Weird, Confusing AS Test re Large Smoothie

Post Reply New Topic

I failed the Sally Anne Test which suggests I have AS but I got the same answer as an NT on this test.

IDK here it is, from another thread if people want to discuss it, I dont understand the silly thing at all or how it is supposed to say if you have AS.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/exp ... s-syndrome

Anyway my answer is, situation 1: Not intentional as he wanted the large size and didnt care whether it had the fancy cup. So he didnt intend to get the fancy cup.

2: Intentional as he was told about the extra dollar and he then decided it wasnt worth worrying about paying one dollar extra so he made a direct decision on it.

I did not understand that one bit... I saw both as unintentional though but then read your answer and it made more sense but hurt my head!

Interesting. My first impression was "unintentional, unintentional" but then I thought: his intent is to buy the largest drink, the cup and dollar (which he doesn't care about) are components of the cost (which he doesn't care about but intends to pay), both are part of his intention so it's "intentional, intentional."

Did you read this related article too? Joe and The Mega-Sized Smoothie: Language and Asperger's

The ambiguity in the word "intentional" makes this test too flawed to be taken seriously.

My first instinct was that it was intentional in both instances, because although getting the commemerative cup was not an objective. He still agreed to the additional term of recieving the cup, making the aquisition of the large smoothie, with it's accompanying term an intentional action.

The same argument applies with the second instance. Although he did not want to pay an extra dollar for the smoothie, he still agreed to that accompanying term and purchased the smoothie. This makes the transaction as a whole intentional.

But this reasoning is based on my own personal distinction between an "intention" and an "objective." Someone who does not make the same distinction will anwer the test differently, and I don't see how one's own personal distinction between these words is related to their autism.

Hence this test is a pile of crap.

The answers to both are the same-
he apparently-considers both the extra dollar and the commemorative cup to be irrelevant in his ultimate decision to purchase the largest smoothie.

Intentional or unintentional- depends on how we define "intent"-
I think it odd to define it as "anything not accidental" as opposed to "driving conscious aim".

Thus,
I would say neither were intentional, because the INTENT was to buy the largest smoothie,
and the other factors accepted as secondary outcomes of that intent being fulfilled.

Unintentional, unintentional.

'Zactly.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 04 Sep 2011, 7:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

It would seem most of the differential answers are founded on the difference between
passive (receiving a special cup)
versus active (paying a dollar extra)
acceptance-of-consequence for satisfying the intent,
which apparently confuses some people.

"I want the biggest smoothie."
"It comes in a special cup."
"I don't care. I want the biggest smoothie."

"I want the biggest smoothie."
"You have to pay a dollar more than before."
"I don't care. I want the biggest smoothie."

^Same.

My stance on this has always been:

Both are unintentional. In each case there is something unexpected involved in getting the drink, but his intention is to get the drink. Whether he has to take a bonus cup or spend a dollar more than he expected, that's just adapting to the realities of the situation.

My first reaction was 1) unintentional and 2) unintentional, since in both cases he just wanted the biggest drink they had. I changed 2) to intentional based upon the fact that this one required a change in his behavior -- giving the clerk the extra dollar -- not a change in the clerk's behavior -- using a different cup.

I already did this and said unintentional. I agree with Verdandi.

I must be missing the point on this. The question wasn't "did he intend to get the largest sized smoothie", they were:

"Did Joe intentionally obtain the commemorative cup?" and "Did Joe intentionally pay one dollar more?"

In both cases, the answer is "no". He was forced into those actions in order to address his actual intent (buying the largest possible smoothie). This seems to be a test of our ability to understand English and not of autism. I find it hard to believe that all people with autism have an inherent understanding of language and those that don't have autism just use words without consideration for their meaning.

Let me take the same construct, but change the parameters:

Joe wanted to get to work. On the way to work, a squirrel darted out in front of his car and he swerved into a tree and totaled the vehicle. A tow truck towed Joe and his car to work. Did Joe intentionally go to work in a tow truck?

In all three scenarios, Joe has been forced into complying with an undesirable situation in order to attain his intended goal (getting to work). He didn't "intend" to go in a tow truck, but he accepted that as a means to an end. It could be argued that the moment that he made a conscious decision to continue on to work, he redefined his intent. But that's not really the implied meaning of the question.

