Simon Baron-Cohen Editorial in TODAY 8/8 NY Times

Post Reply New Topic

Simon Baron-Cohen, one of the most prominent ASD researchers on the planet, has had an editorial entitled "The Male Condition" published in today's (Monday 8/8/05) New York Times.

Basically he puts forth his "Extreme Male Brain" theory for Autism and AS, describes how differences in the way male and female minds operate (he stresses that these are averages--there are women with very "male-like" minds and men with very "female-like" minds) based on his research, and mentions the incredible controversy surrounding many related issues (such as asserting that there are differences in the minds of men and women, as Harvard's President came under fire for doing a few months ago...and the epic battle of those who blame environmental factors for ASDs). All in all I personally think this is a great editorial from a great doctor, researcher and scientist.

The New York Times website requires (free) registration to view articles, but it's at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opini ... cohen.html

For those of you who get the actual hard copy of the paper, it's towards the end of the first section.

From what I've read of Baron-Cohen, he's INSANE. I don't put much stock in any of his hypotheses at all.

I think the notion of their somehow being a "male" or "female" brain is just as preposterous as when scientists once concidered it scientific fact that Caucasian brains where different from those of Africans. It smells too much of the overt racism and sexism that was being perpetrated by researchers back in that era who just happened to primarily be white males, making it in their best interest to come up with conclusions on differences in brain functioning according to race and sex which would supposedly reaffirmed society's stance on excluding minorities and females from certain roles. In other words, more of the same crap, only being couched in more incidious terminology.

The problem with that "extreme male brain" theory is that there are female members here who are obviously ASD as well as feminine and show interest in the kinds of literature that women tend to like as well as have other interests that very few guys would do without a SO. If the "extreme male brain" theory was credible, then I would expect to find the female members to be almost exclusively butch lesbians, which is clearly not true.

Granted, there are neurological differences between a male and a female brain. However, saying Aspergers is based on these seems unfounded and as though he's pulling things out of his [fill in your own anatomical preference].

I got here a little late, but I would like to hear more opinions on the theories of Simon Baron Cohen. I am surprised how many people disagree, and can only attributed it to our cultural history of oppressing women. People now balk at the slightest mention of a difference between men and women, as demonstrated at Harvard.

Perhaps "male brain" is a bit misleading. However there are certainly traits which on average are found more in males (systemizing). And others which are found more commonly in females (empathizing). Of course we also find everything in between. These are only areas of specialization. There are many other traits and abilities that are mixed in which may be masculine or feminine or neither. And historically there have always been a disproportionate number of male autistics (perhaps this is changing?) Personally I find the idea of a feminine systemizer quite attractive.

I believe that this is a fruitful line of reasoning that may provide a better understanding of the origins and triggers of ASD. How can we afford to write it off with a knee-jerk "sexist" label given the overwhelming evidence available?

There are historical social antecedents around categorising the mental function of men and women that some people react to very strongly. Even if the research findings of Simon Baron Cohen are replicable and verifiable, there will be some who take exception to them due to the fact that others may choose to distort and misrepresent the meaning of such findings.

Although virtually every piece of scientific research must be tested and vetted against the feelings of various vocal interest groups and although there is a noisy and vocal disavowel of the 'masculine' or 'patriarchal' scientific method, it seems that this is still the only tool available at the moment.

When I was at college, various and assorted 'right-on' types skirted these complex issues by asserting that the differences between the members of whatever grouping at least rivalled or even exceeded the differences between the differing groupings. Using this subtle, socially-aware rhetorical device, it can be advanced that intra-group differences are at least equal and possibly exceed inter-group differences. The advantage of this approach is that it allows potentially inflammatory (read: controversial due to challenging the modern shibboleth minefield), research to proceed apace, without running the risk of having such work hindered by appearing to tread on too many social corns, so to speak.

Not insane, but certainly wedded to the idea that anything which departs from the usual, is either to be treated and resolved, or else to be considered from a distance, as if an alien, for which one may make tentative speculations?

As such, he's more pro-autie than most; he has at least considered the possibility of the existance of me and my kind.

I'm not a terribly big fan of SBC myself but I do feel I have to enforce fairness and clear up some things as people have drawn inaccurate conclusions about his work.

For those of you who are offended by the idea that male and female brains ARE different, please do a websearch for David Reimer, the Canadian man who as a baby had his penis incinerated in a botched circumscision and was then subject to a disturbing social experiment which began with the conclusion that there were no inherent differences between men and women.

Lets say the tremendous amount of evidence which proves men and women have different brains didn't exist: would we ever discover this fact if at every turn someone screamed the emotive rhetoric of "RACISM! SEXISM! ANY-ISM YOU CAN THINK OF!" ?

I've certainly never known anyone that does gender research to make negative value-laden comments about either sex or indicated how the research could be used for some insidious purpose of another.

It can not be compared the the early work on races: those researchers claimed that some races were inferior to others and set out to prove it. Not studies into inherent racial differences are done on the basis of just that: differences. Yet still there is the occasional moron screaming racism when it is nothing of the sort. The same goes for gender research, it's the study of diversity.

Now, when people say Simon Baron-Cohen's Extreme Male Brain Theory(tm) is wrong because it's offensive to female Autistics who are often very feminine, I know that they haven't understood one bit of his research at all.

Sean, do you care that there are some lesbians who would be offended by words suggesting they are not feminine? You've made the mistake of virtually all the male brain critics: you've defined gender by caricature.

Everyone who criticises SBC seems to do so on the basis that in his theory gender has been based on socially-defined ideas, when in fact he has taken the emperial measured evidence of the differences between males and females and found a tendency toward male, in extreme proportions. First valid criticism of SBC: He has not clearly indicated the definitions he uses of 'Male' and 'Female' in any papers. This means that everything he says is ambigious and has lead to the problems with inaccurate criticisms of his work.

Second valid criticism of SBC: the validity of his source definitions for male and female are open to challenge themselves, though this is something he can't possibly help, the alarm bell should have sounded before he began his work on male brain theory.

Third valid criticism of SBC: The pre-natal testosterone explaination for the cause of Autism contradicts some of his work(and supports what Sean said in a way about all the Autistic ladies not being butch lesbians). The complex chemistry of the womb is...complex, so complex that all SBC can do is speculate, which is all this is.

If you take a list of what males are measured to be consistently good at and a list of what females are measured to be consistently good at and compare it to a list measuring what Autistics are consistently good at, it will show that Autistics share the strengths of the male even if you make all the Autistics in the measured group female.

Biggest criticism there can ever be made of SBC: If anyone concludes based on the above that Autistics can be defined by maleness, they are commiting an obvious logical fallacy(is it Post Hoc or some other? I forget). SBC has done so.

If anyone can produce even a single Autistic that contradicts the conclusions of the male brain theory, yet they are clearly and demonstratebly Autistic, then the theory is effectively disproven. The thing is that a lot of people in our community do of course personally know people who do just that.