Simon Baron-Cohen who is one of the lead researchers on autism and is a prominent member of the British National Autistic Society, has a pet theory that autism leads to an increased masculinization in social behavior, physical features and interests. This is literally his idea. He's done some research that tries to prove that this occurs because of increased levels of testosterone exposure in utero, which would make the infant become more masculinized compared to the norm. He built this idea based on the stereotypical presentation of autism and gender roles, where he posits that preferring to think in terms of structure and logic is a feature of male behavior, and to reason with emotions is female behavior. Since autistics (based on his perception and research at the time) were more likely to be systematizing, there must be something to their brain structure that is inherently more male. Of course, we can now see how this is steeped in gender stereotypes especially since a lot of early autistic research was done on white boys and the few girls who were diagnosed as autistic had to fit the same gendered behavior to an extreme degree (hence so many women were never diagnosed until much later in life), but because of his prominence within autistic research and his insistence to prove that he's correct, the idea has never gone away. There are still a lot of people who think there's validity to the claim, despite modern research finding very little evidence to support it. It's the same reason why the stereotype that autistics lack empathy and are so called "mindblind" also persists; we can also thank Baron-Cohen for that one. https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/1939k7i/comment/kh7rpxl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Overall the general thing about the male and female brain in modern neuroscience is how similar they are. I find a lot of studies trying to find a difference do find a difference because they're trying so hard to do so. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomenNoCensor/comments/15b8b29/comment/jtp8cm3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The issue with the systematizing and empathizing theory is that in neuroscience the brain operates with layered causality. So it's not a matter of A or B it's a matter of A therefore C and because C a little bit of B and D and D influences A.
So explaining anything like cognition in a binary state is automatically an incorrect classification and oversimplification. https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergers/comments/1dfr611/comment/l8kywo0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
It’s an outdated bit of nonsense from a time when there was even less understanding of neuroscience and autism. No one should take it seriously in 2024 https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergers/comments/1dfr611/comment/l8lfyq8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Simon Baren Cohen's 'extreme male brain' theory as well as the concept of gendered brains is bunk. If you want counterarguments in accessible form, a great place to start is Cordelia Fine's book Delusions of Gender.
In general, Baron Cohen is overly prone to concocting interesting sounding theories and marshalling weak, overinterpreted evidence to support them. I wouldn't put all that much stock in what he has to say. https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergers/comments/150ooai/comment/js4l284/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
It's mainly unnecessarily gendered.
It's like height; males are generally taller than females but there are plenty of tall females and short males. Still, being tall is considered masculine.
It may or may not be relevant to your experience, but some people get pretty fixated on gendering things and it's usually not healthy in the long term.
Do the things which fill your cup/help you thrive and don't worry about what someone obsessed with gendering behaviors thinks. https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/1939k7i/comment/kh7wjmt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Head up, this article was wrriten by Simon Baron-Cohen, the guy responsible for the extreme male brain theory. This theory has been critized for it's neurosexism (the theory essentially claims that male brains are wired for logic and female brains wired for emotions and empathy), ableism (it dehumanizes autistic people) and has been viewed as one of the reasons why autistic women are more likely to go undiagnosed (as the theory solidifies the idea that autism is a male thing + the theory turns women not performing their gender in a 'correct' (read: desired) way as a symptom of autism.)
Note: a source of inspiration for the extreme male brain theory was Hans Asperges Who had claimed in one of his articles that he had never met an autistic woman despite noting the amount of mother's who shared a lot of behavioral similarities with their autistic sons. He refused to think that these women could be autistic due to his believes about gender.
I believe Baron-Cohen has also been critized for talking about autism in a way that suggests that it needs to be cured.
He has also been critized for his spectrum10k research which seeks (or sought (not sure if the boycot was successful)) to map out every gene potentially related to autism. The reasons for this is of course fear of eugenicism. https://www.reddit.com/r/AutisticPride/comments/135p4h1/comment/jiqm27k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
When computers had first been invented women made up the overwhelming majority of programmers initially. This changed when patriarchal men wanted to take credit. And even before computers, calculators were literally women that you’d call to solve a maths problem that you had. https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/qqzlvr/comment/hk6o2yw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
He doesn’t really listen to autistic people: he studies us from the outside. He interprets our behaviors without asking us to clarify or explain and has thus done a lot of damage. He’s behind a lot of the stereotypes about autistic people being loners, having little or no empathy, not caring about other people, etc. He paints us all as fundamentally lacking empathy because he himself lacked the empathy to actually communicate with his subjects about their feelings and personal methods of expression. Nowadays we know that autistic people often feel too much empathy but struggle to express or understand it. This is just me, but I’ve always felt dehumanized when reading Baron-Cohen’s work. I always get the vibe that he feels like we’re lacking something he thinks is vital to being a real human. It could be because his books inspired people to treat me like a sociopath but they’re not great on their own either. https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/i1fotd/comment/fzxx63d/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Based on the provided texts, here is an argument against Simon Baron-Cohen's ideas regarding the biological basis of sex differences, the E-S (Empathizing-Systemizing) theory, and the testosterone in the brain theory.
Argument Against Baron-Cohen's Theories
The core argument against Baron-Cohen's claims is that they are based on flawed and unproven sciencethat fails to account for the powerful influence of social and environmental factors on human development.
