Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

248 Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.6 No.

6 June 2002

The extreme male (5) Organisable systems: a taxonomy, a collection,


a library, etc.
(6) Motoric systems: a sports technique, a

brain theory of autism performance, a technique for playing a musical


instrument, etc.
Systemising is an inductive process. You watch
what happens each time, gathering data about an
Simon Baron-Cohen event from repeated sampling, often quantifying
differences in some variables within the event and
their correlation with variation in outcome. After
The key mental domains in which sex differences have traditionally been confirming a reliable pattern of association –
studied are verbal and spatial abilities. In this article I suggest that two generating predictable results – you form a rule
neglected dimensions for understanding human sex differences are about how this aspect of the system works. When an
‘empathising’ and ‘systemising’. The male brain is a defined psychometrically exception occurs, the rule is refined or revised;
as those individuals in whom systemising is significantly better than otherwise, the rule is retained.
empathising, and the female brain is defined as the opposite cognitive profile. Systemising works for phenomena that are indeed
Using these definitions, autism can be considered as an extreme of the normal ultimately lawful, finite and deterministic. The
male profile. There is increasing psychological evidence for the extreme male explanation is exact and its truth-value is defeasible.
brain theory of autism. (e.g. ‘The light went on because switch A was in the
down position’). Systemising is of almost no use,
‘Empathising’ is the drive to identify another person’s however, when it comes to predicting moment-by-
emotions and thoughts, and to respond to these with moment changes in a person’s behaviour. To predict
an appropriate emotion. Empathising allows you to human behaviour, empathising is required.
predict a person’s behaviour, and to care about how Systemising and empathising are entirely different
others feel. In this article, I review evidence that on kinds of processes.
average, females spontaneously empathise to a Empathising involves the attribution of mental
greater degree than do males. ‘Systemising’ is the states to others, and an appropriate affective
drive to analyse the variables in a system, to derive response to the other’s affective state. It covers not
the underlying rules that govern the behaviour of a only what is sometimes called ‘theory of mind’ or
system. Systemising also refers to the drive to mentalising [2] but also what is implied by the
construct systems. Systemising allows you to predict English words ‘empathy’ and ‘sympathy’. Although
the behaviour of a system, and to control it. I review systemising and empathising are in one way similar –
evidence that, on average, males spontaneously they are both processes that allow us to make sense of
systemise to a greater degree than do females [1]. events and make reliable predictions – they are in
Empathising is close enough to the usual English other respects almost the opposite of each other.
meaning of ‘empathise’ to need little introduction Empathising involves an imaginative leap in the
(although I will come back to it shortly). But dark, in the absence of much data (thoughts like
systemising is a new concept, and needs a little more ‘Maybe she didn’t phone me because she was feeling
definition. By a ‘system’, I mean anything that takes hurt by my comment’). The causal explanation is at
inputs and deliver outputs. When you systemise, best a ‘maybe’, and its truth might never be
you use ‘if–then’ (correlation) rules. The brain provable. Systemising is our most powerful way of
focuses in on a detail or parameter of the system, understanding and predicting the law-governed
and observes how this varies. That is, it treats a inanimate universe. Empathising is our most
feature as a variable. Or a person actively powerful way of understanding and predicting the
manipulates this variable (hence the English word, social world. And ultimately, empathising and
systematically). They note the effect(s) of this one systemising are likely to depend on independent
input elsewhere regions in the human brain.
in the system (i.e. the output). ‘If I do x, then y
happens’. Systemising therefore needs an exact eye The main brain types
for detail. I will be arguing that systemising and empathising
There are at least six kinds of system that the are two key dimensions in defining the male and
human brain can analyse or construct: female brain. We all have both systemising and
(1) Technical systems: a computer, a musical empathising skills. One can immediately envisage
instrument, a hammer, etc. five broad brain types (see also Fig. 1):
Simon Baron-Cohen
Autism Research Centre,
(2) Natural systems: a tide, a weather front, a (1) Individuals in whom empathising is more
Depts of Experimental plant, etc. developed than systemising. For shorthand, E > S (or
Psychology and (3) Abstract systems: mathematics, a computer Type E). This is what we will call the ‘female brain’.
Psychiatry, Cambridge
program, syntax, etc. (2) Individuals in whom systemising is more
University, Downing St,
Cambridge, UK CB2 3EB. (4) Social systems: a political election, a legal developed than empathising. For shorthand, S > E
e-mail: sb205@cam.ac.uk system, a business, etc. (or Type S). This is what we will call the ‘male brain’.

http://tics.trends.com 1364-6613/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S1364-6613(02)01904-6
Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.6 No.6 June 2002 249

