I'm not gonna post the whole thing, even though it's just a few more paragraphs. But according to this, people with aspergers see the second case differently from people who don't.

I don't understand the example they provided at all. Which I guess makes me kinda dumb.

Heh. Rahm Emanuel is pictured holding paczki on his wikipedia page. Which will always make me think of Steph.

I don't understand the example they provided at all. Which I guess makes me kinda dumb.

The second example, I initially felt the same way. Actually, I felt the question was dumb (that it didn't make any sense). But since I was sure it would provide Important Psychological Insights, I pressed on... to where I could see either way of looking at it....

The clerk told the dude that the biggest size was now an extra dollar. He gave the clerk the dollar to get the biggest size. How in any way could this not be intentional? The dollar magically went from his wallet to the clerk's hand?

The clerk told the dude that the biggest size was now an extra dollar. He gave the clerk the dollar to get the biggest size. How in any way could this not be intentional? The dollar magically went from his wallet to the clerk's hand?

The other way of looking at is, the buyer doesn't care that it's an extra dollar. All he cares is that he wants the biggest size. So then he hands her the amount of money required for the large size. Or he hands her a ten and she gives him the appropriate change. The thing is, he decides to do the transaction (not caring about the change in cost) and then the transaction automatically follows.

OK, I'm not explaining it well. But it makes more sense in my head if he just hands her a ten or twenty, and lets her deal with the change.

Or he swipes his debit card and doesn't even look at the total.

I kinda think Rahm is a weasel. But he's *our* weasel. There's something to be said for that. And he has lots of Lyman traits...devoted and scary smart. But obviously Sorkin wrote the good stuff. You know? A Simon WW would have focused on the wheeler-dealer side.

How in any way could this not be intentional? The dollar magically went from his wallet to the clerk's hand?

Because paying the extra dollar isn't his intention. Getting the largest drink is his intention, and the price of that is an extra dollar. The dollar is a side-effect.

I come down on the side of unintentionality both times, but I'm fairly sure I don't have Asperger's.

( )Considers the collective intelligence of the Obama administration-to-be.(/)

Or, to use a different set of examples:

The harm case

The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, ‘We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, but it will also harm the environment.’ The chairman of the board answered, ‘I don’ t care at all about harming the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program.’ They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was harmed. Did the chairman intentionally harm the environment? YES / NO

The help case

The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, ‘We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, and it will also help the environment.’ The chairman of the board answered, ‘I don’t care at all about helping the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program.’ They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was helped. Did the chairman intentionally help the environment? YES / NO.

I think the chairman did not intentionally harm or hurt. He may have knowingly harmed or hurt, but there's a difference between intention and knowing. I think.