The Essential Difference: Male And Female Brains And The Truth About Autism,   ISBN:9780465005567

Customer Rating: 

This Cambridge University autism researcher reveals the numerous biological and functional differences between males and females--which were accepted and valued in earlier generations. Today, we erroneously expect a level of domesticity and independence which undercuts our families and imposes an impossibly homogeneic standard. Baron-Cohen's research across many cultures shows that males default to systems and females default to empathy--note, he never states that women cannot be deans of engineering schools or that men cannot attain the highest level of skills which have historically been the domain of women. This is a very useful book at understanding the "cross-purposes" that often mark relationships between men and women.

Customer Rating: 

Baron-Cohen has a simple thesis: women are better empathizers and men are better systematizers. Is it true? Maybe. He takes the voluminous literature on sex differences and attempts to cram them into this dichotomy, with some success.
One wonders, however, if this is warranted. Can all of the differences really be attributed to different brain types? What does a brain type really even mean? This aside, his synthesis is powerful, especially the view that autism results from having an extreme male brain. Cohen also dispels notions, too popular in sociological circles, that these differences can be attributed to societal gender-roles, parenting, or culture-in toto.
He reviews studies showing that infants as early as one day old show sex differences in behavior. For example, males will stare longer at a mobile than a human face, whereas for females it is just the opposite. Another study showed that the amount of testosterone in the amniotic fluid of mothers predicted their childs early language skill and the amount of time they made eye-contact with other children. These are only a few of the studies cited to back Cohen's argument. Individually, each is open to criticism; together, using the principle of aggregation, the evidence compiled is insurmountable.
Cohen is extremely fair and undogmatic, which is the sign of a good scientist. The E/S brain hypothesis is provacative, interesting and should provoke further research and thought. If you really want to know the nitty gritty of sex differences though, I would recommend a few of the books that Cohen uses for his synthesis, such as 'Male-Female' by David Geary, 'Sex Differences in Cognition' by Doreen Kimura, and 'The Two Sexes' by Elanor Maccoby. These books provide more detailed information on sex differences and their evolution. After you read these books, read Cohen's book and ask yourself: does the E/S theory make sense of all the detailed differences that are known in the literature, or is it a little bit procrustean in its attempt to slam everything into an either/or dichotomy? The truth is yours to judge.

Customer Rating: 

There was a time not so long ago that autism in a child was blamed on the mother. That we now understand autism, and Asperger Syndrome, to be genetic is an important step in the right direction. That autism and AS do affect males more than females and the characteristics do correspond to what we recognize as male rather than female characteristics suggests that Baron-Cohen's theory needs to be taken seriously.

Most people today seem to be agreeing that there are innate sex differences. These may even be quite small but are exaggerated by the feedback from the environment. Baron-Cohen presents evidence that is being presented in many other books today regarding the differences in the brains and behaviors of the sexes together with evolutionary reasons for these differences. On the one hand the argument is convincing and probably fits with what most of us actually experience. On the other hand there is still so much more that needs to be explained such as why is there such a large overlap between the sexes and why do a significant number of people have a brain that is of the other sex, so to speak? Also, though boys and girls normally learn boy and girl behavior too, ie are modified by the environment, it seems that those with autism and AS are less able to be affected by learning. Or maybe the rest of us are less influenced by the environment than we think?

The tests at the end of the book are interesting to do. Having personally scored very high on systemizing I am relieved to also have scored average for a female on empathizing. As a female with a male-type brain I naturally think it is essential to keep emphasizing individuality in all this. Overall I agree with Baron-Cohen's theory, partly because it fits with my own general experience of people and my own direct, if limited, experience of people with AS.

This book is an interesting addition to the debate on sex differences and has the potential to help in increasing our understanding of the causes of autism and AS. Just keep remembering our individuality too.

Customer Rating: 

By now everybody knows sex is in the brain. But how much of how the brain was laid out by our genes and experiences determines if we have enough of a male type brain to cause us to show the pathologic symptoms of autism?

Baron-Cohen thinks the evidence shows that the spectrum to the extreme male type of brain is to be found more in autistic people than would be found by chance.

You may enjoy reading this well written book by an authority in the field and may form your own opinion of where you are on the continuum.

Customer Rating: 

A book like this is bound to be controversial in today's society, where the topic of gender differences is a hot button issue. I think it's important to note that Simon Baron-Cohen does not make statements about how any specific individual might operate, he simply talks averages (although it would have been nice if he'd stuck to 'Systemizer' rather than 'Male Brain'...one reviewer said she felt as if she were being labeled with a cross-gender disorder, not his intent at all I'm sure!). He does not make judgements about one set of abilities being 'better' or more useful. Neither does he go to extremes and say that a Systemizer cannot feel empathy, (or that they do not have feelings themselves), only that the interwoven, subtle network of social/empathy based cues is relatively more difficult for a Systemizer to navigate while concrete systems may be easier.

The overall premise of the book was interesting, and easier to read than the MindBlindness book by the same author. There seem to be some promising lines of inquiry here, some interesting theories, although at this point it's probably too early to call them anything but that - theories. And yes, there is the potential for environmental factors to affect gender studies in adults, as Baron Cohen himself admits. I was interested to read, however, that he recently completed a study with one-day-old infants where girls looked at a human face for longer, boys at a mechanical mobile. Environment does influence people, no doubt about it, but I think his most recent studies with newborns do point to some inborn differences.

A few points I would have liked discussed more: One, how do non- 'systemizer' related symptoms (sensory processing problems, high anxiety, auditory processing problems, self injurious behaviors) play into this theory? Two, the role of verbal logic in what Baron-Cohen refers to as the 'female' mind (the bare bones 'Systemizer/Empathizer' roles make it sound as if males are all engineering and females are all empathy, when in fact Baron-Cohen talks about females scoring higher on verbal aptitude tests - why are verbal reasoning skills lumped under 'empathy'?). Three, if autism is an extreme male brain, is there an extreme female brain?

Edited to add: I could not resist coming back to add, that favorite criticisms of Simon Baron-Cohen's work are the ones that basically go "Well, I totally disprove your theory because I am female but I am awesome at math, so there, obviously your theories are crap and this proves them all wrong!" Um...if you don't see a big gaping logical flaw in that argument, then no, math is NOT your thing. At least not statistics.