Intentionality

[Kaylis-Americanis]

I also found this interesting blog thing...

In the study, participants were presented with two cases, the free cup case and the extra dollar case. Participants were then asked to determine whether the actions described in the individual cases were intentional or not:

The Free-Cup Case
Joe was feeling quite dehydrated, so he stopped by the local smoothie shop to buy the largest sized drink available. Before ordering, the cashier told him that if he bought a Mega-Sized Smoothie he would get it in a special commemorative cup. Joe replied, ‘I don't care about a commemorative cup, I just want the biggest smoothie you have.' Sure enough, Joe received the Mega-Sized Smoothie in a commemorative cup. Did Joe intentionally obtain the commemorative cup?

The Extra-Dollar Case
Joe was feeling quite dehydrated, so he stopped by the local smoothie shop to buy the largest sized drink available. Before ordering, the cashier told him that the Mega-Sized Smoothies were now one dollar more than they used to be. Joe replied, ‘I don't care if I have to pay one dollar more, I just want the biggest smoothie you have.' Sure enough, Joe received the Mega-Sized Smoothie and paid one dollar more for it. Did Joe intentionally pay one dollar more?

I asked my mom, and she said Yes to both...

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/asperger039s-diary/200811/joe-and-the-mega-sized-smoothie-language-and-aspergers

I read it and said both were unintentional, without even having read the explanation...and I can't understand, after reading it a few more times, how the NT response even makes sense at all!

[Sophist]

I don't think I could even say a yes or a no to that. Joe intentionally received the biggest smoothie they have, and obviously didn't care whether he got a commemorative cup or had to pay extra for it, damn it he wanted it!

I would say because he wanted the biggest smoothie, he intentionally was willing to take or pay whatever went along with that, in these two cases either a cup or paying the extra dollar. So I suppose in some generalized way he intentionally bought the cup or paid the dollar. But in essence, it was inconsequential to his true intentions, so I doubt, semantically, I'd label that as "intentional" even though he was aware of potential consequences...

And now having read through the article after having written my answer, yes, I'd agree it's an issue with semantics as I said above.

[Charlie]

I will start with the second one (extra dollar).

I think it depends on what you call the bounds of intentions. For example, he intentionally paid the full price for the drink, and he intentionally ordered the biggest drink, so it could be said he intentionally paid the extra dollar. However, as he was going to buy the largest drink regardless of price this "extra dollar" would be of no consequence to his decision so it could be argued that it was not intentional (also note the opposite of intentional is unintentional (well, duh!) which infers a meaning that you get a result which was not part of your original expectations).

I would say though in this case it is somewhat of an invalid question as in real terms he did not pay an extra dollar, as he simply paid the correct price for the product. Any previous price is therefore irrelevant in the argument - if you are not willing to pay the price for something then you cannot get it (and before someone says that this proves that he therefore intentionally paid an extra/one more dollar it still is not right - he intentionally paid the correct price, and nothing more than that.)


In the free cup case it is more than likely that it was unintentional, as he was going to buy the biggest drink regardless of if it came with the cup or not, and the transaction on his part was based solely on the size of the drink rather than any promotion associated with it - so unintentional!


I might have to read the explanations myself now (I had only just noticed the link and the last few lines of your post - I hadn't even realised that you said the answer to both was unintentional . At least you got my honest answer though

[Charlie]

OK - I've just read the article and I am still giggling at how close my response was to what is said in the article, and precisely what I was trying to describe myself - and why I would say that they were both unintentional (the extra dollar one by default as it was not an intentional action).

I had no idea that most people would say that they were intentional actions, and that I was that pedantic/rigid at sticking to dictionary definitions. OK - I knew I was pedantic (and I am even being pedantic now when referring to my pedantry!)

[Kaylis-Americanis]

I never would have thought that one word like that could change the entire situation/question.

I have been arguing (jokingly) with my mom over this all day, and she defines "intentional" as "knowing about somthing before it happens" What??? That's not at all what it means...

[Sophist]

I would define "intentional" as far more an active act than the above stories, which seemed as though Joe were more a passive recipient of the events (receiving the commemorative cup, paying the extra dollar). He was definitely intentionally active in choosing the largest smoothie though.

[renaeden]

1. No. He didn't care about the kind of cup he got.

2. Yes. He wanted the largest and so was willing to pay the extra dollar.

[Civet]

I was going to say, it was unintentional. My thought on "intention" is that it's more in the mental state than in the action... Joe went in wanting a big smoothie, the biggest smoothie they had. His intention was to get the biggest smoothie. When he was told about the commemorative cup, he didn't care about it, which means it was not his intention to get it, he just wanted the biggest smoothie. The fact that it came in the cup was irrelevant to what he entered the store looking for. I see the cup as sort of a "side effect" of his original intentions. The same goes for the extra dollar. I haven't read the explanations yet, so I will check them out now.

