fight for truth: fight simon baron-cohen

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, especially since male and female brains don't differ drastically enough that we could call one way of thinking "typically male" or "typically female".

Yes, it's true that males tend to be "systemizers", etc., but this is partially due to culture, and the part that isn't due to culture is actually only a mild tendency, not a drastic difference--something like the way males average out in the 49th percentile and females in the 51st percentile in language; a very slight difference that really doesn't characterize males and females nearly as much as we think it does.

So if the "extreme male brain" theory is true (I doubt it because of all the autistics who are extremely empathic), then "extreme male brain" is a bad name for it. It would be better called "extreme systemizer" or something of that sort.

The issue I have with calling it "extreme male", on first hearing, is that autistics naturally don't pick up the culture around us, and so female autistics (and male autistics) don't pick up the cultural ideas that we are supposed to be gender-typed one way or another. (Well, we pick them up to some degree; but not to the degree that NTs do.) This means that suddenly all that cultural difference between males and females decreases drastically and the people who are comparing us are comparing not just the effects of autism but the difference between the culture around us and what happens when you grow up affected to a much smaller degree by that culture.

If you want to characterize the autistic brain, you're just making it much more complicated for yourself by putting gender into the picture. Gender issues are complicated enough as-is without adding autism; and autism's complicated enough without adding gender too. We simply don't know enough about the differences between men and women to apply that idea to any other field yet. And he's using "extreme male brain" as though everybody knows what a male brain is and how it works?

There's research that counters a lot of this. The idea of extremely divergent male and female neurological development is largely debunked and I believe a lot of research that supports that many of the alleged differences are the result of socialization. As someone else pointed out, he ignores a lot of research about gender to label his conclusions.

This isn't a matter of religious faith. The idea that men and women are so starkly different is, however.

Although there are some with autism who feel like socializing, many do not like to. I actually love sitting in front of the computer. It's relaxing and fun and I would sit here forever if I could. Why is it when people don't like to socialize it's not accepted and thought of as a bad thing? It's not. Respect people's right to socialize or not and view asociality not as a negative stereotype or myth but a legitimate lifestyle choice that can have benefits.

I'm sorry, I can't take Simon Baron-Cohen seriously since his cousin Satcha is the same guy who plays Bruno, Borat and Ali G. And yes, Bruno did compare autism to chlamydia.

Non-autistic introverts also do not like socializing. Introverts get energy from inside themselves (ideas and concepts in their own minds), verus extroverts that get energy from outside of themselves (interacting with other people). They are also made to feel uncomfortable because by and large the world tends to be controlled by extroverts. And introverts represent a sizable proportion of the population. Their voices though are less likely to be heard probably because they just don't care to be heard or are less likely to reach positions of power/authority because they don't care for it.

Last edited by Kon on 28 Dec 2010, 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Exactly. A scientist who wants to discuss a theory about 'male brains' has NO excuse for being completely ignorant of research showing that such a thing is difficult if not impossible to define. Gender research is a broad field. One example of an experiment: take 2 lecture theatres full of mathematics students; give one class a five minute confidence building exercise before their exam. The results of the exam: the females in the confidence building class have significantly higher results than those in the other class. The males results do not change. Moreover, in some countries young women now outperform men in all subjects. Clearly such a radical change in 30 or 40 years cannot be biological in origin.

I think the Intense World theory of hyper-functionality=debilitation is a lot closer to what I feel every day. Sometimes I actually find it easier to concentrate when I've consumed some substance that causes my mentation and sensory intake to slow. A lot of times I get incredibly frustrated because my cognition is so much faster than my body can keep up with.

For example, I can read (comprehension) much faster than I can physically move my eyes.

Bad logic. If the style of teaching has changed it is possible that female neurology is more responsive to the new methods.

What has changed that has resulted in better female performance? Without examining that, you can't say anything about causality.

Yes, this is how I feel all the time. Of course no two word label could ever capture the essence of autism, but IW is better than the other options being thrown around.

As I said, I am referring to a LARGE body of academic research. Please inform yourself about it before jumping to conclusions.

I did not jump to a conclusion. You posted something that was logically faulty. It is up to YOU to provide corroboration when you make a statement that is such a broad generalization.

Shall I spell it out for you?

You said:



There is no reason to challenge this as anything but fact, so lets proceed to your claim:



The word "cannot" is an absolute. Logically, you are saying for it is not possible for biology to be a cause. I simply pointed out a scenario where it COULD be a cause therefore your absolute is proven false. Again, your logic is faulty.

If you wish to be accurate, then change your statement to something like "research has shown female biology to be very unlikely".

If you wish to be reactionary, continue using absolutes and words like "clearly" and "radical".

If women are allegedly biologically inferior at certain tasks than men, how exactly do you tailor teaching methods (which have not changed signficantly over this time) to favor women over men in subjects that men allegedly have a biological advantage in?

The research is out there, you can find it. But here's one that Kea referenced to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat

Yes, it's wiki, but the article has citations at the bottom.

Who said anything about biologically inferior? ALL I SAID was the statement was logically faulty.

I'm sorry. My Aspie is showing ...

This is the historical claim as to why so few women were entering the fields of math and science. I'm sorry I failed to separate the long-term arguments about this from your own statement. The statement is logically sound in context with existing research, however.

The stereotype threat information is still applicable, I think.

S.B.C. made a statistical claim. Have you any evidence to indicate flaws in his statistical methods.

ruveyn

I have read some of Simon Baron-Cohen's papers, and I am unable to find any serious flaw in them. The one I like the most is the one where he took undergrads from physical science, biological science, social science and the humanities and he then measured their SQ and EQ levels. He found that there is both a male / female difference and a difference between physical science students and the humanites. The people with ASDs on a 2D plot of SQ and EQ were clustered in a place where so called "super male" minds would be expected to be.

While some people might not like the "extreme male" term as they think it is sexist, I do not think it is being used in a nasty or discriminatory way by SBC. It is being used as a purely descriptive term in the same wayas a lump of chalk is white while a lump of coal is black. I think that SBC has stopped using the extreme male brain term and has moved onto the idea of SQ and EQ, but at the end of the day you have to admit that the average man has a higher SQ and a lower EQ score than the average woman. But bear in mind that the ESD for both SQ and EQ is very large. Many women have higher SQ score than many men (the same applies to EQ scores as well)

If people find SBC to be a bad researcher, then I suggest you go after other worse researchers. In terms of bad and nasty researchers I think that the AS community have much larger and nastier ones to deal with. Some "researchers" are very shabby, one claims that men with AS exert a carcinogenic effect on wifes and GFs. The researcher in question refuses to discuss the methods by which they came to this very contraversal and distasteful set of conclusions.

The problem is that the researcher bypassed the peer review process in accademic publishing by making their claims in books.

I am an accademic who is sometimes called on to review papers, I suspect that most reviewers do what I do. I do not mind if the paper goes against some hypothesis which I love. I only want to know if the paper is well written and contains evidence to support its conclusions.