Customer Reviews
The essential simplicity 
2008-02-29
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.
Just don't forget that we're individuals too 2007-07-17
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.
Heavily biased and inconsequent 
2007-05-23
This is not just another "women are good, men are evil" book. Yes, Mr. Baron-Cohen's anti-male bias is most disturbing, but the major flaw of this book is something else.
You see, Mr. Baron-Cohen is one of those researchers who believe that they have found a simple explanation for a very complex issue. Now, I love simple solutions, but only if they succeed in explaining the reality without contradictions, or with fewer contradictions than previous theories. Unfortunately, more often than not, simple explanations turn out to be Procrustean beds.
So is Mr. Baron-Cohen's theory that lack of empathy is the root of all evil in the world. His attempts to force the reality into that Procrustean bed fail strikingly. Facts that contradict Mr. Baron-Cohen's theory are simply ignored by him. Among them are some facts presented by himself in this very book.
To keep this review short, I'll give you just one example. Possibly the most ridiculous of Mr. Baron-Cohen's far-fetched ideas is his belief that men use violence against other people because they are incapable of realising that the other person feels bad when beaten, raped, killed or such. Not only is this idea mind-blowingly absurd - it doesn't seem to bother Mr. Baron-Cohen that it's in contradiction to some facts about which he writes just a couple of pages earlier.
I hope this gives you an idea what this book's like. It won't give you any new insight into gender differences. You are much more likely to get a distorted picture of reality. The book does contain bits of truthful information, but they are mostly common knowledge or can be found in numerous other, much better books.
Hyper-male & hyper-female, then the rest of us 2006-12-26
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.
Not everyone will like book, but it's interesting if you're open to these ideas 
2006-11-16
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?
The Gender Neutral Society 2006-04-15
We all know the opposite sex can be a baffling, even infuriating, species. Why do most men use the phone to exchange information rather than have a chat? Why do women love talking about relationships and feelings with their girlfriends while men seem drawn to computer games, new gadgets, or the latest sports scores? Does it really all just come down to our upbringing? In The Essential Difference, leading psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen confirms what most of us had suspected all along: that male and female brains are different. This groundbreaking and controversial study reveals the scientific evidence (present even in one-day-old babies) that proves that female-type brains are better at empathizing and communicating, while male brains are stronger at understanding and building systems-not just computers and machinery, but abstract systems such as politics and music. Most revolutionary of all, The Essential Difference also puts forward the compelling new theory that autism (and its close relative, Asperger's Syndrome) is actually an example of the extreme male brain. His theory can explain why those who live with this condition are brilliant at analyzing the most complex systems yet cannot relate to the emotional lives of those with whom they live. Understanding our essential difference, Baron-Cohen concludes, may help us not only make sense of our partners' foibles, but also solve one of the most mysterious scientific riddles of our time.
Fascinating and illuminating 2005-12-31
Of the 30 or so books I've read in the last two years on brain-based behavior, this ranks at the top of the list. Not only is it engagingly and compassionately written, but Baron-Cohen seems to empathize well with the careful reader, anticipating questions and objections as they arise and addressing them clearly.
I find his scientific research solid and painstakingly presented, far beyond what psychologists typically provide. Those who criticize the author for compartmentalizing men and women didn't even read the book, I suspect. That is so far off the beam.
Some adults with Asperger's (and parents of Aspie kids) do have an ax to grind -- and they grind it loudly. They feel they or their children are the ones with the "normal" -- even "gifted" -- brains and it is everyone else who acts abnormally. This defensiveness seems an obvious reaction to being so misunderstood. One can see their point more clearly after reading books like this.
To those living with partners, parents, or children who are higher on the autistic spectrum, this book bridges a gap to understanding and, in many cases, healing hurts. If we expect "normal" levels of empathy from these loved ones, we set ourselves up for hurt because the lower-than-average level of empathy feels intentional, personal. Or, as a non-neuroscience-savvy therapist might say, "withholding."
If we understand the differences, however, we can appreciate the good points and set aside expectations that only hurt and alienate everyone.
The Guardian newspaper posted on its website an article on Baron-Cohen's theory as well as an interactiive quiz to test your empathy and systems quotients.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0,12983,937443,00.html
No, he did not write that!! 
2005-10-07
Before I launch into my own diatribe on the rubbish contained in this work, please see Ms. Wood's review of the historical accuracy of gender roles. I found her review to be a refreshing discourse on the history of the sexes in society.
Much like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", apparently, "truth" is decidedly subjective. To pander to unfounded gender differences when assessing a neurobiological disorder and imply that a female with Asperger's Disorder (which is on the autistic spectrum) has a more "male" brain than a "female" brain is ludicrous. The author, in fact, appears to try very hard to make it appear that autism is just an extremely intelligent man with little or no empathy, instead of recognzing it as a disorder that has no prejudice as to the gender of its victim. And let's forget for a moment that the male-to-female ratio of "classic" autism is 4:1, and more and more credible scientific research indicates that Asperger's actually has a male-to-female ratio of 4:1 as well, instead of the previously accepted 10:1 ratio.
The cause of autism/Asperger's and other disorders on the spectrum is unknown and largely debated. It has been put forth that more males suffer from these spectrum disorders than females (and more severely) because a female has an extra X chromosome to rely on if there happens to be a "faulty" spot on a chromosome contributed from one parent, whereas males only get one shot with one X chromosome. A male has no back-up if he inherits a faulty X chromosome from his mother. That would be the only gender difference I can possibly ascribe to with regard to the "truth" about the difference in males and females with autism spectrum disorders.
I volunteer at a local food bank.