I don't think that even a non-autistic would say that Joe "intended" to go to work in a tow truck. So why would they say that he "intended" to pay more or get an unwanted commemorative cup?

<now proceeding to read the article>

Ok....I stand by my comments above. The issue with these scenarios isn't about the meaning of "intend" so much as it's about the temporal assumption of the question.

eg: "When Joe entered the store did he expect to obtain a commemorative cup?"
vs "When Joe made the purchase, did he expect to receive the commemorative cup?"

Since we're not "big picture" (others' definition, bit mine), shouldn't an Autistic focus on the immediate transaction rather than the broader goals? If they did, then wouldn't the expected outcome of this "test" be the exact opposite?

The other scenarios in the article seem much more illustrative to me. But I don't really see any of them as a problem that Autistics have as it is a problem that NTs have. The only time that "Did you intend to hit the policeman?" could be answered "no" is if the contact was truly accidental or someone else was running their body. I can't really understand how a person can make a decision and then claim that it was unintentional. The consequence (hurting the policeman) is a completely different question. That's just an example of sloppy thinking.

As for the condiments scenario, I run into that continually and I find it very frustrating. Again, it's an example of sloppy thinking or people having to compensate for sloppy thinking in others. If I can see a condiment selection and I say that I want "everything", it means that I want everything from that possible selection. If people are walking in and saying "everything" when they mean "everything except jalepenos", that's a problem with them and not with me. Similarly, when I clearly order a "large black coffee", I don't expect to be asked if I want milk and sugar or "what size would you like that coffee?". I think that behavior is a symptom of the dumbing down of society and not one of interpretation. Customers must obviously have come in and complained that there was no milk and sugar in their "black coffee" or that someone put jalapenos on their meal when they clearly asked for "everything". Customer service people learn to accommodate the most common behavior, so I wouldn't blame them for the way that they've learned to interpret the orders. Instead, blame the idiots that send back orders when they get exactly what they asked for.

The quiz is meant to show differences between aspie thinking and NT thinking. To figure out how that's supposed to work, we need to think not so much about Joe's state of mind, but about NT readers' state of mind while reading about Joe.

What would an NT think was meant by the question? What would an NT think Joe was up to? And how is it different, and why?

I don't really know the answer to that question. Guessing what one person is thinking is easier than guessing how one person thinks that another person is thinking.

Apparently, whatever an NT means by "intentional" covers the extra dollar case in their perception. How and why? I'd need to do some more research.

I failed the Sally-Anne test as well. It is not an AS diagnostic test though, but one related to potential impairment of ToM. A study has shown that people with AS often do not have an impairment with theory of mind, while people with autism (even HFA) do. Although a failure of the test does not automatically mean autism.

Going to check out your link now...

Oh I did that link on another thread as well. I scored in the average ASD (thought both were unintentional) range, but failing or not failing it cannot accurately be the sole indicator of an ASD.

I answered intentional to both and I think it depends on how you view the words. It's either intentional or unintentional. I asked myself this the other day and couldn't decide if what I did was intentional or unintentional. I go to the baby resale store and the budget I have is fifty dollars to spend for diapers. I look at the prices and add them up and I take them up to the counter after looking at them for about an hour. I realize I had one extra diaper I didn't intend to get but I could have decided to take it back so it's not over fifty bucks. But I had a two dollars and sixty three cents store credit. So I decided to use that and it turned out I had more store credit so I used that and it knocked the price down to $43.62. I could have gone back and look for another inexpensive diaper so I have spent fifty bucks but I didn't because I wanted to get out of there. Was it my intention to spend less than fifty bucks? I knew about it before giving the lady my debit card to pay. Before I knew the total, I wasn't intending to spend less than that. So that got me. It's the same as Joe's situation about the smoothie. Either it was intentional because I could have gotten another diaper or just buy the toy I was letting my son play with to keep him busy or unintentional because I was planning on spending fifty bucks even though it wouldn't be exact, it may be a little under or a little over but the total came to $43.62 instead and I just wanted to leave.

Just like Joe could have said no to the big smoothie because he didn't want the cup nor did he want to pay the extra dollar and get something else but he got it anyway even though he didn't plan to get the cup before he ordered, same as paying the extra dollar before he ordered. Maybe he just wanted the smoothie so badly and didn't want to waste his time deciding on what to get instead. After all he was very thirsty. When I get in a rush and want to get it over with, I don't even care and just do it and not make a big deal about it.