(3) Individuals in whom systemising and


empathising are both equally developed. For E
shorthand, S = E. This is what we will call the
+3
‘balanced brain’ (or Type B).
(4) Individuals with the extreme of the male brain,
for shorthand, S >> E. In their case, systemising is +2
hyper-developed whereas empathising is hypo-
developed. That is, they might be talented +1
systemisers but at the same time they can be ‘mind-
blind’ [3]. In this article, we look at individuals on the –3 –2 –1 0 +1 +2 +3 S
autistic spectrum to see if they fit the profile of being
an extreme of the male brain.
–1
(5) Finally, we postulate the existence of the
extreme of the female brain. For shorthand, E >> S.
These people would have hyper-developed –2
empathising skills, but their systemising would be
hypo-developed: they are ‘system-blind’. –3
The evidence reviewed below suggests that not all
men have the male brain type, and not all women Brain types
have the female brain type. Expressed differently, Type B (E = S)
some women have the male brain type, and some Type E (E > S)
men have the female brain type, or aspects of it. The Type S (S > E)
central claim of this article is only that more males Extreme Type E
than females have a brain of Type S, and more Extreme Type S
females than males have a brain of Type E. Box 1 TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences
highlights the role of culture and biology in these
sex differences. Fig. 1. The main brain types illustrated on axes of empathising (E) and
systemising (S) dimensions (numbers are standard deviations from the
mean). Balanced brain (Type B, purple zone); female brain (Type E, light
The female brain: empathising
green zone), male brain (Type S, light blue zone); the extreme Types E
What is the evidence for female superiority in and S lie at the outer borders. According to the ‘extreme male brain’
empathising? In the studies summarised here, sex theory of autism, people with autism or AS should always fall in the
dark blue zone. Modified from Baron-Cohen et al. (Ref. [1]).
differences of a small but statistically significant
magnitude have been found.
(1) Sharing and turn-taking. On average, girls (7) Values in relationships. More women value the
show more concern for fairness, whereas boys share development of altruistic, reciprocal relationships,
less. In one study, boys showed fifty times more which by definition require empathising. In contrast,
competition, whilst girls showed twenty times more more men value power, politics, and competition [10].
turn-taking [4]. Girls are more likely to endorse cooperative items on a
(2) Rough and tumble play or ‘rough housing’. Boys questionnaire and to rate the establishment of
show more ‘rough housing’ (wrestling, mock fighting, intimacy as more important than the establishment
etc) than girls do. Although there is a playful of dominance. Boys are more likely than girls to
component, it can hurt or be intrusive, so it needs endorse competitive items and to rate social status
lower empathising to carry it out [5]. as more important than intimacy [11].
(3) Responding empathically to the distress of other (8) Disorders of empathy. Disorders such as
people. Girls from 1 year old show greater concern psychopathic personality disorder and conduct
through more sad looks, sympathetic vocalizations disorder are far more common among males [12,13].
and comforting. More women than men also report (9) Aggression. Even expressed at normal levels,
frequently sharing the emotional distress of their aggression can only occur with reduced empathising.
friends. Women also show more comforting, even of Here again, there is a clear sex difference. Males tend
strangers, than men do [6]. to show far more ‘direct’ aggression (pushing, hitting,
(4) Using a ‘theory of mind’. By 3 years of age, punching, etc.) whereas females tend to show more
little girls are already ahead of boys in their ‘indirect’ (or ‘relational’, covert) aggression (gossip,
ability to infer what people might be thinking or exclusion, bitchy remarks, etc.). Direct aggression
intending [7]. might require an even lower level of empathy than
(5) Sensitivity to facial expressions. Women are indirect aggression. And indirect aggression needs
better at decoding non-verbal communication, better mindreading skills than does direct
picking up subtle nuances from tone of voice or facial aggression, because its impact is strategic [14].
expression, or judging a person’s character [8]. (10) Murder. This is the ultimate example of lack of
(6) Questionnaires measuring empathy. Many of empathy. Daly and Wilson analysed homicide records
these find that women score higher than men [9]. dating back over 700 years, from a range of different

http://tics.trends.com
250 Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.6 No.6 June 2002

