The following is a copy of my response to Scientific American's article (and the Lawrence Summers fiasco in general) but I doubt it'll be printed there (so why waste it eh?):
Your article provides some fascinating insights, but yet again, no thought is given to the influence of autism in this debate.
Autism, as defined by Aaron Rosanoff (who most probably originated the term, circa 1915) is nothing more than a segment in his proposed theory of personality, and further developments (notably by Humm and Wadsworth in their Temperament Gradient of 1935, which is the basis for many of today's aptitude and temperament tests) have established that this aspect is most influential on creativity and imagination (but not intelligence) and that people who are strongly autistic are more preoccupied with physical events and how “things” work, than with “people” issues (it is an error to assume that, as they don't relate to or interact easily with others, then they must be preoccupied with the “self”, as the name wrongly suggests,).
Another way of looking at this is the “extreme male brain” hypothesis, proposed by Prof. Baron Cohen et al, which indicates that being strongly autistic predisposes one to the male end of the range of relevant factors, such as tendency to systematise rather than empathise. It's further noted that “autism”, even by the current clinical understandings (which shares much with Rosanoff's definition, from which it indirectly arose, but that relationship is now largely forgotten, or ignored) affects far more boys than girls, and the ratio also holds true for those adults who are strongly autistic in outlook but otherwise seemingly normal (other than they are often deemed “odd” or “lacking social skills” etc.). This then could be explained by the possibility that women who are strongly autistic in relation to their gender, will still fall into the “male normal” range on such measurements, and thus go unnoticed. That said, autism too is now known to have an observable effect on brain structure, notably in the higher density of the glial cells in certain regions (as famously noted in the autopsy of a section of Einstein's brain; the conjecture by some researchers, that this indicates “a life-long inflammation” of the brain, is surely absurd?).
Most will accept that this ability to focus on the physical issues of technical problems is more apt for effective scientific exploration (and if one peruses the biographies of history's great scientists and inventors, with Rosanoff's definition in mind, one soon discovers that most of them displayed readily observable evidence of autism) than ways of thinking that are preoccupied with “people” concerns (“prestige”, “deadlines”, “status”, “authority”, etc.). Couple that with the general preference displayed by women for relational events, and their emotional impact, and a disinclination for purely technical pursuits, and we have a ready explanation for Lawrence Summers' observation.
It doesn't mean women cannot be great scientists (nor that all men can be) but it does mean they will be far fewer in number. So I agree with Lawrence Summers? As far as most of his conjectures go (“success” depends on a willingness to do 60/80 hour weeks?) no; in fact I found most of them ludicrous!
31 May 2005, 12:06 pm
