Customer Reviews

The Essential Difference: Male And Female Brains And The Truth About Autism

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

After a lengthy and unwarranted disclaimer that his work isn't "sexist" [whatever that is], Baron-Cohen surveys the foundations of male and female minds. With a long clinical and teaching career, supported by an immense list of studies, he concludes that, in general, there are indeed "essential differences" in cognitive makeup between human genders. While there is a spectrum of characteristics, certain general frameworks exist attributable to men and women. For ease of analysis, he suggests that women are more empathic ["E" personalities] while men are more systematic ["S" personalities]. Each, he insists, has their role, with most people placed well within a median between extremes. The trends, however, are clear.

In a chatty style he likely uses speaking with patients, Baron-Cohen shows that women's empathic tendencies give them the power to quickly assess others' emotional states. Women more readily identify feelings in others, respond appropriately when sympathy is required and "reach out" in dealing with people. He stresses that this "intuitive sense" among women is almost universal and is rightfully well-regarded by all cultures. Men, on the other hand, operate under the need to understand "systems", organized conditions, mechanics, technology and are thus driven to know "how things work". This urge leads them away from the intimacy women have with others and, in the more extreme cases, are likely to become "loners". The most outstanding examples are those suffering from autism which is overwhelmingly a male condition.

Baron-Cohen has spent years studying autism, offering a range of examples. It may appear amusing that a five-year-old boy may be capable of memorizing dozens of car registrations and explain which car belongs to which house, but there are other factors to consider. Such boys grow into men who cannot readily converse, directly or over the telephone. They become the butt of teasing or hostility at their "withdrawn" state. If lacking compensation in other areas, such as a vocation that allows them to apply a narrow focus to tasks, they risk ostracism from society. Baron-Cohen offers an exceptional case of a mathematician whose genius brought him high awards, but who may fail to keep a lunch date due to some distraction. These are real problems affecting real people. Some of them may be your neighbours. One of them might even, unknowingly, be you.

This book challenges much misled thinking that has permeated gender studies over the past generation. Gender differences in outlook appear within a day of birth. Newborns shown a photograph of a face, or an object composed of facial elements resulted in girls preferring the face while the boys tended to select the object. This early division Baron-Cohen thinks may result from the testosterone surge baby boys undergo in the womb. "Maleness" and brain development are interlocked and continue to manifest with development. Baby girls, on the other hand, follow a different, parallel path. They appear to respond to distress in other people more readily than do boys. They will make eye contact with others more readily. The pattern continues through life, although at differing levels with individuals. Baron-Cohen stresses these differences don't represent "better" or "worse" values. Human males and females are overall equally intelligent. That intelligence is expressed in different ways. More to the point, men and women have both E and S traits, individually manifest over a wide spectrum. Extremes are few, but he notes extreme Es are more socially comfortable and acceptable than the autistic extreme S personalities.

Baron-Cohen doesn't limit himself to the results of clinical studies and calling for more research. He is keen to have readers begin to rethink how society should deal with those suffering from autism [Asperger's Syndrome]. He calls for a greater tolerance for "coldness" or "lack of sympathy". Self assessment is a good place to start building that tolerance. As a help to readers, a series of comprehensive tests is provided as Appendices. Take the tests and judge for yourself. But first, read the book to understand the issues involved. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Before you start reading Baron-Cohen's fascinating book, go through the questionaire in the first appendix.

The questionaire, "Reading the Mind in the Eyes," has thirty-six photos cropped to show only the region around the eyes. By looking only at this small portion of the face, you have to figure out the emotion being expressed by the individual in the photo.

Chance would give only one out of four right answers. As Baron-Cohen remarks in the text, most people, when they take the quiz, find it extremely difficult -- one feels like one is guessing.

In fact, nearly everyone does much better than he or she expected. I got nearly two-thirds correct, and most people do even better.

This little quiz demonstrates one of the key points in the book: normal humans have an incredible ability to read the expressions, feelings, etc. of their fellow human beings from very subtle clues.

Baron-Cohen's thesis in his earlier book, "Mindblindness," was that autistic persons are simply people who lack this normal human "mind-reading" ability.