people’s eyes, and males are more likely to look at


Box 1. Culture and biology
inanimate objects [20].
At one year old, boys show a stronger preference to watch a video of cars going (16) Females have also been shown to have better
past (predictable mechanical systems), than to watch a film showing a human face. language ability in general than males. It seems
Little girls showed the opposite preference. Little girls also show more eye contact
that boys do by one year of age [a]. Some argue that even by this age, socialization
likely that good empathising would promote
might have caused these sex differences. Although there is evidence for differential language development [21] and vice versa, so these
socialization contributing to sex differences, this is unlikely to be a sufficient might not be independent.
explanation, as it has been shown that, even among one-day-old babies, boys look
longer at a mechanical mobile (a system with predictable laws of motion) than at a
person’s face (an object that is next to impossible to systemise), whereas girls show The male brain: systemising
the opposite profile [b]. These sex differences are therefore present very early in The relevant domains in which to look for evidence
life. This raises the possibility that, whereas culture and socialisation might partly include any that are in principle rule-governed.
determine if you develop a male brain (stronger interest in systems) or female brain
Thus, chess and football are good examples of
(stronger interest in empathy), biology might also partly determine this. There is
ample evidence for both cultural determinism and biological determinism [c,d]. systems; faces and conversations are not.
For example, the amount of eye contact children make at 1-yr old is inversely Systemising involves monitoring three things in
related to their level of prenatal testosterone [e]. order: input–operation–output. The operation is
what you did to the input, or what happened to the
References
input, to produce the output.
a Lutchmaya, S. and Baron-Cohen, S. Human sex differences in social and non-social
looking preferences at 12 months of age. Inf. Behav. Dev. (in press) (1) Toy preferences. Boys are more interested than
b Connellan, J. et al. (2001) Sex differences in human neonatal social perception. girls in toy vehicles, weapons, building blocks and
Inf. Behav. Dev. 23, 113–118 mechanical toys, all of which are open to being
c Eagly, A.H. (1987) Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation, Erlbaum ‘systemised’ [22].
d Gouchie, C. and Kimura, D. (1991) The relationship between testosterone levels and
cognitive ability patterns. Psychoneuroendocrinology 16, 323–334
(2) Adult occupational choices. Some occupations
e Lutchmaya, S. et al. Foetal testosterone and eye contact in 12-month-old infants. are almost entirely male. These include
Inf. Behav. Dev. (in press) metalworking, weapon making, manufacturing of
musical instruments, or the construction industries,
such as boat building. The focus of these occupations
societies [15]. They found that ‘male-on-male’ is on constructing systems [23].
homicide was 30–40 times more frequent than (3) Maths, physics, and engineering. These all
‘female-on-female’ homicide. require high systemising, and are largely male-
(11) Establishing a ‘dominance hierarchy’. Males dominated disciplines. The Scholastic Aptitude
are quicker to establish hierachies of dominance. Math Test (SAT-M) is the maths part of the test
This partly reflects their lower empathising skills, administered nationally to college applicants in the
because often a hierarchy is established by one person USA. Males on average score 50 points higher than
pushing others around, to become the leader [16]. females on this test [24]. Taking only those people
(12) Language style. Girls’ speech is more scoring above 700, the sex ratio is 13:1 (men to
cooperative, reciprocal and collaborative. In concrete women) [25].
terms, this is also reflected in girls being able to keep (4) Constructional abilities. If you ask people to put
a conversational exchange with a partner going for together a 3-D mechanical apparatus in an assembly
longer. When girls disagree, they are more likely to task, on average men score higher. Boys are also
express their different opinion sensitively, in the better at constructing block buildings from 2-D
form of a question, rather than an assertion. Boys’ blueprints. Lego bricks can be combined and
talk is more ‘single-voiced discourse’ (the speaker recombined into an infinite number of systems. Boys
presents their own perspective alone). The female show more interest in playing with Lego. Boys as
speech style is more ‘double voiced discourse’ young as 3 yrs are also faster at copying 3-D models of
(girls spend more time negotiating with the other outsized Lego pieces, and older boys, from the age of 9,
person, trying to take the other person’s wishes into are better at imagining what a 3-D object will look
account) [17]. like if it is laid out flat. They are also better at
(13) Talk about emotions. Women’s conversation constructing a 3-D structure from just an aerial and
involves much more talk about feelings, whereas frontal view in a picture [26].
men’s conversation with each other tends to be more (5) The Water-Level task. Originally devised by
object- or activity-focused [18]. Swiss child psychologist Jean Piaget, this task is to
(14) Parenting style. Fathers are less likely than show someone an empty bottle, tipped at an angle,
mothers to hold their infant in a face-to-face position. and then ask them to show the water level when it is,
Mothers are more likely to follow through the child’s say, half full. Women more often draw the water level
choice of topic in play, whereas fathers are more likely aligned with the tilt of the bottle, and not horizontal,
to impose their own topic. And mothers fine-tune as it should be [27].
their speech more often to match what the child can (6) The Rod and Frame test. If a person’s
understand [19]. judgement of vertical is influenced by the tilt of the
(15) Face preference and eye contact. From birth, frame, they are said to be ‘field dependent’: their
females look longer at faces, and particularly at judgement is easily swayed by extraneous input in

