to charge me extra for the big drink" you get the answer most NTs give that it is intentional to spend the extra dollar.

A third answer that others might say is "You do not know enough about what is going on in the guy's head to give the right answer." I think this is also a correct answer. The second question does have vagueness in the way it is written that allows for two different answers. So, insofar as two answers are, by definition, both possible, then the question is poorly written.

Please tell me if my post helps. I do not want to cause distress or discomfort.
 
Last edited:
Simply put. The second question in the "test" is vaguely written. Because it is vague it can be answered differently. Aspies and NTs give different answers because you must make an assumption to fill in an unknown. The unknown is: What is going on in the guy's mind buying the drink.
 
basically he does not give a s***T-he just wants a damned drink-people get paid for writing this!!
However, if you define intentionality much more loosely as in "I am aware that it is costing me an extra dollar and even though I will have to spend a little more I still want the drink. I am fully aware that I am spending more. It has not escaped my notice that you are going to charge me extra for the big drink"you get the answer most NTs give that it is intentional to spend the extra dollar.
[B]/[/B]??? I still do not get this bit-
the aspie is not a retard of course he knows it costs extra but it does not bother him-never mind-i'm sure the little psychologist meant well!! we might not understand social cues but this is rediculous-

Which end of the spectrum is this chap from- how have they defined aspergers ?
In my world these scientists would definately be surplus to requirement-go and invent something useful and meaningful-save the planet .
Semantics suck
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom