![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Empathisingâsystemising theory.
|
I think this theory is over-generalizing. That said, I think women in general are definitely more emotional than men. While men are more objective, and practical. I believe this is due to the apparent gender roles of men and women, regarding their roles in relationships, in the family, and in society.
It is interesting to note that much of the information in the media seems to attempt to suggest that it is men who are in fact more emotional than women today, as opposed to the reverse being the case.âPreceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.16.123 ( talk âą contribs) 19:00, 24 June 2008
as a point of order, the theory speaks to empathy, not emotion. how emotional a person is, or how a given person experiences emotion, is not directly relevant to how well they empathize. pauli133 ( talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hate to not concur, gentlemen, but this is a professor who's devoted his life to these subjects. Who are you? More importantly: what does this cozy little fireside chitchat have to do with managing the article in question? This isn't Facebook. This is Wikipedia and this talk page is supposed to be about conferring on ways to improve the article - not about how you know more than the professor himself with no ostensible credentials. For we all know that if you really did have the credentials to discuss this, you'd hardly be here on a Wikipedia talk page to do it. So try to get back on track. Oh gee thanks.
The only thing that I think this theory might be lacking is the consideration of females who are on the autistic spectrum. It is male-centered. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.95.12 ( talk) 00:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The existence of two separate tests for EQ and SQ would imply that they are independent, orthogonal factors, so each person could be represented by a point on a 2-D cartesian plane with perpendicular EQ and SQ axes.
However the analysis into 5 groups lumps together three groups as 'balanced'Â : normal-E+normal-SÂ ; low-E+low-SÂ ; high-E+high-SÂ !
So really the analysis is just one-dimensional, from Extreme-high-E to Extreme-high-S. Are there very few people towards the high-both and low-both extremes ? Or are they not of interest ? Or already adequately classified by High or Low IQ ?
Enough sytematizing - the reason I ask is that I suspect I am high-both, yet 'I suck at life'Â !
-- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I read the cited article at the end of this paragraph but could find no reference to a study of day-old infants. If the study exists could we please link to it directly? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.231.126 ( talk) 03:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The nomenclature is confusing
... extreme S-type brain, with intact or strong systemizing alongside below-average empathy ...
So someone with normal systematizing could be be classified as Extreme-S, because they have extremely low Empathizing !
... if you see what I mean !
-- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 01:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Correction - Fig 3 of http://eqsq.com/wp-content/pdfs/Goldenfeld.pdf shows the Wikipedia article should include 40% S-type as well as 47% Extreme-S in the Autism/Aspergers group. Article amended. -- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the E-S axis similar to the thinking-feeling axis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator?
82.67.232.89 ( talk) 06:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a table in the section "Cognitive versus affective empathy" that has no source. The text above the table is about Baron-Cohen's theory on the difference between autistic persons and psychopaths. The table however, compares autistic persons with Personality disorders Cluster B (dramatic). A very big one of these is Borderline personality disorder. In the whole article on Borderline, there is no mention of lack of affective empathy. So I would like to be really sure that this table is properly sourced. And unless a source comes up, I would like to remove this table. Lova Falk talk 08:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done
This section is tagged with a template saying that "This section may stray from the topic of the article". I don't agree. It is all about empathizing and systemizing, and in that context, the engineer discussion is relevant. Could you User:Humorideas please explain what you think is straying too much and why? Others are of course also welcome to butt in. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 15:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This section is still full of OR, which should be removed. Then we can remove the tag at the top of the article. Leadwind ( talk) 15:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The one referenced criticism comes from the Journal of Interdisciplinary Feminist Thought, and it's written by two psychologists. Not the best source for a medical theory, but it will do. Leadwind ( talk) 17:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Glancing through history, this article has significantly deteriorated since this version at the end of 2011; I suggest a revert to that version, and then an examination from that point of what new text (that is, text added since that version) can be retained. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't personally like EQ mumbo-jumbo that some people are reading from Baron-Cohen's theory; nevertheless it's quite enlightening to know that according to mainstream media there is such a thing as "wrong side" in a scientific debate. Not the side with more or less evidence for its position, but just a "wrong" one. The relevant quote RE Warner Judith, 2011-08-29 "Autism's lone wolf": 76.119.30.87 ( talk) 18:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Time magazine said Baron-Cohen "most dramatically wandered into fraught territory in 2003, when he published the book The Essential Difference, which called autism a manifestation of an extreme 'male brain'--one that's 'predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems,' as opposed to a 'female brain,' one that's 'predominantly hard-wired for empathy'--and ended up on the wrong side of the debate on science and sex differences."