http://tics.trends.com
Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.6 No.6 June 2002 251

the surrounding context. If they are not influenced between each other than those of the women. The
by the tilt of the frame, they are said to be ‘field criteria that the Aguaruna men used to decide which
independent’. Most studies show that females are animals belonged together more closely resembled
more field dependent – that is, women are relatively the taxonomic criteria used by western (mostly male)
more distracted by contextual cues, rather than biologists [34]. Classification and organisation
considering each variable within the system involves systemising because categories are
separately. They are more likely than men to say predictive. The more fine-grained the categories, the
(erroneously) that the rod is upright if it is aligned better the system of prediction will be.
with its frame [28]. (12) The Systemising Quotient. This questionnaire
(7) Good attention to relevant detail. This is a has been tested among adults in the general
general feature of systemizing. It is not the only population. It has 40 items asking about the subject’s
factor, but it is a necessary part of it. Attention to level of interest in a range of different systems that
relevant detail is superior in males. A measure of this exist in the environment (including technical,
is the Embedded Figures Task: on average, males are abstract, and natural systems). Males score higher
quicker and more accurate in locating the target than females on this measure (S. Baron-Cohen and
embedded within the larger, complex pattern [29]. J. Reichler, unpublished data).
Males, on average, are also better at detecting a (13) Mechanics. The Physical Prediction
particular feature (static or moving) [30]. Questionnaire (PPQ) is based on an established
(8) The Mental Rotation test. Here again, males are method for selecting applicants for engineering. The
quicker and more accurate. This test involves task involves predicting which direction levers will
systemising because you have to treat each feature move when an internal mechanism (of cog wheels
in a display as a variable that can be transformed and pulleys) of one type or another is involved. Men
(e.g. rotated) and predict how it will appear (the score significantly higher on this test than women
‘output’) [31]. (J. Lawson et al., unpublished data).
(9) Map reading. Reading maps is another
everyday test of systemising, because it is necessary Autism: an extreme form of the male brain
to take features from 3-D input and predict how they Autism is diagnosed when a person shows
will appear when represented in 2-D. Boys perform abnormalities in social development,
at a higher level than girls. Men can also learn a communication, and displays unusually strong
route in fewer trials, just from looking at a map, obsessional interests, from an early age [35].
correctly recalling more details about direction and Asperger Syndrome (AS) has been proposed as a
distance. This suggests they are treating features in variant of autism, in children with normal or high IQ,
the map as variables that can be transformed into who develop speech on time. Today, approximately
3-D. If you ask school children to make a map of an 1 in 200 children have one of the ‘autistic spectrum
area that they have visited only once, boys’ maps conditions’, which include AS [36]. Autism spectrum
have a more accurate layout of the features in the conditions affect males far more often than females.
environment than girls’ maps. More of the girls’ maps In people with high-functioning autism or AS, the sex
make serious errors in the location of important ratio is at least 10 males to every female. These
landmarks. The boys tend to emphasise routes or conditions are also strongly heritable [37] and
roads, whereas the girls tend to emphasise specific neurodevelopmental. There is evidence of structural
landmarks (the corner shop, etc.). These two and functional differences in regions of the brain
strategies – using directional cues versus landmark (such as the amygdala being abnormal in size, and
cues – have been widely studied (for example, [32]). this structure not responding to cues of emotional
The directional strategy is an instance of taking expression) [38].
understanding space as a geometric system and the The extreme male brain theory of autism was
focus on roads or routes is an instance of considering first informally suggested by Hans Asperger in 1944.
space in terms of another system, in this case a He wrote: ‘The autistic personality is an extreme
transport system. variant of male intelligence. Even within the normal
(10) Motoric systems. If you ask people to throw or variation, we find typical sex differences in
catch moving objects (target directed tasks) such as intelligence… In the autistic individual, the male
playing darts or intercepting balls flung from a pattern is exaggerated to the extreme’ [39]
launcher, males tend to be better. Equally, if you ask (Uta Frith’s translation). In 1997 this controversial
men to judge which of two moving objects is travelling hypothesis was re-examined [40]. We can test the
faster, men are on average more accurate [33]. extreme male brain theory empirically, now that we
(11) Organisable systems. People in the Aguaruna have definitions of the brain types.
tribe (northern Peru) were asked to classify a
hundred or more examples of local specimens Evidence for the extreme male brain theory
together into related species [34]. Men’s classification Initial tests of this theory are proving positive [41,42].
systems had more sub-categories (i.e. they introduced Some of the convergent lines of evidence are
greater differentiation) and more consistency summarised here.