"The Essential Difference" expands this thesis to argue that, in this respect, autistic people are simply at a far end of a spectrum. Females (with numerous individual exceptions) tend towards the opposite end of the spectrum from autistic people: females are usually good empathizers, skilled at "mind-reading." Males tend to be less good at empathizing compared to females and better at "systemizing." Autistic people (who are predominantly male) lie at the extreme male end of the spectrum -- extraordinarily poor empathizers, good systemizers.

The author proves this case beyond reasonable doubt by both covering the scientific evidence and wittily discussing case studies. He focuses particularly on "high-functioning autism" and "Asperger's syndrome," exemplified by people who have normal to high intelligence and are able to function to some degree in normal society but who nonetheless exhibit a significant degree of mind-blindness.

So is there anything wrong with the book?

Baron-Cohen leans over backwards to emphasize that individuals who lean towards the high-systemizing/low-empathizing end of the spectrum are not deficient human beings or uncaring monsters. He states explicitly, "People with autism are often the most loyal defenders of someone they perceive to be suffering an injustice." Yet, in other places in the book, he suggests that it is easier for those who tend towards systemizing rather than empathizing to commit rape or murder!

The problem is an ambiguity in the word "empathy." On the one hand, it means the ability to read another's mood, to decode subtle cues of face, tone of voice, etc. As Baron-Cohen puts it, "Empathizing is about spontaneously and naturally tuning into the other person's thoughts and feelings..."

But, an alternative sense of "empathy" refers to an individual's ability to imaginatively put himself in the other person's position, to imagine how he himself would feel were he subjected to similar treatment.

The two meanings are very different. In the first sense, one cannot really have "empathy" for the subject of a newspaper story: without direct personal contact, you have no cues of facial expression and tone of voice to enable you to "naturally and spontaneously" tune in to the person's feelings. But, of course, in the second sense of "empathy," one might indeed, by imaginatively putting oneself in the same situation, achieve empathy for the person described in the news story.

Those who incline towards the Asperger's-syndrome/systemizing end of Baron-Cohen's behavioral spectrum lack "empathy" in the first sense of the word: i.e., they are lacking in the ability to spontaneously decode other people's feelings and intentions in direct social interaction. They lack a perceptual skill.

But, they still can (and they often do, as Baron-Cohen's comment about outrage towards injustice indicates) possess empathy in the second sense: this empathy relies on a conscious act of imagination and psychological projection, not on a perceptual ability to "psych out" other people.

Indeed, since there are some people (actors, con artists, some sorts of psychopaths) who possess the ability to convincingly project false cues of their feelings and intentions, people who are receptive to such cues (empathizers in Baron-Cohen's sense of the word) may be more likely to be deceived than those whose empathy is based on thought and imagination rather than instinctual response.

To put it concretely, Hitler might have found it easier to appeal to "empathizers" in Baron-Cohen's sense of the word than to people with Asperger's syndrome!

I am also somewhat skeptical of Baron-Cohen's hypothesis that severe autism is nothing but an exaggeration of normal male behavior. The "mindblindness" exhibited by those with severe autism is so debilitating that it seems likely that there is some underlying physiological cause. On the other hand, the moderately low level of empathizing seen among most males and, to a somewhat greater degree, among those with Asperger's syndrome is more easily explained simply as a matter of focus and interest.

Frankly, as a physicist, I find those people who might be deemed "normal" by Baron-Cohen's criteria to be people who demonstrate an extraordinarily unhealthy obsession with their fellow human beings. Humans are an interesting and important part of the universe -- but they're not everything! A small touch of Asperger's syndrome is, from the perspective of the universe at large, clearly more sane than what is generally considered "normalcy."

And, yet, I suspect that Baron-Cohen would listen patiently to such objections, acknowledge their possible validity, and consider how they could be validated or refuted. He comes across as a man motivated more by a passion for truth than a desire to win an argument.

"The Essential Difference" does not have, and does not claim to have, the final answers. But it does raise some fascinating questions and present the current state of knowledge in an informative, understandable, and entertaining manner. If you have any interest at all in the nature of your fellow human beings, it is worth reading.

As I immerse myself in the field of evolutionary psychology/biology and Baron-Cohen's work on biobehavioral differences in men and women, I wonder when and where a value judgement got placed on his proposal of men "systematizing" being better or worse than a female tendancy to "empathize"? Don't we need both types to complete each other?

