Situations that NTs and Aspies would perceive differently?

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't even realise there were big ones until I scrolled down and read it. Then I went up and checked.

The free cup case annoys me. Just give the guy his drink and stop bugging him with these stupid gimmicks. On the page, people who thought that the second case was intentional didn't explain their reasoning in any way that made sense. It's a balancing of priorities. At the moment, he wanted the drink. The dollar didn't matter, because he wanted the drink a lot, and it was only one dollar. If it had been a million dollars, then it would have mattered, because the priorities would have changed. Not ending up bankrupt is more important than getting the drink.

$1 = unintentional

$1,000,000 = intentional

I admit that I saw the small letters first and counted them and appreciated their lined-up symmetry before I noticed any big letters. Even after knowing about the big letters, I still see the small letters and ignore the big letters.

I thought the second one was unintentional too. I guess an NT would say that it was intentional because he acknowledged the fact that he would have to pay the extra dollar.

I thought both situations were unintentional.

I feel this is a "blind leading the blind" scenario for two reasons. One being neither of us are psychologists, and two being we're both aspies I did some research and I'll try my best:

This is what I got from good 'ole google:

An instrumental desire is when you intentionally perform B solely for the purpose to get from A to C. So paying an extra dollar is intentional because it's a means to get the drink. Apparently NTs intuitively understand this indirect route to accomplishing something, and they view every point on that route as intentional to get to the goal, which in this case is the drink. So aspies go directly from point A to point C, with everything in between being unintentional. I guess it's like driving from point A to point C, but defining the pit stop as intentional. To me, that's like taking a road trip just for the pit stop. It doesn't make sense to me, but I guess that's why I'm an aspie.

I agree that the extra dollar is irrelevant - so intent isn't even part of the issue - the INTENT is to get that drink!

BUT - I have to admit that I do understand the point of view that the sales person and the guy have some sort of understanding about the dollar - it's the sort of thing we see all the time.

Not sure if it's related but this free cup thing brings it to mind: I regularly get embarrassed by those charities selling raffle tickets - I often hand over my money and they seem totally baffled or even alarmed when I tell them the tickets aren't necessary. I'm supporting the charity - usually the prizes don't interest me - so why would I want the ticket?? Actually even if the prizes do interest me I feel uncomfortable about the possiblilty of getting a $50000 car for $5 - if I WANT a $50000 car then I should pay $50000.

I have several things in the cupboard that I've won over the years - and I've given many more to charities (the ones I have will end up there) - because I have a big problem being able to use them - it feels like they belong to someone else - I just can't bring myself to see them as my own. I don;t know if that's AS or just my own personal mental quirk.

I showed my wife the free cup scenarios and she said No to both without hesitation! I was a bit shocked as she's normal. Oddly enough she has more trouble even eventually seeing how it can be understood as intentional than me! Hmmmm... - it isn't a double blind type situation is it???

Yes, but an NT is more likely to view all actions causing the attainment of the drink as intentional. For aspies, it's only the end result.

i saw both (the extra dollar and the dumb cup) as unintentional side effects of the intentional act of buying the large size.

i don't know why NTs would assess this differently, unless they aren't interested in accuracy.

I already explained it in 3-4 posts above this one. An NT is more likely to say that all steps leading to the final outcome are intentional, whereas an aspie just thinks the final outcome is intentional.

by that logic wouldn't acquiring the commemorative cup also be intentional?

No, because it's a passive action and it doesn't come between him and the drink. Furthermore, most people would place very little economic value on the free cup. In contrast, the second case states that the obligation to pay an extra dollar more comes between him and his intention. The dollar has value and when someone gives up something of value in order to obtain something else, then people ascribe intention to both giving up the extra dollar and acquiring the drink.

If you have online access to psychology journals, there are tons of studies done that differentiate aspies from NTs. What I posted is all I have so far, but I guarantee there's more if you want to search through journals.

maybe the cup has value to someone.

i guess what i fail to see is that the difference between the cup and the dollar is intention. he does not want the cup, nor does he want to spend the extra dollar. in both cases he agrees because he wants the drink. to me, the difference between the cup and the dollar is only that one is an additional acquisition and the other is an additional expenditure.

really if someone was asking me this question in a clinical setting or something i would ask for their definition of "intentional." if agreeing to something (even if only to achieve something else) = intention, then in both situations the unwanted elements (cup, dollar) would be intentional. but whether the additional item (either acquired or parted with) has value or not does not change my interpretation of whether agreeing to it is intentional.

makes no sense to me either.

what is "instrumental desire" and what is the agent?

I just interpreted his words "I don't care" as an implication of unintentional action. That's why I answered no to both questions. After delving into it a bit, I could kind of see how an NT would say that paying an extra dollar is intentional, but it's definitely not my first conclusion.

I can see how it be intentional and intentional. I say intentional because he was informed about the cost but still chose to go along with it when he could have said "Forget it" and left and go somewhere else for a drink.

Lot of aspies may say unintentional because he didn't know about the cost until he was informed but he had already planned on getting the drink so no way he was going to back down on it. I think it's all about perception on the word.

About the lottery thing, it depends on the person, nothing to do with NT or aspie. Some may say yes anyway because they are hoping they get lucky and win while another person knows for sure they will not win since winning is very slim so they say no to buying the ticket. I would say no to both.

About the small letters, I saw both. Small letters making the huge letters and I didn't get what huge letters they were talking about and then I realized the next day they weren't talking about the little small letters, they were talking about the letters that make a whole huge letter. So hard for me to say what I saw first.

Last edited by League_Girl on 06 Jun 2011, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.