Asperger's Syndrome and smoothies.

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.

The comments he's referring to are hilarious:

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philoso...

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.