Most of the sources co-authored by Simon Baron-Cohen have been inappropriately tagged with {{COI source}}. Baron-Cohen does not have a conflict-of-interest just because he originated the theory. Otherwise, you might as well say that any paper that confirms its own hypothesis has a conflict-of-interest. All of these sources were peer-reviewed and most have multiple authors. There's nothing questionable about them. KateWishing ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"Independent" primary sources
|
---|
|
"The EMB hypothesis is now supported by a large series of neuropsychological, brain structure and function, and now, prospective neurobiological studies. They strengthen the hypothesis and place its etiologic origins in exposure of the fetal brain to excessive amounts of testosterone, which masculinise body, mind and brain. To date, no theory of autism has provided such a connecting thread linking etiology, neuropsychology and neural bases of autism."This isn't homeopathy.
"Perhaps Baron-Cohen will find that individuals with Aspergerâs syndrome engage in the types of social skill displayed more by males than by females. If not, individuals with Aspergerâs syndrome might represent only one form of the extreme male brain. Another form would include males who score highly on systemizing skills and who are also highly sociable."Nobody would expect all details of a fairly new hypothesis to be perfect in their original form. KateWishing ( talk) 16:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You are aware, I hope, of the past COI editing in this suite of articles? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
holy cats. Sandy has this dead on correct. We should always be sourcing things to independent, secondary sources. This is what OR/NPOV/VERIFY/RS/MEDRS all say. MEDRS makes that even stronger. Primary sources should be used rarely with ever. And if a WP editor is citing his or her own work that pops a COI question, and that question gets sharper if the source is primary. Heck yes. Jytdog ( talk) 23:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
KateWishing, nowhere in the above discussion did I suggest or imply that you are SBC. Since you started a topic alleging inappropriate COI tags, I asked if you were aware of the documented COI issues that occurred for at least five years (probably more) on the SBC info throughout Wikipedia, resulting in biased, undue, poorly sourced content. If you aren't aware of that, it would be difficult for you to understand how the sorry state of these articles came to be, or why they were tagged. [2] [3] I don't object to your removal of those COI tags, because actually, stronger tags about the dubious quality of the information we have are warranted.
Neither did I state anywhere that Wikipedia requires high impact factor journals. You queried my use of the word "curious" for a source you supplied; I explained my use of that word (a very low impact journal), and wondered if you had anything better. You then provided broader reviews of SBC work (helpful!!!), and on checking the first, I note that it says "Much debate has ensued surrounding this theory and how to evaluate it". That would be a good starting place for beginning to address the undue/bias/neutrality problems we find in the SBC content throughout Wikipedia, since COI editing was involved. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Some excerpts discussing SBC theories from:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Although these results are intriguing, the samples used may be biased as amniocentesis is conducted only when the risk for a fetal anomaly is increased. In a more random sample (using blood originating from umbilical cord), no effect of prenatal testosterone was found on autistic behaviors in healthy individuals (Whitehouse et al., 2012). This difference, between a correlation of autistic traits with prenatal amniotic testosterone and no correlation between autistic traits and perinatal umbilical cord testosterone, might possibly be attributable to differences in sampling methods.
Additionally, the tests used to diagnose an individual may be biased towards the male specific pathophenotype, and may not include the aspects necessary to diagnose a girl with a mild form of ASD. Moreover, because of the awareness of the sex bias in ASD incidence, ASD is interpreted as a male disorder (Baron-Cohen, 2002), making it more likely for clinicians to diagnose boys with the disorder, as they are a risk group, than girls.
In conclusion. Studies investigating the effect of prenatal androgens on (sex-specific) risk of ASD using either a correlational approach in healthy subjects, or clinical data of patients who were exposed to atypical levels of hormones prenatally, find that these hormones have activating, masculinizing, effects on brain and behavior. Individuals diagnosed with ASD show deficits in behaviors that has been interpreted as having an âextreme male brainâ (Baron-Cohen, 2002). High levels of prenatal testosterone seem to masculinize behavior of both boys and girls, and seem, therefore, to cause a shift on the ASD scale. However, this shift on the ASD scale does not seem to cause individuals to cross the boundary, and meet the criteria for ASD. Therefore, although individual differences within the normal range of behaviors that differ in extent between the sexes can at least be partially explained by prenatal testosterone; prenatal testosterone does not, by itself, seem to be able to explain the occurrence of ASD, as even the children who were exposed to the highest levels of testosterone did not meet criteria for ASD. As ASD is a complex disorder of highly variable severity with many (genetic and environmental) factors playing an etiologic role, prenatal testosterone may be a contributing factor, along with other (genetic or environmental) factors that will be reviewed below, increasing the risk of developing an ASD.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Empathizingâsystemizing theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I have added a source and rephrased a sentence to note that some representations of the book are misleading: «Baron-Cohen is careful to say in The Essential Difference, âThe central claim of this book is only that more males than females have a brain of type S, and more females than males have a brain of type Eâ (p. 8)». https://mathedck.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/half-of-women-do-not-have-female-brains-half-of-men-do-not-have-male-brains/ The whole article may need some revision, from a cursory reading. -- Nemo 18:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Showing cultural realities of male/female share on STEM subjects looks to be too political for wikipedia.
The more consistent theory can be derived from the simplification of power structures on 3 principles: 1.violence, 2.social pressure and 3.skills/economic pressure and that females have less options for 1.violence and thus need social skills (with interest) to build groups/stay safe. This is completely missing.
This can also perfectly explain why in less aggressive and heterogenous cultures higher tendencies for social behavior exists, while in more agressive and homogenous cultures (clearer assignment of males "for defense") the female share in STEM higher is.
What this doesnt explain is why STEM females prefer to go to math instead of STE subjects. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:1EFF:A800:159:9E6:5DEE:95C2 ( talk) 22:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The article talks about the Extreme Male Brain and only mentions that the Female/Extreme Female Brain AKA Type E/Extreme Type E brain has not yet been researched. Quote: "The concept of the Extreme Type E brain has been proposed; however, little research has been conducted on this brain profile." The mental facet (i.e. hyper-sociability part, not talking about the physiological deformations) of the Williams-Beuren Syndrome looks eerily like the description of this 'Reverse Autism'.
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Empathisingâsystemising theory.
|
I think this theory is over-generalizing. That said, I think women in general are definitely more emotional than men. While men are more objective, and practical. I believe this is due to the apparent gender roles of men and women, regarding their roles in relationships, in the family, and in society.
It is interesting to note that much of the information in the media seems to attempt to suggest that it is men who are in fact more emotional than women today, as opposed to the reverse being the case.âPreceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.16.123 ( talk âą contribs) 19:00, 24 June 2008
as a point of order, the theory speaks to empathy, not emotion. how emotional a person is, or how a given person experiences emotion, is not directly relevant to how well they empathize. pauli133 ( talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hate to not concur, gentlemen, but this is a professor who's devoted his life to these subjects. Who are you? More importantly: what does this cozy little fireside chitchat have to do with managing the article in question? This isn't Facebook. This is Wikipedia and this talk page is supposed to be about conferring on ways to improve the article - not about how you know more than the professor himself with no ostensible credentials. For we all know that if you really did have the credentials to discuss this, you'd hardly be here on a Wikipedia talk page to do it. So try to get back on track. Oh gee thanks.
The only thing that I think this theory might be lacking is the consideration of females who are on the autistic spectrum. It is male-centered. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.95.12 ( talk) 00:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The existence of two separate tests for EQ and SQ would imply that they are independent, orthogonal factors, so each person could be represented by a point on a 2-D cartesian plane with perpendicular EQ and SQ axes.
However the analysis into 5 groups lumps together three groups as 'balanced'Â : normal-E+normal-SÂ ; low-E+low-SÂ ; high-E+high-SÂ !
So really the analysis is just one-dimensional, from Extreme-high-E to Extreme-high-S. Are there very few people towards the high-both and low-both extremes ? Or are they not of interest ? Or already adequately classified by High or Low IQ ?
Enough sytematizing - the reason I ask is that I suspect I am high-both, yet 'I suck at life'Â !
-- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I read the cited article at the end of this paragraph but could find no reference to a study of day-old infants. If the study exists could we please link to it directly? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.231.126 ( talk) 03:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The nomenclature is confusing
... extreme S-type brain, with intact or strong systemizing alongside below-average empathy ...
