Growing evidence for the extreme male brain theory of autism

Post Reply New Topic

I'm an aspie female, and I can only speak for myself and those I've encountered and know, but in my experience the 'extreme male brain' theory is utter tripe.

1 - Women are less likely to be diagnosed AS when they are in fact AS because of a predilection for women to be the more 'nurturing', 'caring', 'empathetic' and 'sociable' sex, all of which are traits aspergians are generally assumed not to have, but in AS women are often present in some form or other. They're more likely to be sociable or to make attempts at being sociable, which some would say harks back as far as cave times when men were out hunting and gathering and women were staying in the cave with the children and other women. As sociability or a desire to socialise is a misunderstood aspect of it by so-called professionals, it can preclude some women with AS from being diagnosed. This therefore means the so-called ratio of 4:1 is wrong, or right but speaks only for those diagnosed, rather than the true figures.

2 - Less scientifically, I myself am far from 'male brained'. I hate war, cars, technical things (though I admit I can do them with ease), pulling things apart, mechanics, etc etc. I know a lot of other women on the spectrum who are the same - we do, however, enjoy sciences and facts and figures, we just prefer social sciences, history, language etc over chemistry and mathematics. We enjoy fashion and clothes and boys and makeup. Though definitely not gossip or inane conversation! To say I've got an 'extreme male brain' because I have Aspergers would be an absolute joke and a fallacy.

I hate how people say 'women don't get AS as much as men' because it's an absolute falsehood and one that is hurting so many undiagnosed women out there who are missing the help they need due to stupid misconceptions perpetrated by those who are meant to be 'experts' and help us most!

I think the "male brain" is more about the way you solve problems- logically, not emotionally. I couldn't care less about cars and guns and I do enjoy a lot of "girly" things, still if you'd compare my way of thinking with that if most women you'd see the discrepancy- I use logic and facts, most women are guided by "heart" i.e. chemical reactions in their brains known as emotions.

Baron Cohen backed off this theory quite some time ago.

It is an extrapolation of naive gender stereotypes arising from NT culture that aren't even valid within that NT context.
That men are systematic, and women are lousy at math. That women possess emotional sensitivities that men do not, etc. These are mirages that appear from NT culture, and sometimes get mistaken for biological fact.

For example, the math SAT scores of females has recently surpassed that of males. Oops, so much for the male 'systemizing' brain. Emotional 'Intelligence' is much more subjective, so we still see tests asserting a gender difference in this 'ability', which lacks definition never mind metric.

So this gender silliness, which isn't even valid within the NT culture from which it emerges, was applied to the ASD mind ... "they must be male-systemizers and not female-empathizers".

Straw-grasping. ASD has only recently been noticed - some day it may be understood, but until then a lot of whacky theories will come along ..,

I suppose that does make sense and would apply, for me anyway. I guess a lot of the problem is misreporting of the theory and misunderstanding on the part of those pushing it forwards and keeping it in the public eye. That said, I do follow my gut instinct and intuition very carefully and if I have doubts about something I won't do it. And at certain weeks of the month I do get a bit emotional.

For the most part though, yes, that would make sense and I would perhaps agree with the, err, sentiment. Though logic is a tricky one - maths is a large part logic and I can't do maths to save myself. I do get told off by other women for using too many facts and inadvertantly making them feel stupid when discussing a topic, so maybe there is something to it!

I think so... when I say it all contradicts itself I mean - the thread titled something along the lines of "Are people with AS androgynous?"
Where people might be 5 or 6 on a scale of 10 for how they feel male or female in aspects, I might reach 8 to 10... I know that sounds stupid. What I mean is - there's areas where I feel unusually one and then bizarely the other in another area...

I feel strong male and female traits.

When did he back off on it? Is there something in print?

There was an interview on CNN.com recently with Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist,
about body language that seems relevant here.

(Transcript at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cd.01.html)

Dr. Fisher says:

Women are better at reading body language everywhere in the world.
As a matter of fact, it's associated with the female hormone estrogen.
Women are better at figuring out of tone of voice, reading your face
and posture and gesture.

However, later in the interview:

...men live in this world of rank and display rank and falling off of rank and
going down in rank and going up in rank. Where as women live in a world of
connection.

But the ability to negotiate rank, to know 'where you stand' depends on understanding and using body language. Fisher gives several examples. NT men may have less capacity than NT women to manage body language, but their social interation clearly depends on using the capacity they do have. AS people, notoriously, have trouble knowing where they stand, metaphorically (or were *to* stand, literally.)

I mostly live in my own world, and if you are reading this I imagine you mostly live in yours, but from what I've observed to the extent AS people are social they are social in a network-y, non-hierarchical, supposedly "feminine" way.

Even if it's true, in a purely neuro-anatomical sense, that the AS brain is an extreme version of the male NT brain, that doesn't necessarily play out in actual behavior, and calling AS people "hyper-masculine" is very misleading.

Something has just occurred to me - are we sure that, in our Aspergian way, we aren't simply over-analysing everything associated with being 'masculine' (in pop culture and in science) and from that, missing the more general point Baron-Cohen is trying to get at? For example, he's using it as a way of explaining some of our traits to NT people who don't quite understand where we're coming from, but we're taking it to a level of detail he perhaps didn't mean and analysing male v female brains at a depth not intended from his theory?

