Weird, Confusing AS Test re Large Smoothie

Page 4 of 7 [ 97 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,033

05 Sep 2011, 9:31 pm

Ive started up a thread for NTs to do the test and reply in it. So far I have 3 Unintentional/Intentionals in a row!! ! So it must be true then.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3994464.html#3994464

_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf

Taking a break.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

05 Sep 2011, 10:05 pm

Funny how a couple of the respondents said "I can't imagine how anyone would come up with any answer other than mine? Mine is the only possible logical answer."

This must be that theory of mind we keep hearing so much about. Anyway, logic is about the information you have and sometimes how you interpret it. Often, logic is quite subjective, as this test demonstrates.

hoegaandit
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 3 Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

07 Sep 2011, 12:21 am

Actually, this is more interesting that I had originally thought.

I have not read all the posts, but note that most of the NT's (in the parallel post) saw it Unintentional, Intentional, but most of the posters on this thread saw it differently from the NT's. So this, perhaps surprisingly, does seem to be pointing out some differences in thinking between NT's and HFAs.

FWIW our dx HFA son scored it Intentional, Intentional, and my (schizophrenic) wife Unintentional, Unintentional.

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,317
Location: Pacific Northwest

07 Sep 2011, 12:27 am

hoegaandit wrote:

Ah interesting what your son answered so I am not alone.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

07 Sep 2011, 12:28 am

hoegaandit wrote:

Differences that do not necessarily point to a lack of logic, but rather different interpretations of the same events.

YellowBanana
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,032
Location: mostly, in my head.

07 Sep 2011, 1:32 am

Verdandi wrote:

I am one of these posters.

I stick by my answer of unintentional/unintentional.

However, having read all the posts I can see now how some would answer intentional/intentional.

I still can't figure out why some people (NTs apparently mostly in this group) would answer that the actions are somehow different - just because one invlves a fancy cup and the other money - and that one is unintentional and the other intentional (whichever way round they choose).

Maybe I'm just a bit dim ....

_________________
Female. Dx ASD in 2011 @ Age 38. Also Dx BPD

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

07 Sep 2011, 3:00 am

YellowBanana wrote:

Verdandi wrote:

Sorry, I didn't mean you. I meant the NT respondents on the other thread. Although upon reread I see that both posts I was thinking of had qualifiers.

Tuttle
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,088
Location: Massachusetts

07 Sep 2011, 12:08 pm

I can understand both unintentional, unintentional or intentional, intentional. What's weird to me about unintentional/intentional is that it seems to be using different definitions of intent for them. Knowingly doing something works, and makes them both intentional, things being side effects rather than intent works, and makes them both unintentional. What definition would have them different for the two of them?

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

07 Sep 2011, 2:16 pm

YellowBanana wrote:

Verdandi wrote:

I have since answered in the NT cross-post in the parents' forum. I answered unintentional/intentional and here is why:

I see Joe's intent as his plan of action. He makes a plan. His plan is to pay X$ in order to get the largest smoothie. When the clerk tells him he also gets a commemorative cup with that largest smoothie, he gets that cup unintentionally. He did not have to change his plan (intent). His intent remains exactly the same whether he gets the cup or not---unintentional.

When the clerk tells him him he must pay an extra dollar to get the smoothie, he must change his plan (intent) from pay X$ in order to get largest smoothie to pay X+1 $ in order to get largest smoothie. The change in his intent that is required means that he intentionally paid an extra dollar.

It looks like the broad difference between AS and NT is where the parameters of intent are being drawn. AS people are drawing them at get largest smoothie while NT people are drawing them at pay X$ to get largest smoothie. I'm not sure why it works out this way. Marshall was hashing through the whole concept of parameters of intent upthread and that seems to be the real difference.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

07 Sep 2011, 2:55 pm

draelynn wrote:

Joe's only intendedaction 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.