http://tics.trends.com
252 Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.6 No.6 June 2002

Impaired empathising test per se, but it is a measure of detailed local


Mindreading. Girls are better than boys on standard perception, which is a prerequisite for systemising
‘theory of mind’ tests, and children with autism or AS [51]. On visual search tasks, males have better
are even worse than normal boys [7]. They have attention to detail than do females, and people with
specific delays and difficulties in the development of autism or AS have even faster, more accurate visual
‘mindreading’ (i.e. in making sense of and predicting search [52].
another’s feelings, thoughts and behaviour). Preference for rule-based, structured, factual
Autism has been referred to as a condition of information. People with autism are strongly drawn
‘mindblindness’ [3]. to structured, factual and rule-based information.
The Empathy Quotient (EQ). On this questionnaire, A male bias for this kind of information is also found
females score higher than males, and people with AS in the general population.
or high-functioning autism score even lower than Tests of intuitive physics. Males score higher than
males (S. Baron-Cohen and S. Wheelwright, females on such tests, and people with AS score
unpublished data). higher than males [53].
The ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test. In this test of Toy preference. Boys like constructional and vehicle
discriminating emotions from expressions in the eyes, toys more than girls do, and clinical reports
females score higher than males, but people with AS suggest that children with autism or AS have this
score even lower than males [43]. as a very strong toy preference.
The Complex Facial Expressions test. Females score Collecting. Boys engage in more collecting or
higher than males, but people with AS score even organising of items than girls do, and the diagnosis of
lower than males [44]. autism identifies this to an even greater extent.
Eye contact. Females make more eye contact than do Obsessions with closed systems. Most individuals with
males, and people with autism or AS make less eye autism are naturally drawn to predictable things,
contact than males [45,46]. such as computers. Unlike people, computers follow
Language development. Girls develop vocabulary strict laws, and are closed systems – all the variables
faster than boys, and children with autism are even are well-defined within the system, are knowable,
slower than males to develop vocabulary [47]. predictable and, in principle, controllable. Other
Pragmatics. Females tend to be superior to males in individuals with autism might not make computers
terms of chatting and the pragmatics of conversation, their target of understanding, but latch on to
and it is precisely this aspect of language which different, equally closed, systems such as bird-
people with AS find most difficult [48]. migration or train spotting [54].
The Faux Pas test. Females are better than males at The Systemising Quotient. Males score higher on this
judging what would be socially insensitive or questionnaire, and people with autism and AS score
potentially hurtful and offensive, and people with even higher than normal males (S. Baron-Cohen and
autism or AS have even lower scores on tests of this J. Reichler, unpublished data).
than males do [49].
The Friendship Questionnaire (FQ). This assesses Biological and familial evidence
empathic styles of relationships. Women score higher The Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ). Males in the
on the FQ than males, and adults with AS score even general population score higher on the AQ than do
lower than normal males (S. Baron-Cohen and females, and people with AS or high-functioning
S. Wheelwright, unpublished data). autism score highest of all [55].
Sexually dimorphic somatic markers. On measures of
Superior systemising finger-length ratio, males tend to have a longer ring
Islets of ability. Some people with autism spectrum finger than their second finger, and people with
disorders have ‘islets of ability’, or special abilities to a autism or AS show this trait in a magnified form [56].
high degree, in mathematical calculation, calendrical Early puberty. Males with autism have been reported
calculation, syntax acquisition, music, or memory for to show precocious puberty, correlating with
railway timetable information [50]. In the high- increased levels of testosterone [57].
functioning cases this can lead to considerable Familiality of talent. Fathers and grandfathers (on both
achievement in mathematics, chess, mechanical sides of the family) of autistic individuals are over-
knowledge, and other factual, scientific, technical or represented in occupations such as engineering,
rule-based subjects. All of these are highly which require good systemising but in which a mild
systemisable domains. Most of them are also domains impairment in empathising (as has also been
where males in the general population have a greater documented) would not necessarily be an impediment
natural interest. to success [58]. There is a higher rate of autism in the
Attention to detail. Autism also leads to extra fine families of those talented in fields such as maths,
attention to detail. For example, on the Embedded physics and engineering, as compared with those
Figures Task (EFT) males score higher than females, talented in the humanities [59]. These two findings
and people with AS or high-functioning autism score suggest that the extreme male cognitive style is in
even higher than males. The EFT is not a systemising part inherited.

