Experiments in Philosophy

The impact of psychological research on life's big questions.

by a Band of Philosophers

Edouard Machery is a philosopher of psychology and an experimental philosopher in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh. See full bio

November 5, 2008, Philosophy

Comments on "Do You Have Asperger's Syndrome?"

Do You Have Asperger's Syndrome?

By Edouard Machery on November 5, 2008 in Experiments in Philosophy

How do we think about the intentional nature of actions? And how do people with an impaired mindreading capacity thinkg about it? Read More

Umm. What does it say that

Submitted by Cliff on November 5, 2008 - 3:48pm.

Umm. What does it say that on my first reading I feel that getting the commemorative cup is intentional while paying the extra dollar is not? I mean, surely the intention is to get THAT cup because it is the largest. The fact that it is also the the commemorative cup is immaterial too me.

The intent is to get the largest cup. I don't care that the cup is special or more expensive.

Most people see this differently? really?

Cliff, yes most people

Submitted by Edouard Machery on November 5, 2008 - 4:23pm.

Cliff,

yes most people without Asperger have the opposite intuition (95% in the study I report in Machery 2008). I do not know what it says about you, but this is interesting.

edouard

Bad Logic

Submitted by Anonymous on November 7, 2008 - 9:40am.

dd
The logic between intending to spend the extra or dollar or not is confusing and muddled. It was brought up before.

His intention was clearly stated that he wanted the largest cup, he agreed and was willing pay more money for it because his intent was to get the largest cup of smoothie. So because he intends to get the largest smoothie he intended to pay the extra dollar?

When? The question is annoying because at the start he was unaware of the one dollar extra. You ask if he intended to spend 1 dollar, well walking up to stand his intention was not about price, it was about size.

So when you ask me what did he intend, well the one dollar is inconsequental, he agreed to pay it to achieve his main intention and yeah after he was told he intended to pay and intended to pay more.

The point is that there is a temporal aspect to this question that really pisses off PhD types like me because you didn't clarify the question. So the fact that I bothered being thorough about this labels me an aspie solely because I had to assume WHAT YOU MEANT just so I could I give a yes/no response, not what the hypothetical person meant.

* Time, when did he intend for this extra dollar? At the start he intended to get a smoothie and pay for it. At the end he intended to pay the price asked for the largest smoothie.
* Did the author include agreement of price into the intention?
* Intent is not clearly defined, maybe you should copy the author's definition of what intention means.

Totally not an apsie >:(

ridiculous example

Submitted by SLEZE on November 5, 2008 - 5:38pm.

His intentions both times were to get the large drink. The cup and the dollar were inconsequential.

Logical thinking

Submitted by Von on November 20, 2008 - 10:20pm.

Why can't we understand the difference between intent and passive acceptance??

definitely agree with you.

Submitted by Anonymous on March 23, 2009 - 4:22pm.

definitely agree with you. who cares about the stupid cup or the extra dollar, he was thirsty, his intention was to QUENCH HIS THIRST WITH A SMOOTHIE. his intention was to get the smoothie.

Asperger Syndrome

Submitted by Leigh on November 5, 2008 - 9:31pm.

I always thought this a practical sense problem. It's irrelevant whether one has a pretty cup to drink from if that isn't your goal.

And what does it matter what the size "looks" like? Size is size and relevant only to size, if that is your criteria from the outset.

This is what I call a common sense problem. Too many people use inane superfluous information. I often wonder how many people think before they speak and have found not many. It's irritating.

Me thinks this particular

Submitted by Thom on November 5, 2008 - 9:37pm.

Me thinks this particular test is better suited to who cares about bling and cash. If I'm thirsty and not feeling broke I'll go for the largest drink regardless of the cup design or price.

Bad test, try again.

Agreed. I feel that in both

Submitted by Anonymous on November 6, 2008 - 9:47am.

Agreed. I feel that in both cases the intent was to get the largest drink available, therefore whether it comes in a big cup or costs a dollar more is not intentional.

i think you're missing the

Submitted by Anonymous on November 6, 2008 - 12:11pm.

i think you're missing the point. the guy in the question knows he doesnt care about the dollar or the cup. if someone has aspergers they dont realize this when they read the question.

I'm so thirsty I think a

Submitted by Anonymous on November 6, 2008 - 8:24am.

I'm so thirsty I think a giant ass smoothie will quench my thirst. Who gets a smoothie when they are thirsty?

Who gets a smoothie when they are thirsty?

Submitted by sleze on November 6, 2008 - 8:27am.

Apparently only someone with Asperger's Syndrome.

I agree, and I think the

Submitted by Anonymous on November 6, 2008 - 2:08pm.

I agree, and I think the real question is about the legitimacy of the article. If he is accurate, I and every other person on earth has aspergers.

I prefer to post a comment rather than NOT post a comment. I don't care about the time I've wasted, or the extra dollar of giving up my email address.