And there we have the broad difference between AS and NT in where the parameters of intention are drawn

AS (with exceptions)
Joe intends to buy the largest smoothie

NT(with exceptions)
Joe intends to spend X$ to buy the largest smoothie.

The test authors never state this nor do they even try to explore possible reasons for the difference, but it was the big difference that jumped out at me when comparing answers in this thread (AS) versus answers in the Parenting thread (NT). The test sorts out where people draw that line and for whatever reason, AS people are drawing it firmly at "buy largest smoothie" while NT people are drawing it at "pay X$ to buy largest smoothie". *If his intention is just to buy the largest smoothie, then the scenarios are the same (both intentional or both unintentional) but if "pay X$" is part of his intent, then one will be unintentional and the other will be intentional.

So why are the two groups defining the parameters of intention differently? That's the mystery to me. Both sets of parameters are equally logical but there isn't a random distribution in answers, the way you would expect if two things truly are just personal definitions. There is this firm difference in how his intent is defined. I wish the test authors had at least tried to tackle that.

*I realize it's not a 100% correlation and the OP also defined Joe's intention as paying X$ to get largest smoothie. But the two sets of people do seem to mostly sort out this way.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

07 Sep 2011, 4:52 pm

The difference is that NTs are attributing thoughts to Joe that aren't stated in the question. Autistic people typically are not.

YellowBanana
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,032
Location: mostly, in my head.

07 Sep 2011, 5:00 pm

Verdandi wrote:

The difference is that NTs are attributing thoughts to Joe that aren't stated in the question. Autistic people typically are not.

Absolutely.

The test says that Joe "stopped by the local smoothie shop to buy the largest size drink available."

Nowhere does it mention him planning to pay x$ for the smoothie - just that he was going to buy the smoothie.

So why introduce something that is not stated??? Why assume that the cost was important to Joe??

_________________
Female. Dx ASD in 2011 @ Age 38. Also Dx BPD

btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

07 Sep 2011, 5:03 pm

YellowBanana wrote:

Verdandi wrote:

The difference is that NTs are attributing thoughts to Joe that aren't stated in the question. Autistic people typically are not.

This is the source of uncountable numbers of NT-Autistic miscommunications.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

07 Sep 2011, 5:37 pm

YellowBanana wrote:

Verdandi wrote:

The difference is that NTs are attributing thoughts to Joe that aren't stated in the question. Autistic people typically are not.

Because that's how NTs think. When they hear "This person is doing that action" they extrapolate possible motives, thoughts, and intentions from those actions. These extrapolations are not always right (and in some cases can often be downright wrong) but it's how they interact, and how they expect everyone else to interact.

It's like the social attribution task - watch a film showing polygons interacting, and then describe what happened using as many social elements as possible - I've seen people tell these stories complete with characters and plot, and all I see are some polygons racing around. Or in the ADOS, looking at pictures (of frogs doing things) and telling a story based on what you see in the picture - this is much easier for NTs than it is for autistic people.

Or I guess it's all down to that theory of mind thing again. This doesn't make anyone's logic about Joe's actions wrong, since there is no correct answer (per the study's author). It may be that the author (Edouard Machery) found a way to test theory of mind in people who can emulate it with active cognition without trying to trip them up with too much information to hold in working memory. This may very well be superior to the Sally-Anne test.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

07 Sep 2011, 5:38 pm

btbnnyr wrote:

This is the source of uncountable numbers of NT-Autistic miscommunications.

It's definitely been the source of uncountable numbers of my miscommunications with NTs.

Tuttle
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,088
Location: Massachusetts

07 Sep 2011, 5:43 pm

YellowBanana wrote:

Verdandi wrote:

The difference is that NTs are attributing thoughts to Joe that aren't stated in the question. Autistic people typically are not.

I was wondering, why assume he even knows what the old price was - there is no information saying that he's ever been to the store before.

Page 4 of 7 [ 97 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Weird, Confusing AS Test re Large Smoothie Post Reply New Topic

Weird, Confusing AS Test re Large Smoothie