[Aspen]

1. No. He didn't care about the kind of cup he got.

2. Yes. He wanted the largest and so was willing to pay the extra dollar.

I agree with Renaeden.

I just read the linked blog and we gave the NT answer.

I often struggle with subtext and I agree with this excerpt:

The average person not on the spectrum tends to expect a lot of subtext in what is being said, and frequently imbue their speech with a lot of subtext. This can be infuriating for a person with Asperger's who tend not to expect subtext, struggle to decode it when it's there, and certainly don't care to apply it in their speech if they don't have to. By default, we say what we mean (sometimes to a fault), unless we are taught (or teach ourselves) to do otherwise.

[Charlie]

I will have a go at explaining my opinion why number 2 was unintentional (and I wonder if this argument will convert a few people to seeing it this way).

For this, firstly we need to hypothesise something. I am going to say that the old price of the Mega-Sized Smoothie was $4 (thus the new price is $5).

Now look at what Joe's original intention is - to purchase the largest size smoothie. Critically the intention was NOT to purchase the largest size smoothie for a price of $4 - he was willing to pay any price for it (as is stated in the text on the lines of he does not care about the extra dollar).

So his sole intention was to purchase the largest sized drink, and just as the cup in the other example was an irrelevance to fulfilling his intentions, the price in this example is irrelevant.

Note - if the cashier had just said the price was $5 rather than say an extra dollar this would this mean that he intentionally paid $5? IMO - no, as the payment of $5 is a consequence of his desire to get his sole intention (of getting the largest drink).

[adhocisadirtyword]

Note - if the cashier had just said the price was $5 rather than say an extra dollar this would this mean that he intentionally paid $5? IMO - no, as the payment of $5 is a consequence of his desire to get his sole intention (of getting the largest drink).

Additionally, it seems that the cashier was displaying good customer service by re-setting expectations for regular purchasers of that drink. Nothing in the text suggests that this applies to Joe. He only had the intention to buy the largest cup. If the cashier hadn't said anything at all, or as Charlie suggests, just said the price rather than the adjustment, he still would have bought the largest cup.

[Kaylis-Americanis]

ow look at what Joe's original intention is - to purchase the largest size smoothie. Critically the intention was NOT to purchase the largest size smoothie for a price of $4 - he was willing to pay any price for it (as is stated in the text on the lines of he does not care about the extra dollar).

My thoughts exactly.

[Civet]

Now look at what Joe's original intention is - to purchase the largest size smoothie. Critically the intention was NOT to purchase the largest size smoothie for a price of $4 - he was willing to pay any price for it (as is stated in the text on the lines of he does not care about the extra dollar).

So his sole intention was to purchase the largest sized drink, and just as the cup in the other example was an irrelevance to fulfilling his intentions, the price in this example is irrelevant.

Note - if the cashier had just said the price was $5 rather than say an extra dollar this would this mean that he intentionally paid $5? IMO - no, as the payment of $5 is a consequence of his desire to get his sole intention (of getting the largest drink).

Yes that's what I thought, as well.

[Noctivagus]

The Free-Cup Case
Joe was feeling quite dehydrated, so he stopped by the local smoothie shop to buy the largest sized drink available. Before ordering, the cashier told him that if he bought a Mega-Sized Smoothie he would get it in a special commemorative cup. Joe replied, ‘I don't care about a commemorative cup, I just want the biggest smoothie you have.' Sure enough, Joe received the Mega-Sized Smoothie in a commemorative cup. Did Joe intentionally obtain the commemorative cup?

No. Joe did not intentionally obtain the commemorative cup. It was simply a by-product of his intention.

The Extra-Dollar Case
Joe was feeling quite dehydrated, so he stopped by the local smoothie shop to buy the largest sized drink available. Before ordering, the cashier told him that the Mega-Sized Smoothies were now one dollar more than they used to be. Joe replied, ‘I don't care if I have to pay one dollar more, I just want the biggest smoothie you have.' Sure enough, Joe received the Mega-Sized Smoothie and paid one dollar more for it. Did Joe intentionally pay one dollar more?

No. Joe did not intentionally pay one dollar more. It was incidental necessity for the carrying out of his intention.

[Noctivagus]

I would define "intentional" as far more an active act than the above stories, which seemed as though Joe were more a passive recipient of the events (receiving the commemorative cup, paying the extra dollar). He was definitely intentionally active in choosing the largest smoothie though.

Intentional = intention. His intention was to purchase the largest smoothie. The cup was a by-product and the dollar was incidental. His interests were strictly elsewhere... his attention and intention was not upon a pretty cup or an extra charge. Joe could not give two hoots about those.