Weird, Confusing AS Test re Large Smoothie

Post Reply New Topic

So I guess the difference is being literal and now I can see how it's literal. Intend means to plan ahead. Joe never planned on the special cup or spending an extra dollar and that happened during his plan. But wouldn't it still be intentional because he still knew about it and went along with it? Oh well. That is why I think it's semantics because both literal minds can interpret this differently like I am.

I think the answer depends on the time that the past tense usage of the word "intend" in the question refers to. At the time of the purchase, paying the extra dollar is intentional. At the time Joe decides to buy the largest drink, paying the extra dollar isn't intended. The English language is ambiguous. The interesting question is what causes some people to use one interpretation and others to use a different interpretation.

Last edited by marshall on 04 Sep 2011, 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I didn't even pick up in the first scenario that the Mega-size cup WAS the largest size - I thought she was offering an alternative to the largest size, so I though he would have been surprised when he got the largest size and it came in the commemorative cup too.

I got the stock standard NT answer - unintentional intentional because he verbalizes that he doesn't care about the dollar in the second example.

I think most people (mainly NTs) are one step ahead in thinking what might interest the other person in a "social situation". Assuming you are in the middle of a conversation knowing that Joe is willing to pay the extra dollar instead of saying he wants a smaller size smoothie to spare the extra cost tells something about Joe's preferences, and might bring up further topics to sustain the conversation. This is the key to understand why some people (supposedly NTs in larger proportion) would answer the second question "Did Joe intentionally pay one dollar more?" with "yes" when given an ambiguous situation like in this example. It's the context that provides the basis for the distinction as to which alternative interpretation is to be followed.

That is an interesting idea. For me, I came to the same conlusion as an NT, through the following process: I dont know whether this is an Aspergian process or not.

1) Picture myself as Joe, standing at the counter, ordering the drinks
2) With the second situation, I am told about the extra dollar. I consider the cost. Then decide to accept. Have made the decision. Then with the decision made, I act on the intent generated by making the decision. So I act intentionally. The events that occur generate intent as they happen.

I wonder if my brain just moves very slowly. If in real life I was standing at the counter I would have frozen up a bit with the introduction of the new dollar. So this in itself would cause an anxiety-producing situation which would warrant a whole new need for decision making and altering of intent.

It is all very complex anyway.

I would do the same. Knowing me I would probably take into account if two smaller smoothie was cheaper, ask further questions if needed, but for sure, hesitate a lot about it.


Simple situations - high complexity. Just as life seems to be every day.

I "passed" the Sally Anne test (though maybe would have failed it when younger; I will never know).

But to me in this test the answers are clearly "unintentional, unintentional". He just wanted the drink.

I don't see how any other answer or argument about semantics suddenly changes one or other of the answers to intentional... the intention was to get the drink that he wanted in the size that he wanted and anything else is irrelevant.

I don't usually freeze up in this situation. I have my script for ordering things. I have rehearsed the words for the order. If someone offers me an alternative or asks any questions, I tend just repeat my original order with the same words again; usually they then just give me what I ordered.

I have no doubt that this has led to me missing out a numerous "special offers", "money saving deals" and whatever else. And also, sometimes, accepting them when I don't really care about them.

I certainly wouldn't be asking further questions. If I had to repeat my order three or four times and the person is still asking the question, that's when my brain kicks into gear because perhaps the reason they are still asking whatever they are asking is because they actually can't proceed without further information ... but I maybe still haven't interpreted the question if it wasn't in my rehearsed script. At that point I may freeze then until I have processed the question and formulated and answer, or walk away without my order.

Ok, let me put it like this...

Joe enters the shop with the intention of buying the biggest smoothie they sell. He perhaps imagines that the set of available products is composed of varying sizes of smoothie, but the only one he wants to buy is a member of that set which is the largest smoothie.

He tries to initiate the transaction with the cashier, but the cashier interjects with a piece of additional information (that he did not know before entering the shop) instead of progressing the transaction.

