Weird, Confusing AS Test re Large Smoothie

Post Reply New Topic

Have you read the relating paper yet?

The Concept of Intentional Action in Asperger Syndrome / Tiziana Zalla & Edouard Machery

Basically, it argues that people with ASD has limited ability to recognize "purely instrumental desires" as a means to achieve "ultimate desires".

"To determine whether getting a free cup and paying an extra-dollar are intentional, participants (the ascribers) typically construct at least three consecutive representations of the events described in the vignettes: (i) a causal representation; (ii) a valence-based representation; and (iii) a mentalistic representation. " (page 5.)

(page 8., bolding from me)

(pages 23-24., bolding from me)


(pages 16-17., bolding from me)

What was that Marshall said about NTs thinking autistic people overthink/overcomplicate things, again?

The simplest explanation is probably the true explanation: The question says nothing about Joe's expectations as to cost, only that he wants a smoothie, so why take information that's not even presented into account?

I read the paper.

My conclusion in a nutshell...

Most intuitive definition of "intentional" for NTs: Done willfully to bring about a desired end.

Most intuitive definition of "intentional" for people with Aspergers: Conforming to a pre-existing plan or scheme.

Utilizing the first definition relies on spooky notions of sentience and free-will (which is why intent can be perceived arbitrarily in many cases in order to usefully fit a moral framework). Utilizing the second definition, one can answer matter-of-factly with no need to consider any internal disposition or moral framework. Also, the former applies only to human-like minds while the latter definition could also apply to the actions of a robot or computer program.

I would say people with Aspergers do in fact understand and use both definitions, as do NTs. People with Aspergers just prefer the latter while NTs prefer the former.

I think you pretty much hit the nail in the head... And yes, NTs sometimes overthink/overcomplicate things...

Yea. I would say the first definition of "intentional" is more complicated than the second. If you read many of the referenced papers, it is shown that whether a consequence of an action is deemed intentional or unintentional is not only dependent on whether the consequence is desired by the actor, but also dependent on moral judgements of whether the consequence is universally seen as desirable or harmful. This is because intentionality is also intricately tied to notions of moral culpability/responsibility. So most people's actual understanding of the word "intentional" is indeed MUCH more complicated than what is stated in a typical dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intentional

Okay so it looks like it fits my answer of intentional for the test since he knew about the special cup and the extra dollar. So I say it's semantics. I can also see how it be unintentional too since he didn't plan those when he wanted the biggest smoothie and by the time he knew, he did it intentionally because he hadn't purchased it yet and the person hadn't made it for him yet.

Yep, me too.

I agree with you on this. 'Conforming to a pre-existing plan or scheme', is certainly my preferred definition.

According to this image: people with AS are only less likely to judge an extra payment as intentional. My first "feeling" was that both cases were unintentional, because Joe didn't care about extra price. However, my second and final answer was "unintentional/intentional", because he sent signals from his brain to muscles in purpose to pay this one extra dollar. So, his brain controlled his own body.

Anyway, if we consider social engineering (according to my knowledge), it can be, again, qualified as unintentional (even if Joe thoght it was him own decision). People seem to be really easy to manipulate through their subconsciousness (I'm not saying I can do this, but I know it's real, Kevin Mitnick is a good example).

I'm diagnosed with very mild AS, so I had problems (sometimes severe) with peers at primary and secondary school, but I improved dramatically from this time, so now I can't even consider myself as disabled in any way (well, excluding meltdowns). I'm aware of some basic social rules and I can understand other people if I concentrate on this task, but still I can have mild problems with communication. Maybe that's why I fall within those 21.4%. Or... maybe I don't have AS after all?



However, I can't understand why one of the definitions is more complicated than other. For me they're equally complicated, but I would change the first one to "Done something consciously" (if I understand the original one properly). If you killed someone without purpose, but did it consciously, you clearly intended to do this (people are sometimes illogical). The same rule could apply to our case: Joe wasn't robbed, he paid consciously, intentionally. Anyway, I understand the other definition as well. It's hard to decide which one describes my real-life behavior better.

Because, I think that is precisely what NTs do. They will notice information which is not actually mentioned, and extrapolate on things.

I also fall in that 21.4%, and for me it could be because I have studied social things intensively, and I pretty much have learnt to think like an NT, ie look for inferences everywhere.

I wonder if there's a correlation between severity of AS and the "neurotypical" answer.

Anyway, no diagnostic criteria say that "you have to answer properly blah blah blah blah to get/not get a diagnosis". More important (in my opinion) is that you fail to maintain proper social relationships, have some routines and special interests etc. (especially in your past). The criteria also don't even consider things like "reading emotions from facial expressions" (this is just an subjectively understood element of "maintaining relationships" and "social skills"). I think this may be similar to RDOS Aspie Quiz in 2005 (25% of diagnosed people were classified as neurotypicals).

My thoughts streamed in the opposite direction. First I thought Joe intentionally paid more for the smoothie, then I revised it, since it was not Joe's initial intention to pay more for the drink, only to buy the largest one to quench his thirst.

All in all, I believe this whole difference between typical NT thinking and typical ASD thinking boils down to how NTs prefer solving problems together in teams, while ASD people tend to be more lone problem solvers, at least in their hearts. The whole thinking process is affected by the preferred method of solving. Communication is a part of it. NTs usually put more emphasis on what else should be done to achieve a goal ("instrumental desire") and how to communicate it, what to think about it.

My answers to the test are now both. Intentional and unintentional to both questions. It depend son how you look at it and because I see it both ways, I think it's both.

I don't know then what really counts: the first thought (feeling) or the final thought? I'm, however, definitely a lone problem solver (I tried solving problems with other people, but didn't really enjoyed it, mainly because I like independence and other people annoy me).

I would reconsider my decision, so in my case it would be intentional to pay extra money or go somewhere else.

And what about "The Harm Case" and "The Help Case" mentioned in the document (linked above)?

I would say that if someone know that his decision will harm the environment, he is responsible for the damage and intentionally did it (because if A => B => C, then A => C). In the other case, he's responsible for the help too, but it was not intentional. Why? Because, according to the document, the harm is included to the costs. I prefer other explanation: the harm is just more (morally?) important than benefit.

I recently read an article about research done to compare autistic atheists with neurotypical atheists. One thing they discovered was that NT atheists had a tendency to describe natural processes in terms of how much God totally didn't do it, and autistic atheists had a tendency to just describe things without even mentioning supernatural agency. There's a word for this, and it bothers me that I can't remember what it is,