“Your Aspie score: 131 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 71 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie”

I note immediately that my scores add up to 202, not the stated 200.

Crap. Maybe it’s true.

As far as I can tell I’m an undiagnosed Aspie, and discussions like these always seem to crack another door just a little bit open to me understanding the gulf ‘tween myself those within society’s Standard Deviation.

‘Course I rather like being on the fringe of the bell curve.

I can kinda see the logic both ways, but my initial gut reaction was: both unintentional. And while I follow everyone’s logical arguments, though they differ, the real knowledge gems for me are the “no-no-no, see, there’s this social subtext thing that’s usually going on, and this is how it goes…” descriptions.

The annoyance factor is pretty mild for me, but since it was brought up, it made me introspective again. There are bad-mood days where I’ve wanted to slap the poor muggle who’s required to ask “do you want fries with that?” right through the speakerbox. But I don’t. Cuz that would hurt. And the nice young men in the plain white coats would come to take me away.

Ha-ha.

Been far too long to cite my sources, but I’ve heard (read?) Asperger’s called “the geeks’ disease” (or similar), and also that aspies most frequently empathize (tho it sounds an oxymoron) with Mr. Spock and Data. Not meant pejoratively at all, and like so many here, I’ve embraced the Geek label with pride. I don’t think we’ve learned formal logic like some “stupid human trick” quixotically acquired early, but rather that we’re simply hardwired for that analytical approach. Formality comes later, like a born artist taking a “theory of color” class.

A few milestones for me in self-discovery at various ages include: learning that not everyone thinks in hologram. Apparently my half-sister can’t conjure one at all. Also: “cliche level communication” from a college level speech class. (You mean when the clerk asks me how I am, they don’t really mean it? How odd…)

I always welcome more.

Here’s the problem. Missing Premise in scenario #2:

“The largest drink *is* the Mega smoothie.”

Since that premise was missing, the choice was not intentional.

To me it is dead obvious that this isn’t really about logic or monetary values at all, this is all about social interaction and subtext.

To quote myself:
The words “I don´t care” clearly carry a different message in the two different conversational contexts.

In the first context, you (unsuccessfully) dismiss the cup.
= unintentional cup.

In the second context, you agree to the terms of payment.
= intentional extra dollar.

This might be both illogical and infuriating, but thats just how human to human interaction works. Get used to it.

BTW: did mr Spock and Cosmo Kramer have aspbergers?
This souds like something they might get entangled in.

a) I was misdiagnosed

b) This test is so much horse puckey

c) I have Aspergers, but I’m also a cheapskate :)

@The Unusual Suspect

Mine was 130 of 200 and 79 of 200… yet again, not 200. I’m thinking I may have left two or three questions as ‘?’, which might account for the extra points.

And I feel sorry for the kid working the counter when this mysteriously dehydrated nutjob comes flailing in demanding the largest smoothie they have, damn the expense. And the kid has to be like, “Would you like your Mega-Sized Smoothie in a Ginormous High School Musical 3 Commemorative Cup? Because that’s all it comes in.” And Joe’s like, “I don’t give a flying fuck what you PUT it in. I’m THIRSTY as SHIT. Can’t you SEE that?”

And the kid’s like, “There’s another scenario where there’s not a Commemorative Cup, but the Mega-Sized Smoothie costs a dollar more…” And Joe’s like “Dude, honestly, just give me the fucking Smoothie before I implode from the raw shriveling dessicating effects of this wicked dehydration I’m suffering. Have you got fucking Asperger’s or something?” And the kid starts crying because he does, in fact, have Aspergers.

And the man behind Joe in line is actually Phillip K. Dick, who is dreaming, and will wake.

#101- HOW PEOPLE UNDERSTAND INTENT WAS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.

At least we know for sure who doesn’t have Aspergers.

Really, the only thing I am tempted to cry foul about is this statement:

You surely think that paying an extra dollar was intentional, while getting the commemorative cup was not. So do most people

Anyone who state you surely think is bound to get a few raised eyebrows. And considering that an impressive number of commenters are told by this article that they don’t think like most people, it is only normal that we want to poke at it and take it apart.

Reminds me of a maxim oft quoted by Robert Anton Wilson (mostly in connection with e-prime):

“These people don’t know how to use language properly.”

(one day I will create an account here I swear.)

gosh, this is one of those really stupid made up scenarios…

I personally think the biggest weirdos are the psychologists who make these stupid exercises up…

http://www.rdos.net/eng/

Different isn’t damaged.

William @31: I concur with your second statement.

——

For people with Asperger’s, (such as myself), particular phrases have particular set meanings.

If a non-Asperger’s person says “I don’t care if I have to pay an extra dollar …” – it means to them that they have evaluated the entire expression, or statement, and they understand that the other person’s intent is to let them know of a change from a previously established norm of commercial exchange, and that this information is provided as a kindness to give the customer an opportunity to evaluate their purchase. (It is also used to remind the customer that they are indebted to the retailer for having supplied the item to them at lower-than-apparent-market-value, previously. Ah, the lessons of advertising studies.) It is an interaction between two people.

For someone with Asperger’s, when they say “I don’t care if I have to pay an extra dollar …”, it means that they have performed a short-circuit cost-benefit analysis of the commercial exchange and that, in this instance, the extra dollar is irrelevant or trivial. Consideration of human interaction is not a part of this function. The numerical valuation of the cost of the item may not even be part of the cost-benefit analysis, if the person with Asperger’s is not prepared to re-evaluate how much they are spending on the item at that point in time; Decisions on whether or not to continue to purchase an item that is purchased routinely are often performed later, at a time dedicated to working out budgets.

Asking him/her to focus on budgeting concerns during acquiring the item, often while the person is thinking of something entirely different, is distracting, de-railing, and oftentimes viewed as unkind – it is not something they would do to another person: making them re-evaluate their choices on the fly. It also breaks a habit or routine, the existence of which people with Asperger’s find comforting and soothing.

They are dismissing the entire interaction. Their intent is not to spend an extra dollar – their intent is to accomplish a routine task they have already planned out.

To a non-Asperger’s Syndrome person, a cup is a cup but a dollar more is cause to re-evaluate, and a person is helping them.

For someone with Asperger’s, both the choice of cup and the dollar (as well as navigating the human interaction of proffering them the choice) are obstacles between them and a goal.

People with Asperger’s have a theory of self. It’s just not the theory of self that non-Asperger’s Syndrome people share.

I hope this helps people understand people with Asperger’s.

Thanks, Bardfinn.

If the guy was a frivolous billionaire who collects commemorative cups for a hobby the situation would be considered different. We don’t know. All we do know is that it states that he didn’t care.

Consider this.

Man on battlefield has his leg blown off, is bleeding to death and has seconds to live. Medic says you can have a bandage but its gotta be in blue. Or medic says you can have a bandage but it costs a dollar.

Now how many people think that he intentionally wanted the blue one or intentionally wanted to pay for it ?

Depending on the interpretation of language either both or none but in that situation its really hard to see how they are different.

Framed in that language I think most ‘normal’ people would say he didn’t intend to pay for it.

The natural meaning seems to relate to whether the ting is done with a specific goal in mind. The legal meaning, however, focuses on whether what results is the natural consequence of the doer’s actions.

See http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Intention_in_English_law for a discussion of this.

I’d say that scenario 1 was unintentional, but scenario 2 was intentional, using the natural meaning of the word. However, from a legal perspective, both acts are intentional.

BTW, I am borderline Aspie, and would rather drink a Diet Coke as a thirst-quencher than a smoothie. Go figure!