'Correct Answer'

Submitted by Craig on February 21, 2009 - 12:43pm.

The question is "Did Joe intentionally pay one dollar more?
". The answer is that Joe could only intentionally pay extra if Joe had formed an intention as to how much to pay in the first place.

For example if Joe had just arrived from Alpha Centauri with no concept of money then he could have no intention about how much to spend, and so spending an extra dollar would be an unintended consequence. He may intentionally allow the store owner to take the money but he does not intentionally pay extra.

So the answer that any person gives to that question must depend on what assumptions that person makes about the extent of Joe's intentions about cost. Not enough information is given to be definitive so people answer using their own assumptions about cost.

The 'Correct Answer' requires an additional question to be answered. Were there any assumptions about cost included in Joes intention to have the largest drink? Well the answer is probably yes because we are told that Joe "stopped by the local smoothie shop to buy the largest sized drink available". His intention was "to buy" so he probably had an assumption about cost built into his intention.

I agree with cliff

Submitted by Jason on July 17, 2009 - 7:23am.

To me they are the exact same thing. In either case, the guy said he didn't care about the cup or the dollar, he just wanted the biggest smoothie they offered. So no he didn't intentionally pay the dollar, he jsut wanted the biggest smoothie. If the commerative cup hadn't of been the biggest, he would not have got it.

Is the smoothie half full or

Submitted by Anonymous on July 29, 2009 - 8:56pm.

Is the smoothie half full or is it a half-assed experiment?

Same

Submitted by Jeremyah on November 5, 2008 - 3:55pm.

I want the largest amount, both other factors are pretty irrelevant to me.

I can see what they mean.

Submitted by Brianna on November 5, 2008 - 3:59pm.

I can see that the intention was only to get the largest cup. Period.

I can also see that this is kind of a forced question that magicians use.

Ambiguous Question yields indeterminate result to experiment.

Submitted by Jac on November 6, 2008 - 4:25am.

I read the paper with ever increasing frustration.

The questions in the "Cup" vignettes are ambiguous. Do they mean "What was Joe's intention when he saw the smoothie stand?" In which case the answer is obviously "Pay N dollars for the largest smoothie, same as last time."

Or do they mean "What was Joe's intention when he handed over N+1 dollars to the smoothie saleman?" Then the answer is clearly, "He intended to give the salesman N+1 dollars for the smoothie, but probably felt a little disgruntled by the unexpected extra cost."

The answers has nothing to do with misunderstanding means or intentions. The answers are driven by at what point in time are you referring to by the phrase "What was Joes intention?"

ie. The experiment proves _nothing_ about understanding of intentions and perhaps something about understanding of ambiguous time references.

The "harm or help" questions were equally irritating. I would _never_ knowingly AND unintentionally cause harm.

Makes no sense. If I know my action will cause harm, and I perform that action, I intended to perform that action and intended that that harm should occur. I may regret causing the harm, but I never two-faced weasel word to myself "Oh dearie me, whoopsie, oh me oh my, I didn't intend that".

In the "help" case I may say, "Great! Bonus! All the more reason to do this, but to be fair it is not the main reason I am doing this."

Disclaimer: There is a fair likelyhood that I'm an undiagnosed Aspie.

Asparagus syndrome

Submitted by e.varden on November 6, 2008 - 7:39pm.

You got it right, bub. What a stoopid "test". If I truly has Asperagus' I would be ordering in.

not convinced

Submitted by Joe Buck on November 5, 2008 - 3:59pm.

I would suggest that the experimenters test people who do not have Asperger's, but who are in an occupation that requires abstract, logical reasoning. I'm sure that they will find that most mathematicians and computer programmers give the same answer to both questions, because they have the same structure: in order to receive X, you must accept Y. You agree to receive X. So, did you intend Y?

If so, then this just implies that Aspies tend to rely on logical reasoning more, as a supplement or replacement for relying on intuition about human behavior, and in some cases this can be the opposite of an impairment.

Well, iI believe that

Submitted by Edouard Machery on November 5, 2008 - 4:26pm.

Well, iI believe that Asperger Syndrome is more common among mathematicians and computer scientists than in the general population.

But, importantly, I don't think this syndrome is always an impairment.

Edouard

I don't even believe it's a

Submitted by Kathy Harvatt on November 5, 2008 - 5:18pm.

I don't even believe it's a syndrome; but merely a different neurotype.

Flawed reasoning

Submitted by tech-charles on November 5, 2008 - 7:58pm.

Given that 'Syndrome' means a set of detectable symptoms, I think you've got lost in your own semantics. Do you mean to say you don't believe it to be a Disorder?

Maybe to the person who has

Submitted by Denise on November 6, 2008 - 1:02pm.

Maybe to the person who has Asperger's it's a different way of being, but for the rest of us, it's an impairment that significantly impacts relationships.