So someone with normal systematizing could be be classified as Extreme-S, because they have extremely low Empathizing !
... if you see what I mean !
-- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 01:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Correction - Fig 3 of http://eqsq.com/wp-content/pdfs/Goldenfeld.pdf shows the Wikipedia article should include 40% S-type as well as 47% Extreme-S in the Autism/Aspergers group. Article amended. -- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the E-S axis similar to the thinking-feeling axis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator?
82.67.232.89 ( talk) 06:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a table in the section "Cognitive versus affective empathy" that has no source. The text above the table is about Baron-Cohen's theory on the difference between autistic persons and psychopaths. The table however, compares autistic persons with Personality disorders Cluster B (dramatic). A very big one of these is Borderline personality disorder. In the whole article on Borderline, there is no mention of lack of affective empathy. So I would like to be really sure that this table is properly sourced. And unless a source comes up, I would like to remove this table. Lova Falk talk 08:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done
This section is tagged with a template saying that "This section may stray from the topic of the article". I don't agree. It is all about empathizing and systemizing, and in that context, the engineer discussion is relevant. Could you User:Humorideas please explain what you think is straying too much and why? Others are of course also welcome to butt in. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 15:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This section is still full of OR, which should be removed. Then we can remove the tag at the top of the article. Leadwind ( talk) 15:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The one referenced criticism comes from the Journal of Interdisciplinary Feminist Thought, and it's written by two psychologists. Not the best source for a medical theory, but it will do. Leadwind ( talk) 17:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Glancing through history, this article has significantly deteriorated since this version at the end of 2011; I suggest a revert to that version, and then an examination from that point of what new text (that is, text added since that version) can be retained. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't personally like EQ mumbo-jumbo that some people are reading from Baron-Cohen's theory; nevertheless it's quite enlightening to know that according to mainstream media there is such a thing as "wrong side" in a scientific debate. Not the side with more or less evidence for its position, but just a "wrong" one. The relevant quote RE Warner Judith, 2011-08-29 "Autism's lone wolf": 76.119.30.87 ( talk) 18:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Time magazine said Baron-Cohen "most dramatically wandered into fraught territory in 2003, when he published the book The Essential Difference, which called autism a manifestation of an extreme 'male brain'--one that's 'predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems,' as opposed to a 'female brain,' one that's 'predominantly hard-wired for empathy'--and ended up on the wrong side of the debate on science and sex differences."
Most of the sources co-authored by Simon Baron-Cohen have been inappropriately tagged with {{COI source}}. Baron-Cohen does not have a conflict-of-interest just because he originated the theory. Otherwise, you might as well say that any paper that confirms its own hypothesis has a conflict-of-interest. All of these sources were peer-reviewed and most have multiple authors. There's nothing questionable about them. KateWishing ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"Independent" primary sources
|
---|
|
"The EMB hypothesis is now supported by a large series of neuropsychological, brain structure and function, and now, prospective neurobiological studies. They strengthen the hypothesis and place its etiologic origins in exposure of the fetal brain to excessive amounts of testosterone, which masculinise body, mind and brain. To date, no theory of autism has provided such a connecting thread linking etiology, neuropsychology and neural bases of autism."This isn't homeopathy.
"Perhaps Baron-Cohen will find that individuals with Aspergerâs syndrome engage in the types of social skill displayed more by males than by females. If not, individuals with Aspergerâs syndrome might represent only one form of the extreme male brain. Another form would include males who score highly on systemizing skills and who are also highly sociable."Nobody would expect all details of a fairly new hypothesis to be perfect in their original form. KateWishing ( talk) 16:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You are aware, I hope, of the past COI editing in this suite of articles? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
holy cats. Sandy has this dead on correct. We should always be sourcing things to independent, secondary sources. This is what OR/NPOV/VERIFY/RS/MEDRS all say. MEDRS makes that even stronger. Primary sources should be used rarely with ever. And if a WP editor is citing his or her own work that pops a COI question, and that question gets sharper if the source is primary. Heck yes. Jytdog ( talk) 23:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
KateWishing, nowhere in the above discussion did I suggest or imply that you are SBC. Since you started a topic alleging inappropriate COI tags, I asked if you were aware of the documented COI issues that occurred for at least five years (probably more) on the SBC info throughout Wikipedia, resulting in biased, undue, poorly sourced content. If you aren't aware of that, it would be difficult for you to understand how the sorry state of these articles came to be, or why they were tagged. [2] [3] I don't object to your removal of those COI tags, because actually, stronger tags about the dubious quality of the information we have are warranted.
