The Essential Difference? Part 1 of Several

This post is the first of a longer series in which I hope to deconstruct the ideas of a rather prominent autism researcher. Let's start with this exericise. Consider the following statements:

I am not interested in the details of food ingredients, proportions, and different recipes.

If I were buying a stove, I would want to obtain specific information about its materials and capabilities.

I find it easy to grasp exactly how to buy groceries most efficiently.

I am fascinated by how food preparation works.

I do not tend to watch documentaries about social issues on television or read articles about social science.

If there was a significant tear or flaw in a piece of clothing, I’d be able to fix it myself.

I rarely read articles or web pages about new household organizational methods.

I am intrigued by the rules and patterns governing formal and colloquial language use.

I am intrigued by the rules and patterns governing issues in the social sciences/art movements/fashion/the lives of people I know/any other topic.

When I read the newspaper, I am drawn to tables of information, such as graphs, block quotes, and opinion polls.

Sound familiar? As many ACs and allies know, the wording of these statements are taken from Simon Baron-Cohen's Systemizing Quotient test. I changed them to include stereotypically female interests and activities, in contrast to the original test which mostly included stereotypically male (albeit "geeky" male) interests and activities. I realize people may argue with some of them, and that's okay. I found it difficult to transpose Baron-Cohen's statements into stereotypically female terms. Is "I am not interested in the details of food ingredients, proportions, and different recipes" a good analogue for "I am not interested in the details of exchange rates, interest rates, stocks and shares"? Not entirely. I would justify the comparison by pointing out that cooking also involves ratios, measurement, and attention to detail, but certainly the two tasks are qualitatively different and I can't deny that. Which sort of proves my point, actually. Women and men are socialized in such different ways that any comparison between adults is highly suspect and cannot be interpreted as natural fact. Most researchers, however, try to make their test measures as "gender-neutral" as is possible in a world with strict gender roles. Baron-Cohen blatantly does not make much of an attempt (if any) to do this.

One might have a detailed cognitive style and a systemizing mind without being all that interested in science, technology, or any of the other topics which Baron-Cohen defines as "systematic." (Topics which, I would note, girls are often discouraged or ostracized for pursuing early in life--both implicitly and explicitly.) I know a woman who is interested in stereotypically "geeky" things such as science fiction, but also stereotypically female interests such as knitting. She collects differnet types of yarn and patterns for making different items, she carefully schedules what she is going to knit and when, and she meticulously carries out this very detailed work. My grandmother used to be like that as well, though she can no longer knit or crochet due to arthritis. Neil--my male aspie partner--and I often have ridiculously detailed conversations about books, TV shows, and fan culture. We talk about the class and economic implications of Gillmore Girls, character development in Scrubs, the scientific rationale behind certain sci-fi stories, and more. We often use specific details and quotes to do this. (Especially Neil, who has an amazing memory for quotes.) These aren't the stereotypically "aspie" (or systemizing) interests of choice, but systematic thinking can be applied to a wide range of topics.

Science never takes place outside of a social context. Baron-Cohen is viewed as a giant in the autism world, and his work may increasingly be incorporated into the diagnostic process for autism and the way in which the general public views autism. If you believe, such as I do, that girls and women are under-diagnosed as a group, then this is somewhat troubling. There are already too many professionals who think that Asperger's Syndrome is something only boys get. While many autistics, both male and female, are fascinated by science, math, and technology, and that's great, there are also autistics (both male and female) who are interested in art and politics and history (I point to myself) and many other topics. Baron-Cohen is contributing to pre-existing stereotypes of what autistic people (or people with Asperger's) are like, when in fact there is huge variability among us. By no means do I want to squelch research, but we should recognize that female autistics and male autistics who don't fit the stereotype need understanding and support, too. We--by "we" I mean everyone who works with autism--can't assume that this theory is a useful model without examining its flaws and limitations.

Science never occurs outside of its social context, and Baron-Cohen's theory does no favor to non-autistic men and women either. My thoughts on that are another post or three unto themselves. Suffice it to say that Baron-Cohen's method of using poorly-constructed questionnaires to confirm pre-existing stereotypes isn't just socially irresponsible, but makes for bad science. The jury is still out on neurological differnces between autistics and non-autistics, and men and women, but Baron-Cohen doesn't contribute a whole lot to the discussion.

~

Another area in which the SQ test fails to recognize the variability among autistics is its failure to recognize learning differences and disabilities which many autistic people have. I'll leave that to another post. I also want to discuss systemizing and creativity, which is the main bias which Neil noted having completed the test about twenty minutes ago. Stay tuned.