http://tics.trends.com
Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.6 No.6 June 2002 253

A key symptom explained not only of local elements (e.g. musical notes) but also
Phenomena that are unpredictable and less of relationships between those elements (such as
controllable (like people) leave individuals with intervals between notes). Studies of autistic ‘savants’
autism either anxious or disinterested. Phenomena show that there is often a good implicit understanding
that are more predictable are highly attractive to of the rules of the system (be it maths, music,
them. When they are confronted with the drawing, syntax, calendars) and of relational
unpredictable social world, they react by trying to patterns within the system [62].
impose predictability and ‘sameness’, trying to This is exactly what systemising theory predicts,
control people through tantrums and insistence on but is not predicted by weak central coherence
repetition. People with autism and AS have their theory. Among the topics of fascination or even
greatest difficulties in the playground, in friendship, obsession in people with Asperger Syndrome, for
in intimate relationships, and at work, where the example, are woodwork, where the design of the
situation is unstructured, unpredictable, and where product is understood both at a global level (as a
social sensitivity is needed. The more able ‘system’) and in terms of the mechanics of local
individuals report that they struggle to work out a details in the system. Weak central coherence would
huge set of rules of how to behave in each and every not predict such competence in understanding the
situation, attempting to develop a mental ‘manual’ system as a whole. Similarly, the fact that many
for social interaction of ‘if–then’ rules. It is as though people with AS become fascinated with code-
they are trying to systemise social behaviour when breaking is an example that would be predicted by
the natural approach to socialising should be via the systemising theory, but not necessarily by the
empathising [60]. weak central coherence theory.

Central coherence versus systemising Conclusions and future research


A rival theory of the non-social cognitive anomalies The evidence presented in this article suggests that
observed in autism is that individuals with autism the male brain is characterised by Type S (where S > E),
suffer from ‘weak central coherence’ [61]. The the female brain by Type E (where E > S), and
systemising account suggests a different view: that that the autistic brain is an extreme of the male
people with autism or AS start their cognitive brain (S >> E). Referring back to Fig. 1, development
processing by focussing in on the most local details, of an autism spectrum condition means their brain
as an attempted search for whether these might be type has shifted towards the lower right-hand
‘variables’ in a systemisable domain. This focus on quadrant. For males, it is a small shift, from Type S
local processing might appear to arise from a deficit to extreme Type S. For females, the shift is bigger,
in global processing, but from the perspective of from Type E to extreme Type S. What causes this
systemising, local detail is simply the best (possibly shift remains unclear, but candidate factors
the only) place to start. include both genetic differences and prenatal
Moreover, if one is ever to ‘crack’ a system, it is testosterone [37,47].
best to over-attend to a small part of the system, and All we know about the extreme female brain
isolate and understand the laws governing a small is that, from the model in Fig. 1, it is predicted to
number of relevant variables, before moving onto the arise. What would such people look like? They are
next part of the system. This might appear as a defined as falling in the upper left-hand quadrant of
narrow, obsessive preoccupation with the details of a the graph. Their empathising would be significantly
highly specific phenomenon (e.g. spinning the wheels better than other people in the general population,
on a toy car). The weak central coherence hypothesis but their systemising would be impaired. These
argues that the autistic failure to use linguistic would be people who have difficulty understanding
context is evidence for the theory. However, linguistic maths or physics or machines or chemistry as
context is like human speech – full of meaning that systems, but who are extremely good at tuning
depends on recognizing the author’s intentions in to others’ feelings and thoughts. Would such a
(which requires empathising), rather than deriving profile carry with it any necessary disability? The
from a set of predictable rules. The autistic ‘failure’ to person with the extreme female brain would be
Acknowledgements use linguistic context might instead result from a ‘system-blind’. In our society, there is considerable
The following agencies
narrow focus on local details, as the person with tolerance for such individuals. It is hoped that
have supported my work
during the writing of this autism automatically tries to systemise. people who are ‘mind-blind’ through the facts
article: the Medical How might these two theories be tested against of their biology will also enjoy the same tolerance
Research Council (UK), each other? First, weak central coherence theory by society.
the Three Guineas Trust,
the Isaac Newton Trust,
would predict that people with autism or AS would We know something about the neural circuitry
and the James S. never come to understand a whole system. A whole of empathising [63], but at present we know very
McDonnell Foundation. system is made up not only of local, proximate little about the neural circuitry of systemising.
I am grateful to Sally
rules (‘A causes B’, where A and B are adjacent It is hoped that research will soon begin to reveal
Wheelwright and
Johnny Lawson for the components) but also of distant rules (‘B causes Z’, the key brain regions involved in this aspect
development of Fig. 1. where Z is distal). Furthermore, a system is made up of cognition.