There wasn't one claim in this book (that I could find) that the author's conclusions are attached to a value judgement, nor does he claim EVERY woman is an "E" and EVERY men an "S". Other evidence supports him: studies of women with higher testosterone levels show they act in more aggressive and traditionally "masculine" systematizing ways, while Shelley Taylor's pivotal study on oxytocin, a female hormone, proved a connection to nurturing behaviors. But how is that somehow "bad"?

This doesn't mean (nor do I think Baron-Cohen claims) that we need rigid rules prohibiting or allowing certain opportunities and behaviors for men and women. It does help us to understand and learn from each other--and perhaps have better relationships. As I discussed this book the other day with a colleague that "light bulb" moment occurred, and she realized why her significant other was so much more driven to compartmentalize than she was--it's how he's hardwired, for the most part. It's been documented that women tend to pick friends for relationships, not as basketball or golf buddies, as their husbands mind. In retail, women apologize, men replace or resolve. Don't we need both approaches?

Let's not consider this book a canon for behavior, but use it for the valuable and insightful observations that can help us cast aside judgements about superiority of either gender and accept each other for our strengths--and weaknesses.

I know of Simon Baron-Cohen from his work on autism. I have little doubt that his underlying view of the disorder is correct. People on the autistic spectrum tend to have deficient empathy, or theory of mind, while retaining, or even improving upon, more abstract 'systemizing' abilities. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, Baron-Cohen decided to extend this view to gender, arguing that autism was but an extreme extension of the natural tendency of males to trade off empathy for 'systemizing'. This is a significant claim, and significant claims require significant evidence. Baron-Cohen hasn't presented that evidence in this book. With the exception of some intriguing studies on the effects of hormones on the brain, the majority of the evidence simply consists of reviewing behavioral differences between the sexes, and chalking up whatever is found to his nebulous hypothesis. For instance - females have some superior language abilities? Well that's a natural extension of empathy. Males tend to form dominance hierarchies? Well that must be a natural extension of systemizing. The terms 'empathize' and 'systemize' are left vague enough so that Baron-Cohen can conveniently sweep gender-differences arbitrarily into one or the other.

When Baron-Cohen attempts to define 'systemizing', he defines it in terms of predictive ability - i.e. the ability to predict an output Y from an input X. The problem with this framework is that it encompasses all human behavior. Humans make decisions by predicting the consequences of their actions, that is, by forming internal models of the environment. Much of what Baron-Cohen calls empathy can be seen as nothing more than internal models of social interactions and others - e.g. theory of mind. All humans form internal models, after all we all have the same neural architecture (e.g. neocortex), where we differ is the respective complexity of our internal models in different domains. Once you see things in this perspective, it is not that the female brain is more 'empathetic' and less 'systemizing' than the male brain. Rather, evolutionary fitness may have predisposed females and males to form different internal models.

This is not just a difference in terminology. For instance, I find it highly unlikely that 'empathy' is across the board higher in females than males. When Baron-Cohen decides in chapter nine to play evolutionary psychologist, he lists 'making friends' and 'gossip' as evolutionary needs of females. What, males did not need to make friends (i.e. alliances) and gossip (i.e. spy)? Males have required understanding of social interactions and others just as females do, although perhaps in subtlely different ways. One way that Baron-Cohen tries to get around this is by a subtle distinction between 'empathizing' and 'theory of mind', arguing that one might have theory of mind but be devoid of empathy (e.g. psychopaths). In this case, the difference becomes one of value, not ability. However Baron-Cohen repeatedly conflates the two definitions.

On the other side of things, Baron-Cohen seems to assume that on an evolutionary timescale females did nothing but make babies and chat with other females. I think there is room for women to be offended by this, but really this type of lazy thinking should offend all scientists. We know from hunter-gatherer tribes that females tend to engage in actual work, like gathering food and working with tools. Thus, there are constraints on abstract systemizing in women, just as there are in men. If I can play armchair evolutionary psychologist myself, perhaps superior female spatial memory has developed from foraging, and perhaps females might be better predisposed to 'systemize' plant life (after all, they do love flowers!) Honestly, that speculation is just as valid as the majority of the flimsyevidence that Baron-Cohen offers in this book.

There are no doubt important differences between the brains and respective abilities of men and women. However trying to reduce them to an ill-defined single-dimension is doomed to fail. People are just more complicated than that.