Joe now has a decision to make: does he abort the transaction or does he proceed? Does the commemorative cup matter to Joe, or not? He must now make a decision and form an intent as to how he wishes to proceed; a more specific intent than the one in his mind when he entered the store.

Joe now knows more specifically that that of the set of available products, the one member of that set he would like to purchase is the mega-size smoothie in a commemorative cup. The commemorative cup is an inherent attribute of this object that Joe is aware of and cannot pretend he is not aware of.

He decides to purchase this product that he knows comes with a commemorative cup. He intends to receive a mega-sized smoothie in a commemorative cup. Thus, he intends to receive the commemorative cup.

Now, let us say, for argument's sake, that Joe did not form a second, more specific intent after finding out the information that held up the transaction he initiated, because he did not make a decision, he simply re-stated his initial intent. The only way for Joe to not have made a decision based on the new information is for Joe to have not evaluated the information. If Joe does not evaluate the information, how does he know that the cashier has not just told him that the mega-size smoothies contain deadly poison?

The information cannot be selectively ignored, Joe either was completely ignorant of it, somehow, or he evaluated it. If he evaluated it, he must have re-formed his intent on that basis.

I look at this way:

1) I don't care about a commemorative cup, I just want the biggest smoothie you have.
2) I don't care if I have to pay one dollar more, I just want the biggest smoothie you have.

The phrases in bold seem to be of the most importance. In 1, he doesn't care, therefore he doesn't intend. In 2, he also doesn't care, therefore he doesn't intend. But in both cases, he 'just wants' the biggest smoothie, therefore he intends to get the biggest smoothie. One question raised is whether doing is intending. If I were in his situation, I wouldn't originally intend/plan to pay one dollar extra, but I would do so in order to achieve my end goal. I therefore, as I dig for coins in my wallet, intend to give the cashier an extra dollar in order to satisfy the required payment. So there seems to be an element of time that needs to be explicitly stated in the question.

If the question was worded "When Joe paid the extra dollar, did he act intentionally?" I would have come to the same conclusion as you. The thing is I don't automatically connect the word "intent" with an action. I see things more abstractly, keeping mental states/dispositions/plans and actions temporally separate. Maybe it is an NT tendency to see "intent" as a temporally fluid characteristic rather than something that must be relative to some time frame of reference in which a plan was conceived. Of course NTs use the word both ways - i.e. in some cases it is fluid and connected directly with action, in others its about to conforming to a preconceived "plan" from a earlier fixed frame of reference. I don't see what contextual clue would lead to one interpretation vs. another in this particular story though.

I think I might have figured it out.

The answer is in the way I process a narrative. I read in all the information quickly as a chunk and then stop and put it all together, "rewinding" in my head to process what's going on in the mind of a particular character. If the story is simple and short like this one, then the entire thing will be one "chunk" in my head. That's why I'm more likely to interpret "intent" in the story in a global way, i.e. as conforming to a plan, rather than strictly following along with the character as I read. I also think this is the reason I can't follow along with audio books.

Joe's only intended action is to buy the biggest smoothie. When presented with variables to achieving his goals he still acts in the way that will satisfy his intention - of getting the biggest smoothie. The variables are irrelevent - he acted only to intentionally get the biggest smoothie. Which is why it is a trick question. It can have more than one perceived answer - which is the whole point I suppose.

But the point of this is to highlight the differences in social perception. Unfortunately there isn't just the NT answer and the Asperger's answer yet the efficacy of this 'test' relies on only two possible assumptions. So - the whole test is irrelevent. The initial hypothosis and resulting testing method are invalid.

I think both were intentional. In both scenarios, getting the cup and paying the extra dollar are part of buying the biggest smoothie. Joe got exactly what he wanted. The fact that he doesn't care much about the cup or dollar doesn't make it unintentional.

My definition of intentional is "knowingly done." The man's actions fit that. If the quiz intends for the default definition to be that the man's sole aim was to get the cup and pay the extra dollar, then both are unintentional.