The author tackles with a
lot of tender care what is the real substance behind many untutored observation
and folksy beliefs about the cognitive differences between human females and
males. The subject is touchy since one is quickly bogged down in the social
consequences, for instance in the area of normatively imposed gender equality.  Baron-Cohen is careful to indicate in
particular in the last three chapters that it is not the case that if some
differences are found, then said differences had to lead to form of
discrimination and oppression, whose time is long gone.  I myself find the point slightly overdone,
but it is correct (from the fact that dogs are stupider than the one reading
this piece, no particular normative consequence ought to follow on the
treatment of dogs.)

So much for the political
side. What is the essential difference? With hedging and qualification
Baron-Cohen settles on the divide between an "empathy" brain and a
"system" brain. The empathy brain is the statistically dominant among
females and the system brain is dominant among males.  An empathy brain is, well, empathic, taking great care in
interpersonal relationships with humans and/or pretended humans (like dolls)
while the system brain puts a premium on seeing things as systems, lawful in
behavior, along the lines of a "system" which is a network of if-then
rules with a strict implementation. Note that the (majority) male brain sees
people as systems of this kind, and (hence?) tend to treat people as
emotionless computers computing lots of input-outputs rules. And females have
more difficulties with systems like maps, orientation puzzles, computers,
mechanical devices, while they are overall better "people" persons.
So far the observation do not move too much beyond common sense, though
Baron-Cohen is careful to bolster these claims with empirical data from parents
and school teachers who observe girls and boys in their own environment. The
theory becomes more sophisticated once a certain slope is predicted between an
extreme male brain and an extreme female brain. The extreme male brain is found
(arguably at least) only among the serious cases of autism and in more moderate
form among the Asperger syndrome subjects. The extreme female brain (if it
exists) is not found, at least in the sense of not being noticeable. Society
finds itself more tolerant of extreme empathy, rather than extreme autism.

More interestingly the
findings show some correlation between certain chemicals and certain character
traits (see pp. 95-99 on topping up your hormone levels.), though as usual
correlation does not prove causation and even less shows any normative
consequence (should we reduce testosterone in amniotic fluid if detected?)  What is important here is that, political
correctness aside, Baron-Cohen tries to give some substance to the observation
that most parents did make when their children show certain
"instincts", for lack of a better word, very early and without any
specific education. The hypothesis is that some of the differences between the
observed behavior of males and females is trackable to real psychological differences
that may in turn be correlated with physiological traits. The original
hypothesis here is that there is a neat way of describing the difference
(see systems vs. empathy.)

The present reader finds
it too timid. Some of the remarks Baron-Cohen presents are in fact well
attested and it is very difficult to attribute them only to socialization. What
needs to be done here is to distinguish carefully between two notions of
equality. The notion of political equality is arbitrary and it depends on the
attribution of personhood. The notion of biological equality is not arbitrary
and a species may well be defined by the ability to breed. Hence there is no
question about the falsity of "women are form Venus and men from
Mars." The interesting question is what should we conclude even from the
tentative findings presented in books like this. Should we directly confront
nature and try to fight it? If Baron-Cohen is correct, for instance, there is a
serious reason women are underrepresented in physics departments of academic
institutions. And that reason is different from the pure politically based one
following which very few Africans are outstanding physicists.  My own opinion for what is worth it, is that
the conclusions (see in particular pp. 170 and ff.) Baron-Cohen draws are too
irenic. There is indeed room for everybody (society may as well have a use for
more female doctors.) The question is whether we shouldn’t, and I suggest we
should, embark on period of positive experimentation and push to the available
limit the positive incentives, e.g. for women in science, to see whether the
female brain, can in fact keep its own natural proclivity for empathy and
people, while developing a "systemizing" attitude that would extend
just to objects in the lab and not to her fellow humans. A nice touch: all the
appendixes of the book allows the reader to test her/himself on a scale of
personality traits attributed to females and males in the main text.  Some of the tests are original and designed
in ways that may surprise readers (i.e. musical tastes may be determined by systemizing attitudes.)

© 2004 Adriano Palma

Adriano Palma is a
visiting scholar at Duke University (philosophy department) and an associate of
Inst. Jean Nicod, a Cnrs-Ehess-Ens UMR (unite mixte de recherche)

Categories: Psychology