This book makes an interesting journey from the research on male-female brain differences to a model of autism. The author suggests that autism reflects an "extreme male" brain. Although it is readily emphasized that there are significant differences within people of each gender, it is suggested that while females on the average have greater levels of empathy, males tend to have stronger "systematizing" abilities. It is suggested that autism can be understood as a combination of very high levels of systematization coupled with low levels of empathy.

The book cites a large number of studies of brain physiology and behavior to illustrate the phenomena discussed. This discussion is coupled with strong cautions against stereotyping and a recognition of individual differences. Ironically, the main part of the book--the chapter explicitly develops the thesis of autism as a reflection of an "extreme male" brain--is a bit on the skimpy side, but this is understandable given that previous chapters have alluded to what is to come.

The appendices to this book are a real treasure! Included are photos that serve as a test of one's ability to recognize the emotions expressed by a person's eyes and a number of scales that can be used to measure empathy levels and other relevant characteristics.

This book is very readable and is punctuated with a nice sense of humor.

Baron-Cohen has a simple thesis: women are better empathizers and men are better systematizers. Is it true? Maybe. He takes the voluminous literature on sex differences and attempts to cram them into this dichotomy, with some success.
One wonders, however, if this is warranted. Can all of the differences really be attributed to different brain types? What does a brain type really even mean? This aside, his synthesis is powerful, especially the view that autism results from having an extreme male brain. Cohen also dispels notions, too popular in sociological circles, that these differences can be attributed to societal gender-roles, parenting, or culture-in toto.
He reviews studies showing that infants as early as one day old show sex differences in behavior. For example, males will stare longer at a mobile than a human face, whereas for females it is just the opposite. Another study showed that the amount of testosterone in the amniotic fluid of mothers predicted their childs early language skill and the amount of time they made eye-contact with other children. These are only a few of the studies cited to back Cohen's argument. Individually, each is open to criticism; together, using the principle of aggregation, the evidence compiled is insurmountable.
Cohen is extremely fair and undogmatic, which is the sign of a good scientist. The E/S brain hypothesis is provacative, interesting and should provoke further research and thought. If you really want to know the nitty gritty of sex differences though, I would recommend a few of the books that Cohen uses for his synthesis, such as 'Male-Female' by David Geary, 'Sex Differences in Cognition' by Doreen Kimura, and 'The Two Sexes' by Elanor Maccoby. These books provide more detailed information on sex differences and their evolution. After you read these books, read Cohen's book and ask yourself: does the E/S theory make sense of all the detailed differences that are known in the literature, or is it a little bit procrustean in its attempt to slam everything into an either/or dichotomy? The truth is yours to judge.

Of the 30 or so books I've read in the last two years on brain-based behavior, this ranks at the top of the list. Not only is it engagingly and compassionately written, but Baron-Cohen seems to empathize well with the careful reader, anticipating questions and objections as they arise and addressing them clearly.

I find his scientific research solid and painstakingly presented, far beyond what psychologists typically provide. Those who criticize the author for compartmentalizing men and women didn't even read the book, I suspect. That is so far off the beam.

Some adults with Asperger's (and parents of Aspie kids) do have an ax to grind -- and they grind it loudly. They feel they or their children are the ones with the "normal" -- even "gifted" -- brains and it is everyone else who acts abnormally. This defensiveness seems an obvious reaction to being so misunderstood. One can see their point more clearly after reading books like this.

To those living with partners, parents, or children who are higher on the autistic spectrum, this book bridges a gap to understanding and, in many cases, healing hurts. If we expect "normal" levels of empathy from these loved ones, we set ourselves up for hurt because the lower-than-average level of empathy feels intentional, personal. Or, as a non-neuroscience-savvy therapist might say, "withholding."

If we understand the differences, however, we can appreciate the good points and set aside expectations that only hurt and alienate everyone.
[...]

Simon Baron-Cohen's book title is probably intended to be provocative; after all, he promises to tell us the truth about the female and male brains. Alas, he fails to deliver, although in this he is no more to be blamed than anyone else trying to prove essential differences between the sexes at the current state of knowledge in genetics.

Baron-Cohen's essentialist argument consists of two chapters in the book; one on evolutionary theory and another on biology. He himself begins the evolutionary theory chapter by noting that he is going to "speculate", so it would be unfair to address this speculation, except to note that his view of prehistory does not seem to have women do gathering or work with tools. The chapter on biology discusses many sex differences in rats, monkeys and humans, but, unfortunately fails to provide any genetic evidence on the two characteristics the book discusses: emphatizing and systemizing. So we must still wait with bated breath for the actual evidence of essentialist sex differences in empathy and systemizing.

