
Asperger's Syndrome and smoothies.  - run4yourlives
http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/12696.html
======
gojomo
To me, the monetary aspects of the second scenario justify the 'neurotypical'
interpretation.

We assume generally that dollars are valuable to people, and they prefer more
to fewer. So this is always in someone's 'intent set' even if something else
(satisfying thirst) is their primary intention.

We further assume that in a voluntary exchange, the buyer 'intended' to pay
the agreed price (even if they are in practice simply a price taker). They
could have chosen another purchase after seeing the price; some potential
buyers do. Another 'bundled' feature about which the buyer credibly declares
indifference ('commemorative cup') gives no information about 'intent', but
willingness to pay a certain price always does.

It's fascinating that such a simple scenario is often interpreted differently
by Aspergers-style thinkers.

------
brl
The comments he's referring to are hilarious:

[http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-
philoso...](http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-
philosophy/200811/intentional-action-and-asperger-syndrome/comments)

I can't imagine spending hours writing essays with elaborate 'rational'
arguments to defend one interpretation. If somebody told me that my
interpretation was abnormal I would just shrug my shoulders. It's clear to me
that there's no _logical_ reason that one answer is correct.

~~~
delackner
" It's clear to me that there's no logical reason that one answer is correct."

Exactly. Can't count the number of times I have seen an endless comment thread
to a yes/no question where the answer is that it depends.

In the linked case for instance, for some people being told that the price of
an item has changed is just noise, while for others it is meaningful
information. The percentage shift a price can take without a person caring at
all is a function of that specific individual (their wealth, wealth history,
family upbringing, etc).

