The scientist who pioneered the “extreme male brain” theory of autism has said he regrets characterising the condition in this way because the phrase lends itself to misunderstandings.
Prof Simon Baron-Cohen’s theory that autistic people tend strongly towards systemising over empathising has been hugely influential in shaping the popular perception of autism over the past two decades. The underlying science had stood the test of time, he said, but he now views the “extreme male brain” label as unhelpful.
“Some of those terms were very easily misunderstood and so I do regret that,” he said. “It can lead to simplistic headlines like ‘autistic people lack empathy’, which is not true.
“Some of that language, like male brain and female brain, I just don’t think it’s useful today.”
Yes, you’re right, it uses stereotypes. But the thing about stereotypes is that firstly, they exist because there’s a nugget of truth in there and nineteenthly, precisely because they are stereotypes many people grasp the nub, the essence, of the comparison.
Perhaps not politically or fashionably useful, but useful all the same.
<i>”Speaking to the Guardian before the announcement of a £26m ($34.5m) gift to Cambridge University from the US philanthropist Lisa Yang, Baron-Cohen said the funding would be used for research guided by <b>the priorities of the autistic community</b>.”</i>
And what are they, besides ensuring all episodes of ‘Star Trek’ are streaming on demand, and provision for access to railways to record train numbers?
Neither of those would cost as much as a Grauniad columnist
Why would you take advise from the autistic?
Possibly because their extreme focus on one subject can improve the quality of scientific research …
Gamecock… we’re not all Rain Man types, y’know…
Streaming on demand on the computer I actually have. I missed an episode of ST: Strange New Things a couple of weeks back. No problem, I’ve registered with ITVX, I’ll watch it online. “You’re not using Windows 11, **** off”
Doesn’t that now get you arrested for recording information that might be useful to a terrorist, or some such wankery?
There’s no point recording them now. National Rail provide a nice API with all the info on it. Used by Traksy et al. So I know all about the freight trains going to & from Felixstowe. Were I interested, I guess I could find the runs from Sizewell B to Sellafield too.
There’s a wonderful website that will show a plan of the whole rail network with live animated info of location and rolling stock. raildar.co.uk
He was presumably thinking about autism before it became a fashionable “look at me” label.
Or a ‘Get out of jail free’ card.
Yes he was.
“It can lead to simplistic headlines like ‘autistic people lack empathy’, which is not true.
There can also be simplistic headlines such as “men have big muscles” or “women have big tits and fat lips”. Both of these are observable stereotypes which of course don’t describe all men or women, so what’s the difference?
“Some of that language, like male brain and female brain, I just don’t think it’s useful today.”
Baron-Cohen is simply trying to hide from progressives and the trans mob.
It does sound like he is running from the woke, rather than having joined them.
No, the sterotype is “women have tits”. *SOME* women have big tits. The sterotype that follows from that is “women with big tits are airheads”.
It’s often true (and blondes) and for a good reason. These girls have shifted their behaviour towards looking good as a way to get what they want in life. They’re not actually stupid, they just channel their energies towards attracting men rather than academia. Women who don’t get male attention have to find another way to get on in life.
But the thing about stereotypes is that firstly, they exist because there’s a nugget of truth in there…
It’s a heck of a lot more than a ‘nugget’; stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable results in Social Psychology:
https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/stereotype-accuracy-one-largest-and-most-replicable-effects-all
It is certainly unhelpful when talking to a Grauniad columnist as Grauniad columnists (as a group, not every single one of them) have chosen to demonise males. If he wants to generate sympathy for autistic people he needs a different description when addressing the Grauniad.
“Malfunctioning female”?
As a generalisation, females with autism are far more infrequent and almost always amongst those more seriously affected by it.
I was, ah, referring to the general tendency of the Guardian class to regard males as lesser, malfunctioning females.
Ah, a man who knows things. It occurred to me today: codgers going deaf. Is it as common among women as men?
Experiments found that not enough women had developed the practice of listening to other people to be able to tell…..
*applause*
Don’t ever marry a woman with hyperacusis. I did, unwittingly, and can’t talk to myself under my breath.
I think that no-one actually knows because the NHS has no trustworthy data.
Twenty-odd years ago I found that I was deaf in one ear – the NHS basically told me to “grin and bear it”, saying “there is nothing we can do”.
[A couple of years ago my wife spotted a private sector audiologist in the next town and suggested I try it. They ran a series of tests and found that I was *partially* deaf in that ear, prescribed hearing aids that work, improving the hearing in the other ear as well.]
Speaking of ‘simplistic headlines’
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2026/07/06/labour-party-looks-to-impose-election-restrictions-on-social-media/
That’s all that will be allowed by Labour.
There’s misinformation in the very first picture in that article. Are Labour therefore going to ban Labour advertising?
Rhetorical question
Whatever gave the stereotype that women have empathy? I’ve never seen much evidence of it.
I reckon they like to think they do. Some do. Mine does.
Until the ring goes on.
Don’t mistake ’empathy’ for ‘being nice’. Women use empathy to work out how to hurt you more.
A surprising amount of people confuse empathy with sympathy, when they’re really two completely different beasts.
Perhaps it is not useful, but that doesn’t make it untrue.
There is decades of psychological research that comes to the same conclusion: on average men are interested in things (objects, systems, “male brain” things) and women are interested in other people. This is true to a standard deviation. That means that for a man to be as interested in other people as the average woman is, he has to be more interested in other people than 85% of other men. The same works the other way for women of course.
The fact that there are more male coders, car mechanics and engineers and more female teachers, nurses and HR department staffers is not the result of misogyny or “the patriarchy” or “the sisterhood” or whatever. It is just
the natural working out of entirely predictable individual interests.