I've read Baron-Cohen's book The Essential Difference and he made a number of mistakes.

One is that he doesn't know much about evolution (most people don't) and he made some silly mistakes. (Sorry - don't remember any examples. I try not to look too closely at those sort of arguments.) I don't know how much that mattered to his overall argument.

Another is that he overgeneralized. There may well be empathizing and systemizing modules in the brain (or at least a part of the brain more strongly developed in some people than others that specializes in analytical skills), but that doesn't mean you can successfully categorize people on them. I suspect the brain is far too complex for his two-axis theoretical model to be of any real use.

Third, he theorized on too little hard data. Not only do we not know yet if the description of autism will change when females are looked at more closely, but we also know so very little about the people who are already diagnosed. (In other words: does it apply to autistic women? Does it even apply to autistic men?) Basically he jumped the gun. Fine to do it on your own time around the coffee table at work. Not so good to publish on it on the basis of so little data.

Scientists need to do a lot more general mapping before they are in a position to test specific theories like he's been doing. It's like they make up a theory and test it, make up another theory and test it, make up another theory and test it. Best to gather lots and lots of data first (at least another decade or two, please) then look for patterns, then save testing the null hypothesis for the very end.

Oh, and the EQ is fundamentally flawed. But that's another subject.

This theory wouldn't explain all the female systemisers I've met in the past.
Many of them can readily engage in social small-talk with few problems.

Some of these females I've seen socialise in a very systematic way and are very meticulous workers.

Women like this do exist.
They can be found working in mathematics, science and IT departments.
If they weren't brilliant systemisers, they wouldn't be in those places.
Many wore feminine style clothes and make-up and certainly didn't view themselves as "male" in any way.

Either these women are brilliant at "faking" social interactions or something far more interesting is going on.

Do not step into the same "extreme" twice! topic

I am always suspicious of theories that appeal to my emotive side, because then I will not question and analyze. SBC's theory is too perfect and compact, though it is a basis for other ideas, and so is worth researching further.

This is a theory, not evidence. There's an enormous amount of variability that can be chalked up to correlation rather than causation. Baron-Cohen depends on correlation to form his theory, but as far as I know, there's really no evidence to support it. If testosterone is an important factor, how would you explain females who whose sexual development is normally female, who marry and have children, who are capable of empathy, and who are also extremely analytical systematizers?

Last edited by UnusualSuspect on 02 Mar 2009, 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would agree with SBC that statistically people on the spectrum have higher systemizing and lower empathizing based on his criteria. However the problem with the theory is that it goes too far and ends up confusing correlation for causation. Having higher systemizing ability than empathy is an effect of AS, not the fundamental difference IMO.

From the inside I have a slightly different picture than what the NT will perceive. I really think the fundamental difference is in the way our conscious and sub-conscious mental processing units interact. We have a more focused mental processing than an NT. I think it just so happens that social interaction requires the most complex manner of processing sensory information. Social interaction requires juggling more incoming sensory information and simultaneously processing over a wider area of the brain than any other mental activity. Our focused thinking method doesn't work well in this kind of setting.

He... ditched the theory?



*chucks The Essential Difference, just bought yesterday, in the garbage*

And I'm already on page 60 and it makes a lot of sense.

What, exactly, is an "extreme male brain"? Has anyone defined it? Is he ONLY talking about logic versus empathy, or do other things come into play? I´m always skeptical of these theories regarding the so-called brains of men and women. It does seem likely there are some differences, but many of them seem like extreme stereotypes to me. And many people will just try to fit the stereotype of the role that´s expected of them- (for instance, in the case of many men making an effort to repress their emotions). So, whatever neurons are being constantly used or repressed is also going to help shape the brain.

Many of the AS men here on WP seem to me to be less overtly "male" than the macho NT males I know in life...(and I mean that as a compliment, by the way). So how does that explain the extreme male brain theory? To me, the fact that many AS people seem to be a little more androgynous seems to support the theory that many of these "differences" are actually social.

Which reminds me of the fact of my upbringing; being a girl, I got far more "empathy training" than my brothers did. I noticed that, and noticed that I was treated differently than they were. My mother constantly told me I had to always think about what the other person was feeling...which I tried to do, systematically, of course. Which may help explain the 4-1 ratio of autism diagnoses, as well as the fact that women appear to be more empathetic than men...they´re trained to be that way! I don´t study brains for a living, so maybe there is some evidence that women are more empathetic, I just don´t know. But I do know, just from simple observation, that men are trained and brainwashed to be logical and hide their true emotions, whereas women are trained to be emotional and show empathy.

Yes, I agree. The differences are probably due to inhabiting a different body, I don't think we actually have different brains. Somebody may know something about brains in feotus's and whether they actually start out different for male and female.

His ideas ring truer than most on one level. His big problem is using the term 'male' brain. If he stuck to the term 'systemising' brain, he'd have fewer problems.



I followed that link and found it seriously lacking in short skirts and mascara. Do I get my money back?

Last edited by ManErg on 13 Mar 2009, 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.