Neither did I state anywhere that Wikipedia requires high impact factor journals. You queried my use of the word "curious" for a source you supplied; I explained my use of that word (a very low impact journal), and wondered if you had anything better. You then provided broader reviews of SBC work (helpful!!!), and on checking the first, I note that it says "Much debate has ensued surrounding this theory and how to evaluate it". That would be a good starting place for beginning to address the undue/bias/neutrality problems we find in the SBC content throughout Wikipedia, since COI editing was involved. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Some excerpts discussing SBC theories from:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Although these results are intriguing, the samples used may be biased as amniocentesis is conducted only when the risk for a fetal anomaly is increased. In a more random sample (using blood originating from umbilical cord), no effect of prenatal testosterone was found on autistic behaviors in healthy individuals (Whitehouse et al., 2012). This difference, between a correlation of autistic traits with prenatal amniotic testosterone and no correlation between autistic traits and perinatal umbilical cord testosterone, might possibly be attributable to differences in sampling methods.
Additionally, the tests used to diagnose an individual may be biased towards the male specific pathophenotype, and may not include the aspects necessary to diagnose a girl with a mild form of ASD. Moreover, because of the awareness of the sex bias in ASD incidence, ASD is interpreted as a male disorder (Baron-Cohen, 2002), making it more likely for clinicians to diagnose boys with the disorder, as they are a risk group, than girls.
In conclusion. Studies investigating the effect of prenatal androgens on (sex-specific) risk of ASD using either a correlational approach in healthy subjects, or clinical data of patients who were exposed to atypical levels of hormones prenatally, find that these hormones have activating, masculinizing, effects on brain and behavior. Individuals diagnosed with ASD show deficits in behaviors that has been interpreted as having an âextreme male brainâ (Baron-Cohen, 2002). High levels of prenatal testosterone seem to masculinize behavior of both boys and girls, and seem, therefore, to cause a shift on the ASD scale. However, this shift on the ASD scale does not seem to cause individuals to cross the boundary, and meet the criteria for ASD. Therefore, although individual differences within the normal range of behaviors that differ in extent between the sexes can at least be partially explained by prenatal testosterone; prenatal testosterone does not, by itself, seem to be able to explain the occurrence of ASD, as even the children who were exposed to the highest levels of testosterone did not meet criteria for ASD. As ASD is a complex disorder of highly variable severity with many (genetic and environmental) factors playing an etiologic role, prenatal testosterone may be a contributing factor, along with other (genetic or environmental) factors that will be reviewed below, increasing the risk of developing an ASD.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Empathizingâsystemizing theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I have added a source and rephrased a sentence to note that some representations of the book are misleading: «Baron-Cohen is careful to say in The Essential Difference, âThe central claim of this book is only that more males than females have a brain of type S, and more females than males have a brain of type Eâ (p. 8)». https://mathedck.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/half-of-women-do-not-have-female-brains-half-of-men-do-not-have-male-brains/ The whole article may need some revision, from a cursory reading. -- Nemo 18:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Showing cultural realities of male/female share on STEM subjects looks to be too political for wikipedia.
The more consistent theory can be derived from the simplification of power structures on 3 principles: 1.violence, 2.social pressure and 3.skills/economic pressure and that females have less options for 1.violence and thus need social skills (with interest) to build groups/stay safe. This is completely missing.
This can also perfectly explain why in less aggressive and heterogenous cultures higher tendencies for social behavior exists, while in more agressive and homogenous cultures (clearer assignment of males "for defense") the female share in STEM higher is.
What this doesnt explain is why STEM females prefer to go to math instead of STE subjects. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:1EFF:A800:159:9E6:5DEE:95C2 ( talk) 22:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The article talks about the Extreme Male Brain and only mentions that the Female/Extreme Female Brain AKA Type E/Extreme Type E brain has not yet been researched. Quote: "The concept of the Extreme Type E brain has been proposed; however, little research has been conducted on this brain profile." The mental facet (i.e. hyper-sociability part, not talking about the physiological deformations) of the Williams-Beuren Syndrome looks eerily like the description of this 'Reverse Autism'.