Baron-Cohen's last chapter discusses his model in greater detail and speculates about the possibility that an 'extreme female brain' might exist, to correspond to his 'extreme male brain'. He is so concerned about the possible existence of such an extreme female brain that he notes in his conclusions: "Society at present is likely to be biased toward accepting the extreme female brain and stigmatizes the extreme male brain." Slightly odd, I would think, considering that the former type of person is as yet unknown.

The Appendices 2 and 3 contain a test the reader can take to find out his or her type. Unfortunately, many of the questions in the S section are biased. As an example, consider Q7: "If there was a problem with the electrical wiring in my home, I'd be able to fix it myself." What if it was replaced by: "If there was a problem with a broken zipper in my pants, I'd be able to fix it myself?" Would women suddenly look more systemizing? I suspect so. It is also noteworthy that ten years ago I couldn't fix electricity whereas now I can. Has my systemizing talent increased?

I was concerned by the book's assumption that girls and women don't collect things. But they do, witness the groups at any flea market or car booth sale. It will be interesting to see how that could be incorporated into the story. It will also be interesting to see the self-test results after the questions have been corrected.

A book like this is bound to be controversial in today's society, where the topic of gender differences is a hot button issue. I think it's important to note that Simon Baron-Cohen does not make statements about how any specific individual might operate, he simply talks averages (although it would have been nice if he'd stuck to 'Systemizer' rather than 'Male Brain'...one reviewer said she felt as if she were being labeled with a cross-gender disorder, not his intent at all I'm sure!). He does not make judgements about one set of abilities being 'better' or more useful. Neither does he go to extremes and say that a Systemizer cannot feel empathy, (or that they do not have feelings themselves), only that the interwoven, subtle network of social/empathy based cues is relatively more difficult for a Systemizer to navigate while concrete systems may be easier.

The overall premise of the book was interesting, and easier to read than the MindBlindness book by the same author. There seem to be some promising lines of inquiry here, some interesting theories, although at this point it's probably too early to call them anything but that - theories. And yes, there is the potential for environmental factors to affect gender studies in adults, as Baron Cohen himself admits. I was interested to read, however, that he recently completed a study with one-day-old infants where girls looked at a human face for longer, boys at a mechanical mobile. Environment does influence people, no doubt about it, but I think his most recent studies with newborns do point to some inborn differences.

A few points I would have liked discussed more: One, how do non- 'systemizer' related symptoms (sensory processing problems, high anxiety, auditory processing problems, self injurious behaviors) play into this theory? Two, the role of verbal logic in what Baron-Cohen refers to as the 'female' mind (the bare bones 'Systemizer/Empathizer' roles make it sound as if males are all engineering and females are all empathy, when in fact Baron-Cohen talks about females scoring higher on verbal aptitude tests - why are verbal reasoning skills lumped under 'empathy'?). Three, if autism is an extreme male brain, is there an extreme female brain?

Edited to add: I could not resist coming back to add, that favorite criticisms of Simon Baron-Cohen's work are the ones that basically go "Well, I totally disprove your theory because I am female but I am awesome at math, so there, obviously your theories are crap and this proves them all wrong!" Um...if you don't see a big gaping logical flaw in that argument, then no, math is NOT your thing. At least not statistics.

I've read several books in the area, and this is by far the best. It does include the key scientific findings, albeit without the level of detail that is available from other sources. What's particularly interesting is Baron-Cohen's thesis about the primary difference between male/female brains being along the axes of empathy (female) and systemizing (male), and the experimental evidence he presents for this theory.<P(...)P>It is disappointing to see some of the negative reviews posted about this book when Baron-Cohen is so careful to address the points they raise. He is not saying that autistics don't feel strong emotion -- he says they have low levels of empathy, which makes it hard for them to relate well with other people. He is not saying women are inferior -- he says they are superior (on average) in empathy, while men are superior (on average) in systemizing.

All in all an excellent work with some interesting new ideas and supporting evidence. Baron-Cohen is careful to indicate what we know and what is plausible speculation that requires more research. Highly recommended!