I helped with victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita when the evacuees poured into our state. My ten-year old daughter did as well. She emptied her closet, and everything that no longer fit her she bagged up, along with stuffed animals she decided the children affected by Hurricane Katrina needed more than she did, and we took bag after bag of clothing, food, water, etc. to assist these evacuees.
We have also long been fixtures at our local animal shelter, feeding and caring for these homeless animals.
The point??
For the majority of my career, I worked in the legal field as a paralegal, typically considered a "male" world.
I am now a biology major with a minor in chemistry, planning a career in pharmacy/toxicology and my daughter (again, she is 10)suffers from Asperger's Syndrome and has an IQ of 123. So, because I am an intelligent female who can master the sciences and my daughter has an autism spectrum disorder with a high IQ, we have "male" brains? If so, how would Baron-Cohen explain the fact that we are also very empathetic to other people's plights in life? Might we be scientific anomalies?
I would have expected much more from an "expert" who should know better than to reduce a serious, complicated spectrum of disorders with unknown causes to simple gender differences. I also would have expected a "professional" to understand how his work might impact a woman with an autism spectrum disorder, who already has enough difficulty functioning in this world, to be told by a "professional" that she now also has a gender-bending disorder and, thus, another problem.
I was extremely disappointed in this book and would be very leery of recommending it to anyone -- especially a sufferer of an autism spectrum disorder.
Political correctness shouldn't trump the quest for understanding 2005-08-31
Yes, Baron-Cohen may have stepped on some toes with the postulation that men and women are different, but his reliance on data and learned information is more important than the whims of political correctness.
His theoretical observations seem to fit the population more than some care to acknowledge. His work has actually help spawn a whole new direction for those of us in the pyschology business-- the Theory of Mind(ToM)model.
Not only does it give a unique perspective on the purplexing autism spectrum disorders, it gives some creative direction to discussions about other psychological/psychiatric disorders. This book will be required reading for my graduate students next semester. I'm looking forward to the discussion it will stimulate.
Historically Unsophisticated Analysis 2005-08-10
I came to this book with an open mind but was sorely disappointed. Cohen's hypothesis is so clearly influenced by his own cultural assumptions that it is painful to witness. He should spend an evening poring over the reams of research in the History of Science field that reflect how science has historically upheld traditional power relations, especially in the nineteenth century and especially between women and men. He should then contemplate his own role in that vexed tradition, a role that is often unconscious. One cannot begin to think clearly and accurately until one's cultural assumptions have been carefully examined and dissected.
Let us begin with some counterexamples. Historically, men have proven themselves to be excellent conveyers of emotion and intuitive perceivers of human behavior through their literature, poetry, and great speeches. The idea that the "male brain" is predominantly anti-emotional and incapable of the "empathizing" skill is a contemporary idea with its own cultural explanations, but it does not survive under historical scrutiny. The skills that have been valued for men or for women have evolved over time according to the ideological needs of the moment. Cohen's take on the "female brain" is just as insulting and inaccurate. Perhaps Cohen's preexisting sexist framework for what constitutes "systemizing" and "empathizing" affects the way he observes, interprets, and then categorizes his data. Many fields that women are currently dominating require high levels of systemizing that might not be thought of that way if you are prone to perceiving reality through a sexist framework. Why should the field of law, for instance, be seen as a verbal, empathizing career rather than a highly logical, systemizing one that requires sharp skills in deductive reasoning, processing large amounts of information, and logical argumentation? (On the flip side, why should a high-profile academic be seen as a systemizing career rather than an empathizing one that above all requires communicating effectively to a very specific and particular audience? Doesn't that require empathy skills?) Perhaps the empathizer/systemizer dichotomy is, in fact, a false dichotomy. Aren't these two skills constantly interacting with each other? What seems to be most at play in Cohen's analysis of "typical males" and "typical females," in other words, is cultural perception rather than scientific accuracy.
Additionally, it is important to remember that there is a very real power differential between women and men, both historically and in the present, the effects of which should never be ignored when conducting research on supposed innate "sex differences." This would be akin to conducting research on the "innate" differences between Anglo-Americans and African-Americans without a sophisticated, nuanced awareness of each group's social and cultural development historically! Researchers such as Rosalind Barnett and Carol Rivers have found that a lack of power (economic, political, and social) in individuals tends to create perceived differences in aptitude, personality, and behavior regardless of gender or anything else. In other words, "It's the Power, stupid!" Considering what women have endured psychologically, emotionally, economically, and politically under patriarchal domination throughout much of history, the biggest surprise is not that women and men exhibit different characteristics but rather that we are so remarkably similar and that women have done so well. Indeed, a fruitful area of research might be the connection between Cohen's findings about empathy/emotion in females and the perceived characteristics of historically oppressed groups (i.e. vulnerability of slaves to masters in a slave society, stereotype of the non-logical, emotional slave).
Finally, we must remember that women's aptitudes have steadily been changing (change in the form of improvement reflected in standardized tests, vocational choices, professional development, etc.) for the past 100 years. This change reflects the fact that far from being innate, "aptitude" has the ability to change over time. Cohen's analysis does not take this into account and, in fact, tacitly assumes the static nature of the "hard-wiredness" of our brains. So, how does the ability of aptitudes to change over time (let us not forget that African-Americans were thought to be incapable of performing well in math and science at one time!) affect Cohen's hypothesis? It would seem to render it moot. On to the next hypothesis, please. And this time, let's hope the conveyor will be a scientist whom we can trust will not only read his or her evidence with great subtlety but will also approach scientific questions with all the nuance and cultural sophistication we have come to expect from 21st century scientists who should be well aware of the troubled tradition that precedes them.