1. The Flawed Foundational Study
Baron-Cohen's theories, particularly the idea that innate differences in empathy and systemizing are present from birth, rest on a single, highly criticized study conducted by Jennifer Connellan.
Methodological Problems: The study was not "blind," meaning the researcher knew the sex of some infants, introducing the potential for experimenter bias. Connellan herself admitted the study was "rudimentary" and that the methodology was not perfect.
Lack of Replication: This study, despite being widely cited by Baron-Cohen, has never been successfully replicated. This is a fundamental failing in scientific validation. Subsequent studies on infant attention to faces and objects have not found a similar male advantage.
Over-interpretation: The study's results were far from conclusive; only a minority of infants showed the predicted preference (40% of boys and 36% of girls). The leap from these weak statistical differences to a sweeping theory about "essential differences" and distinct "male" and "female" brains is a significant and unsubstantiated intellectual leap.
2. Contradictory Evidence from Broader Research
The academic papers provided offer extensive evidence that directly contradicts Baron-Cohen's biological claims.
No Innate Aptitude Differences: A comprehensive review of developmental and cognitive research found no evidence for sex differences in the core cognitive abilities that form the foundation of mathematical and scientific thinking. It concludes that "our considerable gifts for mathematics and science have been bestowed, in equal measure, on males and females."
Change Over Time: If mathematical talent had a fixed biological basis, the gender gap at the highest levels of math achievement would not change. However, the ratio of top-scoring males to females on standardized math tests in the U.S. has fallen dramatically over the past few decades (from 13:1 to as low as 2:1). This rapid change points to cultural and social factors, not unchangeable biology.
Strategy, Not Aptitude: The academic papers acknowledge that men and women sometimes show different cognitive profiles, but they argue these are due to different problem-solving strategies, not different underlying aptitudes. For example, men may favor spatial strategies, while women may favor verbal strategies, but both sexes are equally capable of learning and mastering the same material.
3. The Powerful Role of Nurture and Environment
The argument further posits that the concept of a fixed, biological difference is a false dichotomy because "nature and nurture are not separate things."
Brain Plasticity: The brain is not static. The example of London taxi drivers shows that intense, experience-driven learning can physically alter the brain's structure. This principle of brain plasticitysuggests that the cognitive differences we observe between sexes could be the result of a lifetime of different experiences, shaped by society.
Stereotypes and Performance: Stereotypes directly impact behavior and abilities. When children are given different toys or are exposed to negative stereotypes about their gender's abilities in a certain field, it can physically produce the very differences that people then attribute to biology. The phenomenon of "stereotype threat" shows that simply reminding a person of a negative stereotype can impair their performance.
In conclusion, the evidence provided suggests that Baron-Cohen's "Essential Difference" theory relies on a narrow, unproven, and methodologically weak study, ignores a vast body of contradictory research, and fails to account for the demonstrable ways in which social and cultural factors actively shape human development and cognitive abilities.
1. The Contradiction of an "Innate Female Social Advantage"
The new study's findings directly contradict the idea that a fixed, biological preference for social stimuli is an innate and universal female trait.
Male Social Preference: The study of 2-month-old infants found that males looked faster and longer at human faces than females. This result is surprising and, as the authors of the paper note, is the first study of its kind to find a male advantage in social attention.
Challenges the "Empathizing" Theory: This finding undermines the core of Baron-Cohen's argument, which uses the idea of an innate female preference for social stimuli to build the "empathizing" brain theory. If the advantage is not present at 2 months of age, or is even reversed, then the theory of a consistent, divinely designed difference from birth is weakened.
2. A Call for a More Nuanced View of Development
The new study, rather than supporting a new "male advantage" theory, reinforces the conclusion that development is complex and not a simple, linear process determined by genetics.
Shifting Trajectories: The study suggests that the sex differences in social attention may be a temporary, developmental phenomenon. The authors hypothesize that males might be "catching up" on a skill that females mastered earlier, or that this phase could be influenced by a decline in caregiver attention that males may experience around this age.
Context is Key: The study shows that the type of stimulus matters (human faces vs. chimpanzee faces vs. objects) and that the developmental stage is crucial. These complexities cannot be captured by a broad, oversimplified theory like Empathizing-Systemizing.
Conclusion: A Flawed Theory Built on Shaky Evidence
By including this additional research, the argument against Baron-Cohen becomes even more robust. His theory is not only based on a single, flawed study that has not been replicated, but it also fails to align with the complex, and sometimes contradictory, findings of modern developmental psychology. The evidence points away from a simple, biologically-driven "essential difference" and towards a model where abilities emerge and shift over time, influenced by a dynamic interplay of biology, environment, and experience.
Superior Detection of Faces in Male Infants at 2 Months: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholarship.miami.edu/view/pdfCoverPage%3FinstCode%3D01UOML_INST%26filePid%3D13355491290002976%26download%3Dtrue&ved=2ahUKEwia0NXGop-PAxXAmokEHdtxObQQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw04ksle5FZ8wnratqAiVw9m
Putting a rocket up the Google boys: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/science/article/putting-a-rocket-up-the-google-boys-f0g92fs56
Sex Differences in Intrinsic Aptitude for Mathematics and Science?: https://www.harvardlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/spelke2005-1.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment