Weird, Confusing AS Test re Large Smoothie

Post Reply New Topic

What does it mean if someone's answers were the opposite from NTs and aspies. I answered intentional to both. An NT would think unintentional to the first and intentional to the second. But what if someone answered intentional to the first and unintentional to the second? What if someone answered intentional to both? What does that thinking mean?

Hmmm...the whole thing seems fairly arbitrary to me. Are autism and semantics really that connected?

I would think that even culture or personal experiences would have a dramatic impact on this

It could mean you are just being contrary : ) or it could mean that you were brought up in a household, like me, where personal responsibility was a huge, much spoken of thing, so you end up blaming yourself for everything.

One thing I have noticed is that most people who replied on this thread answered "Unintentional, Unintentional" which has surprised me. I cant understand why having AS would alter the way a person perceives intent. Weird.

Anyway I have started another one for the NTs, waiting for some results on it, I want to see if they get Unintentional, Unintentional too.

I answered "Unintentional, Unintentional", because Joe's intent to get the drink outweighed all other intents by far.

Interesting. So what the article says I guess, is that an NT would subconsciously look for a sort of hidden subtext in the 2 stories, whereas an Aspie/Aut would start focusing on the specifics and semantics of the situation.

Perhaps an NT would imagine they were Joe and picture whether they were feeling intentional or not intentional while ordering the smoothies in the 2 situations (which is what I did and how I got Unintentional, Intentional),

whereas an aspie would start thinking "Intentional? Define it."

My mind does funny things too. I view the world different and perceive things different and I wonder if I can come to the same conclusions as NTs but I see it different. I also process things differently. I don't see it as an impairment. But yet I still came up with a different answer than aspies for this.





That makes sense. I always blame myself for things and it's how I think.

"Unintentional, Unintentional", but I hesitated on the second for a couple of moments. I have the "conscious decision" model instilled in my mind though, since I'm an economist by profession. I agree with Lynne Soraya's response, BTW.

NT's will consider their answers based on what may be important/relevant. In the second case, spending more money tells about the person's (Joe) personal preferences. (drink - money)

Yeah, the article above made sense. It was stated that "Joe was feeling quite dehydrated, so he stopped by the local smoothie shop to buy the largest sized drink available." So his One True Goal was to get the drink.

Both questions are irrelevent.

If you asked Joe "Why'd you buy the football cup - you hate football." He'd answer - "It was the biggest cup they had."
If you asked Joe "Why'd you pay more for a cup you didn't even want?" He'd answer - "Because the biggest cup cost one dollar more. Why, do you want the cup when I'm done?"

The cup and the dollar are irrelevent to Joe. All he cares about is the smoothie.

Seriously - trying to discern some sort of psychological evaluation out of what is essentially a trick question...

Well, my first reaction was "Why the hell does Joe want a smoothie if he is dehydrated?"

My next was to puzzle over the definiiton of "intentional" before deciding that the only way I could answer "unintentional" to either question was if I believed that 1) Joe did not understand or immediately forgot that the mega smoothie is always served in the commemorative cup and 2) Joe simply threw money at the cashier and ended up with $1 less change.

I also had to get over this hump. To me, dehydration and smoothie just don't go together, except for smoothie ---> dehydration.

If I was dehydrated, I'd go for water. But I guess not everyone does that because my husband once got pop when he was dying of thirst. Not literally dying.

It's stated that his intention is to buy the biggest smoothie, not simply to obtain the biggest smoothie. As the cup and the dollar are elements of the cost (albeit the cup is a "negative" cost) both are included in his intent to buy. Hence my contention that it's intentional / intentional. I suppose you could rephrase it in a more trivial light; Joe finds that the smoothie is 1 penny cheaper or 1 penny more expensive.

Possibly that shows something that there's a threshold within which prices are considered identical - $0.99 being considered equal to $1.00 - and that in the case of a smoothie, getting a free cup is within that threshold, but paying an extra dollar for it is above the threshold, and so the two are seen as different cases.

There's commercials where they say their beer will quench your thirst. I never understood that either. I'd prefer water too.

I'm looking at the definition of "intend"...

1.) to have in mind as something to be done or brought about; plan: i.e. we intend to leave in a month.

2.) to design or mean for a particular purpose, use, recipient, etc.: i.e. a fund intended for emergency use only.

If I assume the first definition, then the answer is clearly unintentional in both cases. Neither receiving the special cup nor paying the extra dollar were intended at the outset where the stated goal was merely to buy the largest drink available.