http://tics.trends.com
254 Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.6 No.6 June 2002

References 24 Benbow, C.P. (1988) Sex differences in 44 Baron-Cohen, S. et al. (1997) Is there a language
1 Baron-Cohen, S. et al. The exact mind: mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually of the eyes? Evidence from normal adults and
empathising and systemising in autism talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, adults with autism or Asperger syndrome.
spectrum conditions. In Handbook of Cognitive and possible causes. Behav. Brain Sci. 11, Visual Cogn. 4, 311–331
Development (Goswami, U., ed.), Blackwell 169–232 45 Lutchmaya, S. et al. Foetal testosterone and eye
(in press) 25 Geary, D. (1996) Sexual selection and sex contact in 12-month-old infants. Inf. Behav. Dev.
2 Morton, J. et al. (1995) The cognitive basis of a differences in mathematical abilities. Behav. (in press)
biological disorder: autism. New Sci. 14, Brain Sci. 19, 229–284 46 Swettenham, J. et al. (1998) The frequency and
434–438 26 Kimura, D. (1999) Sex and Cognition, distribution of spontaneous attention shifts
3 Baron-Cohen, S. (1995) Mindblindness: MIT Press between social and non-social stimuli in
an Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind, 27 Wittig, M.A. and Allen, M.J. (1984) Measurement autistic, typically developing, and non-autistic
MIT Press/Bradford Books of adult performance on Piaget’s water developmentally delayed infants.
4 Charlesworth, W.R. and Dzur, C. (1987) Gender horizontality task. Intelligence 8, 305–313 J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 39, 747–753
comparisons of preschoolers behavior and 28 Witkin, H.A. et al. (1962) Personality through 47 Lutchmaya, S. et al. Foetal testosterone and
resource utilization in group problem-solving. Perception, Harper & Row vocabulary size in 18- and 24-month-old infants.
Child Dev. 58, 191–200 29 Elliot, R. (1961) Interrelationship among Inf. Behav. Dev. (in press)
5 Maccoby, E. (1998) The Two Sexes: Growing Apart, measures of field dependence, ability, and 48 Baron-Cohen, S. (1988) Social and pragmatic
Coming Together, Harvard University Press personality traits. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. deficits in autism: cognitive or affective?
6 Hoffman, M.L. (1977) Sex differences in 63, 27–36 J. Autism Dev. Disord. 18, 379–402
empathy and related behaviors. Psychol. Bull. 30 Voyer, D. et al. (1995) Magnitude of sex differences 49 Baron-Cohen, S. et al. (1999) Recognition of faux
84, 712–722 in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and pas by normally developing children and
7 Happe, F. (1995) The role of age and consideration of critical variables. children with Asperger Syndrome or
verbal ability in the theory of mind task Psychol. Bull. 117, 250–270 high-functioning autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord.
performance of subjects with autism. Child Dev. 31 Collins, D.W. and Kimura, D. (1997) A large sex 29, 407–418
66, 843–855 difference on a two-dimensional mental rotation 50 Baron-Cohen, S. and Bolton, P. (1993) Autism:
8 Hall, J.A. (1978) Gender effects in decoding task. Behav. Neurosci. 111, 845–849 The Facts, Oxford University Press
nonverbal cues. Psychol. Bull. 85, 845–858 32 Galea, L.A.M. and Kimura, D. (1993) Sex 51 Jolliffe, T. and Baron-Cohen, S. (1997) Are
9 Davis, M.H. (1994) Empathy: A Social differences in route learning. Pers. Indiv. Diff. people with autism or Asperger’s Syndrome
Psychological Approach (Social Psychology 14, 53–65 faster than normal on the Embedded
Series), Westview Press 33 Schiff, W. and Oldak, R. (1990) Accuracy of Figures Task? J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry 38,
10 Ahlgren, A. and Johnson, D.W. (1979) Sex judging time to arrival: effects of modality, 527–534
differences in cooperative and competitive trajectory and gender. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. 52 O’Riordan, M. et al. (2001) Superior visual search
attitudes from the 2nd to the 12th grades. Percept. Perform. 16, 303–316 in autism. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept.
Dev. Psychol. 15, 45–49 34 Atran, S. (1994) Core domains versus Perform. 27, 9–30
11 Knight, G.P. et al. (1989) Gender differences in scientific theories: evidence from 53 Baron-Cohen, S. et al. (2001) Are intuitive
