Language and Aspergers

[andrewducker]

This very much sums up how I feel, on a semi-regular basis.  It's an article about how people with Aserpgers interpret language differently to people without, and how they find it difficult to deal with the subtleties that many people strew into language quite happily.

It's not a problem I have nearly as often as I used to - but I do run into people reading more into my language than I put there, or putting things into language that I don't spot.

It also sums up the sense of kinship and familiarity I felt on reading The Curious Case of the Dog in the Night-Time - not that I'm anywhere near that bad - but it reminded me quite a lot of how I felt as a child.

cheers to randomchris for the link.

Comments

[the-mendicant.livejournal.com]

I fall into the language trap all the time, especially when trying to get to know a new date, it can be very frustrating.

Aspies unite!

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

God yes. Except that I know people who are further along the spectrum than I who can easily translate from "what people say" to "what people mean." It just doesn't make sense to me.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

in the smoothie example given, I had distinct hesitation deciding about the 2nd case... and decided in the end that it was not-intentional.

Dunno whether I 'naturally' think them the same and initially tried 'correcting' as a coping mechanism, or whether I 'naturally' thought the 'typical' way but the logical inconsistency bugged me enough to change my mind.

I actually cannot tell.

[drainboy.livejournal.com]

I chose that both times it was not intentional, but I'm not sure it's for the same reason the article mentioned. My issue hinges on this sentence in the post-amble "Therefore, his intention is to obtain the Mega-Sized Smoothie".

It wasn't. He wasn't told explicitly he would be getting the Mega-Sized Smoothie when he ordered "the biggest smoothie you have". He might have guessed that was likely, but there was no certainty based on the information we're fed in the script. There could have been a super-mega sized smoothie.

Now if the script had said "the biggest smoothies we have are now a dollar more/come with a commemorative cup" then my answer for both would have been "what do you mean by intentionally?" I'd probably still answer no for both but it would be a much softer no.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

The article seems to be a bit of a red herring, it's taken me some time to work out why the explanation (which seems very elegant and fitting with the findings) is problematic.

Certainly the article is correct in pointing out that obviously the two groups measured differed in how they percieved the statements.

However language alone isn't really the key thing here peoples reactions to it are. Ergo in order to understand the differences its perhaps inappropriate to try and explain them in terms of the understanding of words.

As the words experienced are the same for those with Aspergers and "NT's" I would contend that unless you can show that folk with aspergers have a different meaning for "intentionality" from "NT's" then yeah red herring.

Which could be done by getting a random sample of folk with ASD and randomised controls and asking for their definition of the term intentionality.

[redbird]

I'm neurotypical, and I wouldn't say the imaginary person "intended" to get the commemorative cup, because if it was me I might say "I don't care if I get the commemorative cup" to indicate that if they're trying to save them, fine, give it to me in paper, just give me the great big drink. Some of us NTs don't care about commemorative cups.

The scenario also doesn't allow for distraction: "okay, yea, I'll pay a dollar extra" in the same way as if I, a regular customer, walked into the coffee shop and ordered the same hot chocolate I always get there, and they said "by the way, the price has gone up fifty cents" so I won't yell at them once they make it and charge me the higher price. "I don't care, I want the hot chocolate" is as plausible a response, for me, as "That's okay, I still want it" or "Never mind, that's too much."

[darkoshi]

Neither example says if Joe knows whether or not the Mega-size is the largest beforehand or not. The cashier does not mention whether it is or not. Therefore, when he makes his order, he is not intentionally getting the Mega-size, he is intentionally getting the largest, whichever that may be. So he is neither intentionally getting the commemorative cup nor paying a dollar extra, before the cashier tells him how much to pay.

That said, my first response on the 2nd example was that it was intentional... he is told how much it costs, and he hands over the money, intending to pay the amount which happens to include the extra dollar. Giving something of known quality away seems like it has to be intentional, whereas receiving something of unknown quality is not...

Yet his intention is not really to pay the extra dollar, it is to get the drink.

Both answers seem to have merit to me.

[0olong.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that.

I've been thinking a lot recently about some epicly bad consequences that have followed in my life from things being read into things I've said (usually without my realising this at the time) or me failing to understand things that haven't been explicitly stated. It's truly remarkable how badly these things can screw you over.

As a side note, without having read the original paper through, interpreting it as a failure of mind-reading without even considering questions of definition and literality (which they don't seem to have - certainly the word 'literal' appears nowhere) strikes me as really remarkably silly.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

John Austin's Three Ways of Spilling Ink, and Aspergers?