Customer Review

30 of 36 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Thin evidence for a simplistic hypothesis, June 2, 2011
This review is from: The Essential Difference: Male And Female Brains And The Truth About Autism (Paperback)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 22, 2012 11:10:31 AM PDT
Gina Pera says:
You wrote: "For instance, I find it highly unlikely that 'empathy' is across the board higher in females than males."

Nowhere does Baron-Cohen say that. He explicitly points out that these qualities are more like height -- in that women are generally shorter than men but that some women are taller than some men. Similarly, men are generally taller than women but some men are shorter than some women.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012 12:34:11 PM PDT
That is not what I meant at all. Yes, of course there are variances and distributions.

What I am challenging is the idea that "empathy" can be quantified in one dimension that is higher in females than men. I find it far more likely that there are subdimensions of "empathy" that, on average, are more concentrated in females, and other subdimensions of "empathy" that are, on average, more concentrated in males.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2012 7:49:54 PM PDT
NYCAAZPA says:
This is an interesting idea. Can you explain how to qualify the varying "subdimensions of empathy?"

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 1, 2012 10:17:49 PM PDT
For instance, psychologists often administer surveys with loads of questions, and then do clustering/dimensional analysis to find some of number of key dimensions that the survey reduces to. While I am not a psychologist and haven't looked at this stuff in a while, I believe they did that with personality questionnaires to conclude that there were a "big 5" dimensions to personality (although i'm sure there are competing versions). Presumably you could do something similar for "empathy", and find that empathy can be decomposed into different components. To give a sillly example, "feeling someone's pain" might lie on an entirely different dimension than "understanding someone's strategies". I am certainly not suggesting that this simple example would exhibit a male/female division, but you could imagine that there are some sub-dimensions of "empathy" that males and females would differ on.

The key point is that "empathy" is very broad and encompasses a lot of things, and I believe it's foolish to assert that females are on average more "empathetic" than males. The same argument applies to "systemizing", and why it is foolish to assert that males are better "systemizers" than females. And indeed, "empathy" is a type of systemizing itself, so the entire division is inherently problematic.

Posted on Feb 27, 2015 10:49:55 PM PST
Rita says:
It reminds me of a book written by a UK anthropologist, who revealed that men spent as much time as women on gossiping, of which the only difference was that they called it "information exchange"
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

Reviewer


Top Reviewer Ranking: 17,750