My problem with the male brain theory

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think Aspergers can be considered an extremely male brain because if that were true, Aspie males would be "jockish" and stereotypically macho and if anything, most Aspie men seem passive and more feminine than most NT men.

It would also mean Aspie females would tend to be "butch", which also generally isn't true as if anything, many women on the autistic spectrum are very stereotypically "girly". The worst problem with the theory though is just that it assumes that autistic people are uncaring, and that men tend to be uncaring, both of which are false.

There are a few angles you can think of as male traits. One is like you are talking about -- physical toughness, athletic, and all things related to testosterone. There is another kind -- mental. Males, on average, tend to think like problem solvers, engineers, pragmatic, logical, and their actions rely less on emotions (meaning, emotions and problem solving don't usually depend on one another). The mental male traits can be true, where the physical male traits tend to be missing (other than the genitals of course -- except for females, or other extraneous anomalies).

One approach in thinking differently about this is to take the gendered segregation right out of it and consider another hypothesis: that everyone on the spectrum has an extreme brain - that having an extreme brain, which manifests in different ways in different people, is what autism actually is. Extreme sensitivities (which both men and women on the spectrum seem to experience pretty equally) are possibly one dimension of "extreme brain theory" as opposed to "male brain theory". It's not a big intellectual leap to make and so it surprises me that Baron-Cohen has completely ignored the possibility to date (so far as I am aware).

You're confusing cultural gender roles with basic mental software. Still I don't think the extreme male brain holds a grain of salt either. Honestly I identify more with the so called "female" aspie traits than I do with "male" aspie traits.

B19, I like that, just extreme brain

Opposite of me, Feyokien. Even though I'm female, I relate better to the existing model (or as people are calling it, "male model"). For me at least the male brain theory makes sense. I think there's been studies which show autistic females have a brain closer to NT males.

Edit: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/08/0 ... and-women/

It should be renamed nerd or geek male brain theory because it describes those types of stereotypical males rather then the jocks.

I do believe it does describe a subcategory of autistics.

Last edited by B19 on 14 Oct 2015, 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.: just a test run

ASD "Male brain theory" is based on the E-S curve.

Simply, with regards to systemizing performance, ASD people show better performance than the average male.

"65% of people with autism spectrum conditions are Extreme Type S"

source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizi ... _of_autism

APOM, please read the PM I sent to you a minute ago re the edit message on your post. Your post was fine, there was no problem with it at all.

In my experience it is Women rather than men who tend to be more aggressive and quick tempered, fortunately they dont tend to have the physical strength to do much damage with their macho lack of self control.
The more "manly" a man, the less he needs to prove himself or get angry as a result of impotence in the way woman do, resorting to shouting and a temper as the only way to get their way.
Manly men are quietly confident, the strong silent type.
I think the male brain theory isn't pointing to the stereotypical violent and out of control male who has the physical strength behind his female emotional thinking, but the male brain is really talking about the way a male brain is more logical than emotional.
It thinks and acts on thoughts rather than acts on impulse and emotion.

I think we are conditioned to view issues through the lenses of sex and gender because they seem so obvious - so obvious that focusing on them often means other important factors are missed/overlooked altogether.

This critique more or less aligns with my own view of Baron-Cohen's speculations, (with which I disagree):

http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1672/1599

That's a very deep and interesting read. Much to think about there. Thank you.