Situations that NTs and Aspies would perceive differently?

Post Reply New Topic

It has alot to do with the discrepancy between NT and aspie. NTs will change their response depending on the emotion implied in the statements. If you tell an NT that he has a 10% chance of winning, there's a good chance he'll buy the ticket because of the attached positive emotion. If you tell that same NT he has a 90% chance of loosing, chances are he decide against buying the ticket because the question was phrased with a negative implication. Aspies will give the same answer for both questions, because they'll rely more on logic and are less likely to respond to the emotional aspect of the statements.

I don't see why accepting a free cup is more passive than paying an extra dollar. What if I REALLY don't want the free cup? What if it's ugly to the point I'd dread being seen with it? Also figuring out how to dispose of it is much more of a burden than if it were just a normal cheap paper cup. It could be akin to "free" software that insists on installing annoying adware on my computer.

Seriously though. I think I figured out my hang up on the use of the word "intentional". I tend to associate use of the word intentional with something pre-planned from an earlier time. Paying the extra dollar was something he had to decide spur-of-the-moment when he found out the price was one dollar more than he originally thought. Since he wasn't "planning" on paying an extra dollar, the use of the word "intentional" to describe the act of paying an extra dollar on the spot is confusing to me.

Dude, you're overthinking. Don't sweat it because these questions are just a matter of personal perception.

The only reason an NT views the dollar as intentional is because an NT considers all actions leading up to the goal as intentional. An aspie would view only the end goal as intentional. Like I said before, it doesn't make sense to me either, but that's how an NT would think, at least according to the journal article. It's like if you were on a road trip, and someone asked you if buying gas and food in the middle of the trip was intentional, even if it was more expensive than it should be. In the end, it really just depends on your perceived definition of "intentional."

Still, I don't think the stated reason is the reason why I got it "wrong". It doesn't really have to do with instrumental action. It has to do with the time frame. If the "intent" they are asking about occurs before he finds out he he will receive a free cup or have to pay a dollar more, then both are unintentional, i.e. not planned from the beginning of the story. The only thing he intends to do at the beginning of the story is to buy a drink. The free cup / extra cost are not known yet.

So the real issue is not understanding that the "intent" they are asking about should be interpreted as occuring simultaneously with the action. Asking the question in the past tense makes it unclear. I hope this clarifies.

First off, there's no right and wrong with this question. There are just two different ways to answer the question depending on your individual interpretation. Secondly, the authors of the question explicitly stated that it has everything to do with instrumental action. You can google it yourself if you don't believe me. If that's how you interpret it that's fine, but I wouldn't waste mental energy overthinking it. It's much better if you just accept that everyone's brain will give rise to a different answer. No one is right or wrong.

i can't put this whole thing aside just yet.

(rabid monkey, if you say to me "dude, you're overthinking this" i will punch you)

i just want to understand.

in both cases, he agrees to something he didn't want. first, it's a cup. second, it's spending an extra dollar. in both cases he's been told of these caveats, and in both cases agreeing to them is not relevant to him; he does not really want to, but they are simply means to an end.

so i don't get why in the "official" explanation (of the perception that spending a dollar represents intention while agreeing to a cup does not), spending the dollar is considered a step along the way while the cup is not. or why that's the "correct" interpretation.

someone said the cup was passive and did not stand between him and the drink. neither does the dollar. he readily agrees to part with it.

strange, now after discussing this i no longer know or care whether the actions were intentional; i just cannot understand why they would typically be considered so differently. the element of intent seems to vanish because the cup does not cost him money; i can't understand this. maybe you have to be the kind of person who does not like change imposed on you to perceive the cup as an imposition (agreeing to which could be an equal obstacle to spending a dollar)

Yes. I take pleasure in over-thinking thank you very much... It's something other people don't do enough of. I'm still saying there is an ambiguous time frame going on with the question.

can someonepost other saneroes siular to the free cup or the big letters made of nicly linned up smaller ones or othe scenareos NTs and aspies percieve differently? I would love to see others

https://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news ... -in-autism

There's this, which bothers me because I don't see how anyone could give the 'autistic' answer.

Yeah there, that's always been my problem with the cup case, like I'm going to even THINK about one dollar. I have no job but I'm lousy with money AND thirst is the only feeling this case gives me, thirst is a very imperious need. Pay whatever, not intentional.
I'm sure it would be funny if the letter test was taken in front of a psych, and they notice us all looking first at the bottom small letters, radomly, from down to up or right to left.... They'd probably think we don't master the "basic reading procedure" of going left to right...........

This article is riDIculous!! !! I think I've seen the test somewhere, it was very different and the blame/no blame was much more hazy than the example they gave.....
Wait I'll check if there's a link about the test in the article, but if not, they clearly twisted reality.

It's messed up. I agree with your reply on that site.

Last edited by fraac on 12 Jan 2012, 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yep. I have left a comment on it because it was pissing me off. That's really not an accurate depiction of autistic people and shouldn't be left unchecked.
Edit: ah thanks Was a bit hasty from all the irritation but i guess it will do....

the research based on this poison / sugar scenario is suggesting is autistic people cannot reason out that good intentions can lead to a bad outcome. this can't be true. as with many things people believe about autism, i wonder if the meaning of the results isn't what the researchers have assumed. we don't fail in the reasoning department; rather we often fail in the department of factoring in emotional impact, when trying to reason things out. or we fail in the area of understanding what the question really is asking. i wonder why researchers assign motives to autistic behavior (or assume there are none) rather than asking autistic people why they do things, or rather than assuming that autistic people (like NTs) do not always do things for the same reason. John Elder Robison wrote about this, that researchers noted "darting eyes" in autistic people and assigned no motive to the behavior, but he knew full well why he had darting eyes, because he was constantly on guard for socially threatening situations.

i wonder if both this (the poison / sugar story) and the commemorative cup thing (earlier in the thread, for those only joining the conversation since its resurrection) are really issues of semantics. maybe autistic individuals are more rigid in their definition of "blame" for example, and are less inclined to factor intention into their opinion of whether or not someone deserves blame. i can't think through these types of scenarios without haggling over distinctions about what is really being asked. personally i would make the distinction that accountability or responsibility could be assigned rather than blame, and i would add that caveat before answering the question, because i understand that "blame" can carry with it "shame" or "punishment." and i don't automatically believe that someone should receive punishment for making an error. if the person's job is Q.C. at the sugar / poison factory, then yes, they are to blame. if the person was asked to pass the sugar, but not also asked to first verify that the sugar wasn't poison (so unlikely a scenario that no one would possibly consider it), then no. so there is MY autistic answer.

I agree, 'blame' is terrible. It also requires a blamer who could be anyone. I think these questions are often framed in a way that makes intuitive sense to nonautistics' emotional, hierarchical way of seeing things. They then equate this to morality.

yes. blame is moral judgment, and to even pose such a question one must first assume the person being asked consents to such judgment and feels qualified to assess the situation. the blamer required is the person being asked the question. i have a hard time straight away with it and would want to be a conscientious objector.