I believe my husband had Asperger's. If he didn't think it, feel it or see it for himself, it didn't exist in his world. I only existed in relation to him, not as person whose thoughts and feelings had relevance on their own.

It's not just an empathy issue. It's about a world that has no room for others. If he wanted or liked or felt something, he would become angry and nasty if I didn't want the same. Sexual intimacy was impossible because there was no reciprocity and I felt used. I used to think that all would be better if I could find a way to reach him. There was no reaching him.

aspergers cup

Submitted by Anonymous on November 8, 2008 - 3:35am.

Thank you for your contributions everyone. I found them all interesting and some quite funny. I see this study as being an attempt to bridge the communication gap between typical and ASD. Whether it be by cups or brain scanning, every piece of evidence is useful in this endeavour because this communication gap has an enormous impact on relationships. Denise, I recognise your frustration and despair. Few people understand the difficulties involved unless they have lived in a relationship like this. You were not crazy or imagining it.

You "believe" your

Submitted by Anonymous on November 9, 2008 - 3:14pm.

You "believe" your ex-husband has Asperger's Syndrome, Denise? You don't know for sure?

I understand your bitterness, but perhaps you're diagnosing him too quickly. From what you've told us, there's no evidence for or against Asperger's Syndrome. It is entirely possible you're just trying to fit him into a different neurotype in order to make yourself feel better about having made the poor choice to marry him.

I understand that's harsh of me to say, but I as your reader must be skeptical in order to fully comprehend what you've put out there on the internet. It's reasonable to expect that as the person who had to endure most of his selfishness, you're biased against him. Asperger's Syndrome is not just self-centeredness. You've said nothing of other behaviors (not attitudes) he has that are common in most Aspie individuals, so one must conclude that while he might have Asperger's Syndrome, he might also have other mental differences or disorders of which selfishness is symptomatic, or else he might just be selfish without the handicap of a non-average neurotype.

Wow

Submitted by Denise on November 18, 2008 - 1:59pm.

I only just checked back on this...And wow that was a little harsh. It would take pages to list all the reasons and all the incidences and episodes that led me to think Aspergers. And no he wasn't formally diagnosed before he died. I couldn't get anyone to take me seriously--not his doctor or therapist. I've just being trying to make sense of it...

I'll take responsibility for marrying someone I was incompatible with. but i'm sure there are a lot of people like me who are in the same situation. I'll bet there are many, many adults who haven't been diagnosed or have been misdiagnosed. They have spouses and family who are just trying to muddle through dealing with someone they know is... just off Sometimes it's hard to explain to outsiders who don't see the day in, day out stuff.

definitions

Submitted by Stephanie on November 5, 2008 - 10:01pm.

If you don't believe it is necessarily an impairment, why did you call it that in the first line of the post? The whole post just kind of frames the inquiry into Asperger Syndrome as studying some kind of anomaly. Now you're saying a good portion of society could have this "syndrome"? Then what is the syndrome for everyone else? I know syndrome isn't a bad word, but it has primarily been thought of as a disorder by popular understanding. Is it fair to name something that is natural and normal for many as a syndrome when it causes the pubic to view it as a disorder?

I think the bigger question is who gets to decide what is an impairment and what is "normal"? I just think back to another comment about the over diagnosis of ADD in small children.

I digress from the ethical implications of diagnosis, but what does "intentional nature of actions" mean? I went to your paper, but to be honest I'm an M.A. student and have too many things I need to be reading already, and don't have time to orient myself to the philosophical framework you're approaching this with. I study rhetoric, and I'm steeped in the critical/postmodern perspective. I think you're coming from a much different perspective, right? I read your paper and see the philosophy, but I just see a huge missing link. What is the definition of "intentional nature of actions?" I looked, but I can't seem to dig it out. Like I said, I should be reading my stuff. How is the term defined?

However, I read the scenarios in the introduction of your paper, and I got a much better idea about the above idea of intentional (though I still really want to know the definition). The scenario in this post, however, does not include a moral implication. I think that's why many of us are wondering what in the world does our rationalization of a free cup and a dollar have to say about anything. Of course we read it as analytical, it's a dollar or a cup, it's a financial transaction. The scenario in your introduction was asking the reader to pass a moral judgment. MUCH different. Moral judgments are cultural, and if AS individuals think less about the context and more about the analytical, I guess they would possibly rationalize the moral judgment the same as the dollar and cup. Is that what you're saying? That makes sense to me, but I didn't get that from this post alone.

No an impairment

Submitted by HikingStick on November 6, 2008 - 5:48am.

Thank you, Eduard, for that closing statement in your comment. I believe that many of these conditions (e.g., A.S., A.D.D) are simply differences that help us think and function in different ways. I've found, for example, that persons with A.D.D. are often my greatest resource for generating new ideas and for thinking "outside of the box". Rather than expecting them to launch and maintain each new project or idea, however, I try to find people who thrive on maintaining things on a day-to-day basis. It lets my A.D.D. people