Empathising-Systemising theory has also been criticised, from various points of view. A 2004 review of Baron-Cohen's book
The Essential Difference by
philosopher Neil Levy in
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences characterised it as "very disappointing" with a "superficial notion of intelligence", concluding that Baron-Cohen's major claims about mind-blindness and systemising–empathising are "at best, dubious". In a 2011 article in
Time magazine, journalist and author
Judith Warner wrote that 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." In a 2003 book review published in the journal
Nature, human biologist
Joyce Benenson, while showing vivid interest in Baron-Cohen's findings on systemising, put in doubt the relative negative difference in empathising of males:Others have criticised the original EQ and SQ, which form most of the research basis behind the notions of empathising and systemising. Both measure more than one factor, and sex differences exist on only some of the factors. In a 2003
Wall Street Journal article, Robert McGough wrote about responses to the theory by neurologist and pediatrician
Isabelle Rapin and psychologist
Helen Tager-Flusberg: A cognitive style that more naturally opposes empathising, which has been given the name
Machiavellianism, emphasises self-interest and has been shown to be strongly correlated with competitiveness.
Evolutionary theory predicts that typical males will be more competitive than typical females. In contrast, research has generally shown a weak negative correlation between empathising and systemising. Lizzie Buchen, a science journalist for Nature's news feature section, wrote in 2011 that because Baron-Cohen's work has focused on higher-functioning individuals with autism spectrum disorders, his work requires independent replication with broader samples. Mirroring
Helen Tager-Flusberg's 2003 warnings, Buchen added that it could lead to hurtful discriminatory views of autistic children "Some critics are also rankled by Baron-Cohen's history of headline-grabbing theories—particularly one that autism is an 'extreme male' brain state. They worry that his theory about technically minded parents may be giving the public wrong ideas, including the impression that autism is linked to being a 'geek'." As a basis for his theory, Baron-Cohen cited a study done on newborn infants in which baby boys looked longer at an object and baby girls looked longer at a person. However, Elizabeth Spelke's 2005 review of studies done with very young children found no consistent differences between boys and girls. A European Union
Horizon 2020 backed research program in brain and autism research pointed at genetic factors, confirming individual differences in object or human proclivities in babies but did not confirm the sex difference. In her 2010 book
Delusions of Gender,
Cordelia Fine pointed to Baron-Cohen's views as an example of "
neurosexism". She also criticised some of the experimental work that Baron-Cohen cited in support of his views as being methodologically flawed. In her 2017 book ''
Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong and the New Research That's Rewriting the Story'', science journalist
Angela Saini criticised Cohen's research, arguing that he had overstated the significance of his findings, that the study on babies on which he based much of his research has not been successfully replicated, and that his studies of fetal testosterone levels have not provided evidence for his theories. Neuroscientist
Gina Rippon criticised Baron-Cohen's theories in her 2019 book
The Gendered Brain: The new neuroscience that shatters the myth of the female brain. Speaking in 2020, she called his book
The Essential Difference "neurotrash", and characterised his research methods as "weak". Rippon has also argued against using "male" and "female" for describing different types of brains which do not correspond to genders. Reviewing her work for
Nature, neuroscientist
Lise Eliot supported Rippon's point of view, and wrote "The hunt for male and female distinctions inside the skull is a lesson in bad research practice". ==See also==