the cooperative, competitive, and individualistic systematics and Itza-Maya folkbiology. physics and intuitive psychology independent?
social values of children. Motiv. Emotion. 13, In Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in A test with children with Asperger
125–141 Cognition and Culture (Hirschfeld, L.A. Syndrome. J. Dev. Learn. Disord. 5,
12 Dodge, K. (1980) Social cognition and children’s and Gelman, S.A., eds), Cambridge 47–78
aggressive behaviour. Child Dev. 51, 162–170 University Press 54 Baron-Cohen, S. and Wheelwright, S. (1999)
13 Blair, R.J. (1995) A cognitive developmental 35 American Psychiatric Association DSM-IV Obsessions in children with autism or Asperger
approach to morality: investigating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Syndrome: a content analysis in terms of core
psychopath. Cognition 57, 1–29 Disorders (4th edn), American Psychiatric domains of cognition. Br. J. Psychiatry 175,
14 Crick, N.R. and Grotpeter, J.K. (1995) Relational Association 484–490
aggression, gender, and social-psychological 36 Frith, U. (1991) Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome, 55 Baron-Cohen, S. et al. (2001) The Autism-
adjustment. Child Dev. 66, 710–722 Cambridge University Press Spectrum Quotient (AQ): evidence from
15 Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1988) Homicide, 37 Bailey, A. et al. (1998) A full genome screen for Asperger Syndrome/high-functioning
Aldine de Gruyter, New York autism with evidence for linkage to a region on autism, males and females, scientists and
16 Strayer, F.F. (1980) Child ethology and the study chromosome 7q. Hum. Mol. Genet. 7, 571–578 mathematicians. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 31,
of preschool social relations. In Friendship and 38 Baron-Cohen, S. et al. (2000) The amygdala 5–17
Social Relations in Children (Foot, H.C. et al., theory of autism. Neurosci. Behav. Rev. 24, 56 Manning, J. et al. (2001) Autism and the ratio
eds), John Wiley & Sons 355–364 between 2nd and 4th digit length. Dev. Med.
17 Smith, P.M. (1985) Language, the Sexes and 39 Asperger, H. (1944) Die autistischen Child Neurol. 43, 160–164
Society, Blackwell psychopathen’ im kindesalter. Arch. Psychiatr. 57 Tordjman, S. et al. (1997) Androgenic activity
18 Tannen, D. (1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Nervenkr. 117, 76–136 in autism. Am. J. Psychiatry 154,
Women and Men in Conversation, 40 Baron-Cohen, S. and Hammer, J. (1997) Is autism 1626–1627
William Morrow an extreme form of the male brain? Adv. Infancy 58 Baron-Cohen, S. et al. (1997) Is there a link
19 Power, T.G. (1985) Mother- and father-infant Res. 11, 193–217 between engineering and autism? Autism 1,
play: A developmental analysis. Child Dev. 56, 41 Baron-Cohen, S. et al. (1999) A mathematician, 101–108
1514–1524 a physicist, and a computer scientist with 59 Baron-Cohen, S. et al. (1998) Does autism
20 Connellan, J. et al. (2001) Sex differences in Asperger Syndrome: performance on folk occur more often in families of physicists,
human neonatal social perception. Inf. Behav. Dev. psychology and folk physics test. Neurocase 5, engineers, and mathematicians? Autism 2,
23, 113–118 475–483 296–301
21 Baron-Cohen, S. et al. (1997) Do children with 42 Baron-Cohen, S. (2000) The cognitive 60 Holliday-Willey, L. (1999) Pretending to be
autism use the Speaker’s Direction of Gaze (SDG) neuroscience of autism: implications for the Normal, Jessica Kingsley, London
strategy to crack the code of language? Child Dev. evolution of the male brain. In The Cognitive 61 Frith, U. (1989) Autism: Explaining the Enigma,
68, 48–57 Neurosciences (2nd edn) (Gazzaniga, M., ed.), Blackwell
22 Jennings, K.D. (1977) People versus object MIT Press 62 Hermelin, B. (2001) Splinters in the Mind, Jessica
orientation in preschool children: Do sex 43 Baron-Cohen, S. et al. (1997) Another advanced Kingsley, London
differences really occur? J. Gen. Psychol. 131, test of theory of mind: evidence from very high 63 Baron-Cohen, S. et al. (1999) Social
65–73 functioning adults with autism or Asperger intelligence in the normal and autistic brain:
23 Geary, D.C. (1998) Male, Female, American Syndrome. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 38, an fMRI study. Eur. J. Neurosci. 11,
Psychological Association 813–822 1891–1898

http://tics.trends.com

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi