What do you think?
Rate this book
The Pattern Seekers: How Autism Drives Human Invention
In The Pattern Seekers, Cambridge University psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen makes a case that autism is as crucial to our creative and cultural history as the mastery of fire. Indeed, Baron-Cohen argues that autistic people have played a key role in human progress for seventy thousand years, from the first tools to the digital revolution.
How? Because the same genes that cause autism enable the pattern seeking that is essential to our species's inventiveness. However, these abilities exact a great cost on autistic people, including social and often medical challenges, so Baron-Cohen calls on us to support and celebrate autistic people in both their disabilities and their triumphs. Ultimately, The Pattern Seekers isn't just a new theory of human civilization, but asks people to consider anew how society treats those who think differently.
How? Because the same genes that cause autism enable the pattern seeking that is essential to our species's inventiveness. However, these abilities exact a great cost on autistic people, including social and often medical challenges, so Baron-Cohen calls on us to support and celebrate autistic people in both their disabilities and their triumphs. Ultimately, The Pattern Seekers isn't just a new theory of human civilization, but asks people to consider anew how society treats those who think differently.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published November 10, 2020
270 people are currently reading
3597 people want to read
About the author
Simon Baron-Cohen
36 books279 followersSimon Baron-Cohen FBA is Professor of Developmental psychopathology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. He is the Director of the University's Autism Research Centre, and a Fellow of Trinity College. He has worked on autism, including the theory that autism involves degrees of mind-blindness (or delays in the development of theory of mind) and his later theory that autism is an extreme form of what he calls the "male brain", which involved a re-conceptualisation of typical psychological sex differences in terms of empathising-systemising theory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 208 reviews
August 31, 2020
The Pattern Seekers by Simon Baron-Cohen review.
I request this book on @netgalley last month. As an autistic person the title jumped out at me and I wanted to know more, although I admit I was quite dubious about what the content might entail due to its author.
Simon Baron-Cohen is a controversial person amongst the autistic community. He is a leading expert in his field, having dedicated most of his psychologist career to studying autism. He is however the father of the "extreme male brain" theory of autism that suggests that autists lack a therory of mind.
To my suprise this book is pro-neurodiversity. Simon presents the case that autistic people overwhelming have high systemising brains and that it is these brains that are responsible for many of the world's technological advancements. He speaks of encouraging a society that allows autistic people to flourish in these areas. His theories as to why some autistic people have learning disabilities and his theories around comorbid disabling aspects of autism not being a core aspect of being autistic are insightful and thought provoking and he presents a strong case for his theories.
This book is not without critisms however. It is quite long winded and dull in places by giving similar examples over and over again through out. I also question where I would fit into Simon's theories on autism as an autist who does not score high on his emotional not his systemising quotents. Never the less I was pleasantly suprised by this book and I do not think it should be dismissed as easily as some of the autistic community would have it dismissed.
I request this book on @netgalley last month. As an autistic person the title jumped out at me and I wanted to know more, although I admit I was quite dubious about what the content might entail due to its author.
Simon Baron-Cohen is a controversial person amongst the autistic community. He is a leading expert in his field, having dedicated most of his psychologist career to studying autism. He is however the father of the "extreme male brain" theory of autism that suggests that autists lack a therory of mind.
To my suprise this book is pro-neurodiversity. Simon presents the case that autistic people overwhelming have high systemising brains and that it is these brains that are responsible for many of the world's technological advancements. He speaks of encouraging a society that allows autistic people to flourish in these areas. His theories as to why some autistic people have learning disabilities and his theories around comorbid disabling aspects of autism not being a core aspect of being autistic are insightful and thought provoking and he presents a strong case for his theories.
This book is not without critisms however. It is quite long winded and dull in places by giving similar examples over and over again through out. I also question where I would fit into Simon's theories on autism as an autist who does not score high on his emotional not his systemising quotents. Never the less I was pleasantly suprised by this book and I do not think it should be dismissed as easily as some of the autistic community would have it dismissed.
September 15, 2020
I am autistic, but this book just frustrated me. Primarily that’s because the author kept hammering it home again and again that animals can’t experiment, don’t have a theory of mind, etc. This may not have been proven conclusively to be false yet, but it has been shown to be in question enough times that the author shouldn’t make any definitive statements about it.
I also didn’t care for the book because it never really got going. All it did, over and over again, was talk about these three things, followed by these five things, etc. It was frustrating, especially as a girl on the spectrum. Due to this, I DNF’ed it at 20%.
Thank you to the publisher and NetGalley for providing an ARC. This review contains my honest, unbiased opinion.
I also didn’t care for the book because it never really got going. All it did, over and over again, was talk about these three things, followed by these five things, etc. It was frustrating, especially as a girl on the spectrum. Due to this, I DNF’ed it at 20%.
Thank you to the publisher and NetGalley for providing an ARC. This review contains my honest, unbiased opinion.
July 8, 2020
Intriguing Theory. Full disclosure up front: I *am* Autistic, and thus these types of books tend to demand my attention as I attempt to understand my own mind and body. That noted, Baron-Cohen (no apparent relation to the actor of the same surname) here proposes a theory that those who are "high systemizers" - those he defines as people driven by a process many in programming will recognize as a version of Agile Programming - are the ones who have driven human innovation from the dawn of the species. It is a theory that has at least some degree of merit, but perhaps has a few weaknesses that the author omits - though he does make a point of discussing some competing theories, it is possible that there are other explanations that fit at least some of the data better according to Occam's Razor. Still, he makes a repeated point that even those suspected of being Autistic should not seek a diagnosis unless their abilities are somehow causing problems, which is a point that many in the Autism literature - at least that which I have read - fail to make or even contradict, and for that reason alone this book is a refreshing change of pace. (It also opens with one of my favorite quotes, from The Imitation Game - the story of Alan Turing, the father of Computer Science and a suspected Autistic - that "Sometimes it is the people no one imagines anything of who do the things no one can imagine.")
Overall a a must-read book for those seeking to understand Autistics, as it really does make a lot of very solid points - points that were affecting me nearly as much as my first viewing of The Imitation Game. This is yet another one that I will absolutely be recommending those seeking to work with me professionally read, as it can give them many clues both how to understand me - and how to use me much more effectively. Very much recommended.
Overall a a must-read book for those seeking to understand Autistics, as it really does make a lot of very solid points - points that were affecting me nearly as much as my first viewing of The Imitation Game. This is yet another one that I will absolutely be recommending those seeking to work with me professionally read, as it can give them many clues both how to understand me - and how to use me much more effectively. Very much recommended.
June 23, 2021
Not a fan. The author makes a lot of bold proclamations without really any evidence to back them up.
Every time someone says “this is why humans are special” and then create an arbitrary list of things, I have red flags go up. It used to be tool use. Then it was language. Now this guy thinks it’s systematizing.
Saying other animals don’t point, and that’s evidence of a lack of theory of mind, is nonsense. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...) Anyone who’s played fetch with a dog who’s lost their ball is able to communicate through gestures. Seriously this book reads like a guy who is just spouting off nonsense to people who never call him on his shit.
I kept waiting for it to all tie together into more than a series of things that make humans special and i was disappointed. By his estimate, no animals should ever be able to consistently find food because they don’t recognize patterns. Hundreds of thousands of years of animal life contradicts this asinine theory.
Every time someone says “this is why humans are special” and then create an arbitrary list of things, I have red flags go up. It used to be tool use. Then it was language. Now this guy thinks it’s systematizing.
Saying other animals don’t point, and that’s evidence of a lack of theory of mind, is nonsense. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...) Anyone who’s played fetch with a dog who’s lost their ball is able to communicate through gestures. Seriously this book reads like a guy who is just spouting off nonsense to people who never call him on his shit.
I kept waiting for it to all tie together into more than a series of things that make humans special and i was disappointed. By his estimate, no animals should ever be able to consistently find food because they don’t recognize patterns. Hundreds of thousands of years of animal life contradicts this asinine theory.
dnf
October 17, 2020Definitely MUCH more clinical than I thought it would be. I only read the first two chapters (about 20%) and did the little quiz charts at the end. I was jarred by the assumed strict dichotomy between systematizers (those who seek patterns) and empathizers--I apparently am a Type S, which means more systematizer and empathizer, based on my quiz scores, but also am too empathetic to quiiiite count as autistic on the chart. Systematizers are billed as the toxic trope of Rain Man-esque math geniuses and company founding savants, rather than those of us who are not at all STEM minded, but still happen to easily find patterns in things we do enjoy (for me, finding the pattern of ISBNs for publishers, course codes at work, standard yardages for skeins of yarn). I am not at all numerically minded, but the patterns jump out at me, but not in the way that is USEFUL. I still agree with the general idea of the "if and then" theory, however it was just presented as if all those theories were experiments that led to inventions or discoveries. I guess you can consider noticing the pattern that those digits in a row mean that this book is from this publisher count as a "discovery," but not the apparent groundbreaking way it's presented. Maybe I read too much into it from the start and didn't give it a chance, but I just... was not a fan of the tone, the obvious male-centeredness, and the assumption that autistic people are emotionless robots who lOvEs TeH mAtHs. Let's. Get. Passed. This. Toxic. Assumption.
Thank you to NetGalley for providing me with a free copy for review!
Thank you to NetGalley for providing me with a free copy for review!
November 23, 2020
There are two main concepts in this book - one is that the thing that makes humans special is what Simon Baron-Cohen refers to as a systemizing mechanism in the brain, and the other is that two of the spectra all humans sit on is how much we are systemizers and how much we are empathisers. Although it's possible to be strong on both spectra, many who are particularly strong on one are not very strong on the other. And although they aren't the same thing, people diagnosed on the autism spectrum are more likely than the average person to be strong systemizers.
We'll come back to the detail of the invention part of the subtitle, but in some ways, the aspect of the systemizing as what makes humans different is not particularly original. I've seen plenty of examples (including What Do You Think You Are?) of books that suggest our uniqueness comes from the interplay between seeing the world through patterns and the ability to ask 'What if?' Baron-Cohen uses a rather clumsy formulation of the process as 'If-and-then', but for me that felt artificial.
One of his many examples is 'If he closely examined the sole of his basketball boot and shaved off a few millimetres then he would achieve an improvement.' This seems little more than a convoluted way of saying 'If he shaved a few millimetres off the sole of his basketball boot then he would achieve an improvement' - the classic computing IF... THEN. Of course, as he points out, you can add in more ANDs, but I'd argue that the basic format really is If... then.
However, this niggle apart, I was impressed by both the assertion that invention was a result of being a strong systemizer - hence trying it out all sorts of different possibilities and structuring the outcome to be most likely to come up with something really original - and that this makes modern Homo sapiens different from both the other animals and other hominids, such as Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis.
Baron-Cohen gives many examples to overcome the obvious argument that a good few other animals (for example chimps and crows), plus these other hominids use or used tools. He shows convincingly that while this is true, both the animal and early hominid use of tools seemed to be a result of learned behaviour. So, for example, hand axes were used well over a million years ago - but they remained the same. There was no invention, no development. What was likely to be an accidental discovery was sustained but never developed. Human invention, which seems to have started around 70,000 years ago, is a totally different phenomenon, because, Baron-Cohen argues, of the systemizing mechanism.
Given his speciality, it's no surprise that Baron-Cohen spends a fair amount of time covering the difficulties those with a diagnosis of autism face, and how these can be overcome, pointing out that the overlap between this and being strong systemizers means that with the right support, there is an opportunity for more of those with a diagnosis to have satisfying and useful employment, something that is relatively rarely the case at the moment.
I did have one issue with the book - it felt more like a long article that had been stretched to fit book form. There is a significant amount of repetition of different examples of 'if-and-then', and it's quite a shock to get to page 148 of a 230-page book and find it ends (the rest is appendices, notes and index). However, I've no doubt that this is an interesting and valuable contribution both to the discussion of invention and what makes humans different, plus our understanding of human neurodiversity.
We'll come back to the detail of the invention part of the subtitle, but in some ways, the aspect of the systemizing as what makes humans different is not particularly original. I've seen plenty of examples (including What Do You Think You Are?) of books that suggest our uniqueness comes from the interplay between seeing the world through patterns and the ability to ask 'What if?' Baron-Cohen uses a rather clumsy formulation of the process as 'If-and-then', but for me that felt artificial.
One of his many examples is 'If he closely examined the sole of his basketball boot and shaved off a few millimetres then he would achieve an improvement.' This seems little more than a convoluted way of saying 'If he shaved a few millimetres off the sole of his basketball boot then he would achieve an improvement' - the classic computing IF... THEN. Of course, as he points out, you can add in more ANDs, but I'd argue that the basic format really is If... then.
However, this niggle apart, I was impressed by both the assertion that invention was a result of being a strong systemizer - hence trying it out all sorts of different possibilities and structuring the outcome to be most likely to come up with something really original - and that this makes modern Homo sapiens different from both the other animals and other hominids, such as Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis.
Baron-Cohen gives many examples to overcome the obvious argument that a good few other animals (for example chimps and crows), plus these other hominids use or used tools. He shows convincingly that while this is true, both the animal and early hominid use of tools seemed to be a result of learned behaviour. So, for example, hand axes were used well over a million years ago - but they remained the same. There was no invention, no development. What was likely to be an accidental discovery was sustained but never developed. Human invention, which seems to have started around 70,000 years ago, is a totally different phenomenon, because, Baron-Cohen argues, of the systemizing mechanism.
Given his speciality, it's no surprise that Baron-Cohen spends a fair amount of time covering the difficulties those with a diagnosis of autism face, and how these can be overcome, pointing out that the overlap between this and being strong systemizers means that with the right support, there is an opportunity for more of those with a diagnosis to have satisfying and useful employment, something that is relatively rarely the case at the moment.
I did have one issue with the book - it felt more like a long article that had been stretched to fit book form. There is a significant amount of repetition of different examples of 'if-and-then', and it's quite a shock to get to page 148 of a 230-page book and find it ends (the rest is appendices, notes and index). However, I've no doubt that this is an interesting and valuable contribution both to the discussion of invention and what makes humans different, plus our understanding of human neurodiversity.
December 20, 2020
For anyone wondering, the author is Sascha's cousin.
Interesting theory about neurodiversity and how the tendency to have a brain partial to systematizing (vs empathizing) is linked to autism. By empathizing, the author is referring to theory of mind rather than caring about people. Midway through the book, he posits that an autistic person is the mirror image of a psychopath, as psychopaths have high empathy brains (giving them the ability to manipulate others) but blunted "affective empathy," which is essentially being kind to others.
I docked off a star because I found portions dry, even though they definitely supported the theory the author is putting forward.
An idea i found particuarly interesting: the author makes a case for creating a more supportive world for folks with autism, particularly through employment. He argued that the traditional interview process eliminates many autistic people from employment where they could essentially bring fresh, innovative ideas to the table. I personally hope this idea gathers steam, especially with only 16% of autistic adults being employed.
Interesting theory about neurodiversity and how the tendency to have a brain partial to systematizing (vs empathizing) is linked to autism. By empathizing, the author is referring to theory of mind rather than caring about people. Midway through the book, he posits that an autistic person is the mirror image of a psychopath, as psychopaths have high empathy brains (giving them the ability to manipulate others) but blunted "affective empathy," which is essentially being kind to others.
I docked off a star because I found portions dry, even though they definitely supported the theory the author is putting forward.
An idea i found particuarly interesting: the author makes a case for creating a more supportive world for folks with autism, particularly through employment. He argued that the traditional interview process eliminates many autistic people from employment where they could essentially bring fresh, innovative ideas to the table. I personally hope this idea gathers steam, especially with only 16% of autistic adults being employed.
July 14, 2021
I expected more, even if it didn't completely surprise me, since it comes in the line of the previous books, but also because of that, it doesn't bring anything new, or what it brings is poorly supported in multidisciplinary evidence.
Análise detalhada em Português no blog:
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
Análise detalhada em Português no blog:
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
November 18, 2020
This book is an odd one...it's sort of fragmented and jumps around a bit. The claims are also a bit strong for my taste (as a fellow academic).
The book starts off with an interesting compare/contrast with two individuals who are "pattern seekers" and cleanly lays out the central thesis of the book to conclude the first chapter. The first 3 chapters are basically devoted to describing the two individuals (Ch. 1), describing systemizing and if-and-then reasoning (Ch. 2), and describing the 5 "brain types" based upon scores for both systemizing and empathizing.
The author then shifts gears to focus in invention throughout history, and to try to tie in the need for the if-and-then "systemizing" as an integral component of invention. He (somewhat clumsily, in my view) tries to refute several competing hypotheses for the capacity for invention. I say somewhat clumsily, because most of the competing theories described are seemingly sub-components of an if-and-then system (idea integration, hypothetical thinking) or facilitate such a system (larger working memory), yet the author claims that "Systems-thinking (if-and-then reasoning) had to come first." This struck me as quite odd, considering that it's rare that a more complex system of reasoning (systems-thinking, in his terminology) would arise independently from and before its sub-components.
The book then sharply veers back into the autism realm, where the author investigates whether super-systemizers are more prone to have autistic children, and then concludes with a chapter on how to better support autistic individuals and integrate them into the workplace to allow them to showcase their immense skillsets in environments that are more conducive to their minds. It is heartening to see the thought and care put into this chapter, and that Baron-Cohen continues to be an advocate for autistic individuals, but the end result just seemed to be a highly-fragmented book based upon how sharply it turned in different directions.
Regarding Baron-Cohen's claims being too strong (as alluded to in the first paragraph)...he often claims that a study he conducts "proves" a point. Studies can truly only offer evidence supportive of a point of view, not "prove" something...so while this may make for a bit of a stronger claim to many readers, to someone who is versed in the scientific method it comes across as an over-claim or unsupported claim.
The author also seems to walk up to the line of offering a diagnosis of someone as autistic (clearly implying it for some of the individuals he discusses) and then whipsawing later in the book to (at multiple points) disparage "diagnosing someone - living or not - on the basis of fragmentary biographical information...since diagnosis should always include the consent of the person and be initiated by them." I think in these instances the needle he's trying to thread is a bit too fine for the common reader. Essentially, in his examples he goes to great lengths to point out how the individuals are "hyper-systemizers" and have low levels of empathy, which is entirely consistent with his description of many autistic individuals, but he doesn't formally say they are autistic (leading the reader to feel it is implied).
The book starts off with an interesting compare/contrast with two individuals who are "pattern seekers" and cleanly lays out the central thesis of the book to conclude the first chapter. The first 3 chapters are basically devoted to describing the two individuals (Ch. 1), describing systemizing and if-and-then reasoning (Ch. 2), and describing the 5 "brain types" based upon scores for both systemizing and empathizing.
The author then shifts gears to focus in invention throughout history, and to try to tie in the need for the if-and-then "systemizing" as an integral component of invention. He (somewhat clumsily, in my view) tries to refute several competing hypotheses for the capacity for invention. I say somewhat clumsily, because most of the competing theories described are seemingly sub-components of an if-and-then system (idea integration, hypothetical thinking) or facilitate such a system (larger working memory), yet the author claims that "Systems-thinking (if-and-then reasoning) had to come first." This struck me as quite odd, considering that it's rare that a more complex system of reasoning (systems-thinking, in his terminology) would arise independently from and before its sub-components.
The book then sharply veers back into the autism realm, where the author investigates whether super-systemizers are more prone to have autistic children, and then concludes with a chapter on how to better support autistic individuals and integrate them into the workplace to allow them to showcase their immense skillsets in environments that are more conducive to their minds. It is heartening to see the thought and care put into this chapter, and that Baron-Cohen continues to be an advocate for autistic individuals, but the end result just seemed to be a highly-fragmented book based upon how sharply it turned in different directions.
Regarding Baron-Cohen's claims being too strong (as alluded to in the first paragraph)...he often claims that a study he conducts "proves" a point. Studies can truly only offer evidence supportive of a point of view, not "prove" something...so while this may make for a bit of a stronger claim to many readers, to someone who is versed in the scientific method it comes across as an over-claim or unsupported claim.
The author also seems to walk up to the line of offering a diagnosis of someone as autistic (clearly implying it for some of the individuals he discusses) and then whipsawing later in the book to (at multiple points) disparage "diagnosing someone - living or not - on the basis of fragmentary biographical information...since diagnosis should always include the consent of the person and be initiated by them." I think in these instances the needle he's trying to thread is a bit too fine for the common reader. Essentially, in his examples he goes to great lengths to point out how the individuals are "hyper-systemizers" and have low levels of empathy, which is entirely consistent with his description of many autistic individuals, but he doesn't formally say they are autistic (leading the reader to feel it is implied).
November 15, 2020
The argument that autism drive human invention is basically the same argument as that which was presented by Steven Sielberman in Neurotribes. It is of course true but it is nothing new
As for the actual title, that idea is taken from Uta Frith, his PhD supervisor and the correlation made does not stand up to any form of cursory scrutiny.
It is the ability to perceive details and to connect those details in new and interesting ways which enables one to invent and I say that as an inventor and as someone on the spectrum
Evidently as someone who has a lesser ability to see patterns, he has seen a pattern which isn't there, namely a greater ability on the part of autistic people to see patterns and has concluded that this explains their greater ability to invent rather than their ability to see and to correlate details. In other words, the ability to invent is due to a local processing bias as opposed to a greater ability to see patterns.
A good example might be a new form of transport which I thought of (which incidentally the Chinese invented and developed independently of myself before I did). One could argue that old Beeching railway tracks could be reopened to be used by buses which would be guided by 5g. This would save on the cost of rebuilding any actual tracks, the maintenance of a road given that a railway trackbed is narrower than that of a road. It would also be safer than a road.
The invention of this has nothing to do with the ability to see patterns but the ability to take small details, to correlate them in an interesting way and to form a new picture (or invention).
He also mentions the difficulties, as experienced by those on the spectrum. These are however not for the most part "innate" but are due in large part to a lack of willingness of the part of the authorities (of which, as a fellow of Trinity College and member of the medical establishment, he forms part) to recognize the fact that they either cause harm to those on the spectrum or are unwilling to recognize the fact that others do.
A claim that any problem experienced is down to the individual rather than the authorities would not be out of place in the Soviet Union.
It is something which he along with the whole of establishment should recognize and accept even if some might argue, using documentary evidence, that he benefits from not recognizing this fact and in giving the impression that people on the spectrum tend to be guilty of naivety in some crime when they are in fact wrongly accused by those who are themselves guilty of that crime.
As for the actual title, that idea is taken from Uta Frith, his PhD supervisor and the correlation made does not stand up to any form of cursory scrutiny.
It is the ability to perceive details and to connect those details in new and interesting ways which enables one to invent and I say that as an inventor and as someone on the spectrum
Evidently as someone who has a lesser ability to see patterns, he has seen a pattern which isn't there, namely a greater ability on the part of autistic people to see patterns and has concluded that this explains their greater ability to invent rather than their ability to see and to correlate details. In other words, the ability to invent is due to a local processing bias as opposed to a greater ability to see patterns.
A good example might be a new form of transport which I thought of (which incidentally the Chinese invented and developed independently of myself before I did). One could argue that old Beeching railway tracks could be reopened to be used by buses which would be guided by 5g. This would save on the cost of rebuilding any actual tracks, the maintenance of a road given that a railway trackbed is narrower than that of a road. It would also be safer than a road.
The invention of this has nothing to do with the ability to see patterns but the ability to take small details, to correlate them in an interesting way and to form a new picture (or invention).
He also mentions the difficulties, as experienced by those on the spectrum. These are however not for the most part "innate" but are due in large part to a lack of willingness of the part of the authorities (of which, as a fellow of Trinity College and member of the medical establishment, he forms part) to recognize the fact that they either cause harm to those on the spectrum or are unwilling to recognize the fact that others do.
A claim that any problem experienced is down to the individual rather than the authorities would not be out of place in the Soviet Union.
It is something which he along with the whole of establishment should recognize and accept even if some might argue, using documentary evidence, that he benefits from not recognizing this fact and in giving the impression that people on the spectrum tend to be guilty of naivety in some crime when they are in fact wrongly accused by those who are themselves guilty of that crime.
July 22, 2020
The Pattern Seekers takes a close look at the human ability to systematise and thus invent, and draws a parallel with autistic people, many of whom fall into the category of (extreme) systemizers.
While I find the subject of the book quite intriguing, I felt like the book wasn't particularly interesting. It wasn't exactly what I expected and I found it to be a bit too over-saturated with unnecessary information - I think good 10-15% of the text can be taken out, without hurting the content of the book.
I still did get to learn more about how humans started inventing and about systemizing vs empathizing brains.
Overall, not a bad book, but I'd recommend it only to people who don't mind the book being a bit longer and heavier.
*Thanks to NetGalley and Perseus Books, Basic Books for providing me with an ARC of this title in exchange for an honest review.*
While I find the subject of the book quite intriguing, I felt like the book wasn't particularly interesting. It wasn't exactly what I expected and I found it to be a bit too over-saturated with unnecessary information - I think good 10-15% of the text can be taken out, without hurting the content of the book.
I still did get to learn more about how humans started inventing and about systemizing vs empathizing brains.
Overall, not a bad book, but I'd recommend it only to people who don't mind the book being a bit longer and heavier.
*Thanks to NetGalley and Perseus Books, Basic Books for providing me with an ARC of this title in exchange for an honest review.*
Read
February 19, 2024Pros: a pro neurodiversity stance, especially more than I expected from this author; sharing details about historical innovators who presented autistic traits, regardless of if they were ever diagnosed or not, as yummy food for thought; interesting information about the theory of systematizing-empathizing brain types, without seeing those two as inherently opposing, but more like separate knobs that could be independently dialed up or down; the theory of overlapping genetic factors between autistic people and innovative people; a call for more attuned job opportunities and educational environments for autistic people that can help autistics thrive rather than flounder at best; and concrete examples of existing pro-neurodiversity and autistic affirming job interview strategies, workplaces, etc. (unnnnfortunately one of the examples is about the Israeli army 💀)
Cons: stories of innovators very focused on men; perspective on gender and sex that is pretty narrow, clearly comes from a cisgender perspective, and conflates concepts that should be disambiguated for these purposes—including the whole “autism as hyper male brain” stuff that has elements about hormonal effects which COULD BE VERY COMPELLING if presented with more nuance and care but ALAS they are NOT; lack of humility for the complexity of the animal kingdom and our human limitations of understanding it; an unwarranted authoritative and dogmatic tone on things that the evidence does not “prove” or even always support so clearly; dismissive theorizing about animal curiosity and invention that seems like him playing way out of his sandbox. Aaaaand I must add the extremely flat and intellectually not rigorous associations about businesspeople, success, wealth, autistic children, and more. That’s what bothers me about this book—some very cool nuggets of ideas but with flat and/or otherwise poor execution. 🥲
Also, the idea that people who have autistic traits but “aren’t struggling” shouldn’t pursue a diagnosis or the naming as autistic…eEeEeEeh no man. I get where this is coming from, and I’m not like OOOH YAY ICD AND DSM PERFECT BIBLES…but as a clinician AND and an autistic, there are many autistics who do not realize *how much* they’re struggling and that it’s related to their neurotype and how some struggles could be relieved with specific accommodations, targeted psycho education, and other supports that center the autistic neurotype(s). Waiting until people are suffering to find the ways to help them is intervention without prevention! From a public health perspective, that’s a yikes from me! especially given what we are discovering about autism and gender, masking, burnout, and misdiagnoses.
As many have described, the way the DSM is written, for example, centers on autistic DISTRESS symptoms, and there are more affirming ways of *describing autistic traits* and differentiating those from signs of autistic distress and beyond.
Cons: stories of innovators very focused on men; perspective on gender and sex that is pretty narrow, clearly comes from a cisgender perspective, and conflates concepts that should be disambiguated for these purposes—including the whole “autism as hyper male brain” stuff that has elements about hormonal effects which COULD BE VERY COMPELLING if presented with more nuance and care but ALAS they are NOT; lack of humility for the complexity of the animal kingdom and our human limitations of understanding it; an unwarranted authoritative and dogmatic tone on things that the evidence does not “prove” or even always support so clearly; dismissive theorizing about animal curiosity and invention that seems like him playing way out of his sandbox. Aaaaand I must add the extremely flat and intellectually not rigorous associations about businesspeople, success, wealth, autistic children, and more. That’s what bothers me about this book—some very cool nuggets of ideas but with flat and/or otherwise poor execution. 🥲
Also, the idea that people who have autistic traits but “aren’t struggling” shouldn’t pursue a diagnosis or the naming as autistic…eEeEeEeh no man. I get where this is coming from, and I’m not like OOOH YAY ICD AND DSM PERFECT BIBLES…but as a clinician AND and an autistic, there are many autistics who do not realize *how much* they’re struggling and that it’s related to their neurotype and how some struggles could be relieved with specific accommodations, targeted psycho education, and other supports that center the autistic neurotype(s). Waiting until people are suffering to find the ways to help them is intervention without prevention! From a public health perspective, that’s a yikes from me! especially given what we are discovering about autism and gender, masking, burnout, and misdiagnoses.
As many have described, the way the DSM is written, for example, centers on autistic DISTRESS symptoms, and there are more affirming ways of *describing autistic traits* and differentiating those from signs of autistic distress and beyond.
April 2, 2022
This book is purely pseudoscience and the most dangerous kind at that. An assured fool can make people believe him just because he acts like he is so sure, and they can't distinguish the good from the bad. The author does not follow the scientific method at all and carelessly jumps to conclusions, making arguments and opinions rather than what is supposed to make up an actual scientific theory. He skips over or ignores entirely evidence contrary to his “pattern seekers, if then reasoning” is what differentiates humans and makes us the “dominant” and best. He just cursorily and recklessly comes to conclusions based on incomplete ideas and information, and having outside knowledge I know to be incorrect or unproven ideas or facts about non-human early hominids. This book is actually a dangerous example of how science should not be done. Please if you read this book only use it to learn what not to do and practice picking put the multiplicity of errors in its reasoning and logic. He says animals don’t use tools, oh wait later in the book they do use tools but not like us. He also says monkeys don’t understand causation. He posits, not kidding in the same book, that to understand causation you have to throw a spear or some object. He then says well hold on there might be nay sayers that say, monkeys throw rocks and throw poop, but this crafty charlatan has an answer for everything, only spears and arrows count so monkeys don't get causation. Geez his story is so inconsistent. He continually reworks his definitions to fit his theory. literally making the facts fit the theory instead of the theory to fit the facts as Einstein warned against doing. Also in his discussion of differences between other animals and humans the author either does not know (which he presumably does because he mention's Darwin's name once) about or completely ignores Darwin’s theory of evolution. As Darwin said if man differs from the other animals it is surely one of degree and not of kind.
December 12, 2022
Repetitive and poorly-researched. Baron-Cohen repeatedly makes dramatic claims about animal behavior and the behavior of human ancestors that have been proven false, or at the very least, been brought into serious doubt. And this is a relatively new book, so the research has been available for a long time. The only explanation is pure laziness on his part. For example, he claims again and again that humans are the only species that experiments. Anyone who’s read any current research on animal behavior and tool-making knows this is not the case. For that matter, if you have ever bothered to observe your own pets try to solve problems, you know this isn’t the case. I have very little respect for people who think they can write a book on a topic without actually delving into the research. The only valuable point the author makes in this book is that people on the autism spectrum are often skilled at spotting patterns, and that this is a useful skill in many professions. While there’s some truth to this, it’s certainly not a new observation, and won’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s familiar with the subject.
December 18, 2020
Honestly a little disappointed in this. I went in with high hopes but it felt very padded. The author himself said he could have summed it up far more quickly but his publisher wanted a book. What could have been a nice little read exploring how society has depended on neurodiversity to flourish, ended up starting well, ending well but the middle felt derivative in places, forced in others and dull in the rest.
It’s well written and there are some interesting insights into the origins of neurodiversity but overall it felt like a well trodden path. I do feel frustrated when books on autism focus on the high achievers or gifted and don’t discuss those with autism who aren’t gifted inventors like Thomas Edison, or people who can’t see wave patterns to know where fish are.
It’s well written and there are some interesting insights into the origins of neurodiversity but overall it felt like a well trodden path. I do feel frustrated when books on autism focus on the high achievers or gifted and don’t discuss those with autism who aren’t gifted inventors like Thomas Edison, or people who can’t see wave patterns to know where fish are.
November 11, 2022
Props to the author, I hadn't rage quit a book in a long time... as an autistic woman with both high EQ and SQ scores, I would only recommend this book if you want to feel inadecuate, questioned, wrong and out of place.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 20, 2022
This didn't go where I expected, but I can see that more information about the Systemizing Mechanism needed to be given in order to absorb the rest of the information. I found the theories on animal behavior interesting but felt they possibly had flaws in not allowing for chance occurrences that could impact animal behavior and learning. I'm completely behind the concept that employment is necessary for people with autistic tendencies and that workplaces can tailor themselves to utilize their skills
January 3, 2022
Simon Baron Cohen has a good writing style, which is easy to follow, and presents information in a easily digestible way.
I felt this book, however, fell short overall. For a book called "Pattern Seekers", it fails to back up the conclusions drawn with data. From the little data that is presented, Baron Cohen draws some very strange conclusions.
The most prominent example is his link between autism and "extreme male brain". The data he shows does show that there are more men than women with a "systemising" brain, though he exaggerates the extent of this (says it is 2x as common in men than women, when the data presented in the book shows 1.5x). In addition, the data is highly variable, and there is a lot of overlap, so to suggest that "systemising" is a trait that can be used as a de facto measure for masculinity is over the top. It would be like suggesting that because men on average are taller than women, then the taller you are, the more masculine you must be. If Baron Cohen had simply said "extreme systemising brain", it would be more accurate to the message he is trying to convey, without falling into the trap of stereotyping gender roles based on data that is highly variable and far from binary.
There is a chapter looking into the evolutionary roots of humans' ability to invent. While it puts forward an interesting point of view, it appears to be a personal opinion, rather than a view backed by anthropologists, and in fact is possibly opposed by many anthropologists (he refers to criticism of the idea throughout, though isn't specific about this).
Most of the examples of autistic people that are given in the book are male, savant type autistic people. Only one or two examples of female autistic people are given, and it does not go into any detail about them. The book leads to the conclusion that autistic people should be supported in society because amongst them may be our next great inventors. It seems a strange qualifier - surely the fact that they're human should be enough to make them worthy of support in society? Irrespective of the potential for some of them to become great inventors?
Overall an interesting perspective, but seemed like a very light overview, and did not go into any level of detail to support the claims made. For a book (presumedly) targeted at people with systemising type brains, I struggle to understand the aversion to backing up claims with solid data, and Baron Cohen could potentially have made a more convincing argument if he had done so.
I felt this book, however, fell short overall. For a book called "Pattern Seekers", it fails to back up the conclusions drawn with data. From the little data that is presented, Baron Cohen draws some very strange conclusions.
The most prominent example is his link between autism and "extreme male brain". The data he shows does show that there are more men than women with a "systemising" brain, though he exaggerates the extent of this (says it is 2x as common in men than women, when the data presented in the book shows 1.5x). In addition, the data is highly variable, and there is a lot of overlap, so to suggest that "systemising" is a trait that can be used as a de facto measure for masculinity is over the top. It would be like suggesting that because men on average are taller than women, then the taller you are, the more masculine you must be. If Baron Cohen had simply said "extreme systemising brain", it would be more accurate to the message he is trying to convey, without falling into the trap of stereotyping gender roles based on data that is highly variable and far from binary.
There is a chapter looking into the evolutionary roots of humans' ability to invent. While it puts forward an interesting point of view, it appears to be a personal opinion, rather than a view backed by anthropologists, and in fact is possibly opposed by many anthropologists (he refers to criticism of the idea throughout, though isn't specific about this).
Most of the examples of autistic people that are given in the book are male, savant type autistic people. Only one or two examples of female autistic people are given, and it does not go into any detail about them. The book leads to the conclusion that autistic people should be supported in society because amongst them may be our next great inventors. It seems a strange qualifier - surely the fact that they're human should be enough to make them worthy of support in society? Irrespective of the potential for some of them to become great inventors?
Overall an interesting perspective, but seemed like a very light overview, and did not go into any level of detail to support the claims made. For a book (presumedly) targeted at people with systemising type brains, I struggle to understand the aversion to backing up claims with solid data, and Baron Cohen could potentially have made a more convincing argument if he had done so.
April 27, 2023
I had to DNF this one, as the very first premise on which Baron-Cohen is basing his argument is so blatantly false that I ended up being too annoyed at the misinformation to push through it. He posits that humans are the only animal that understands "if-and-then" patterns and demonstrate traits like curiosity and experimentation. It is baffling to me that such blatant stupidity made it through the entire publishing chain without being called out by any editors or other persons who read the book as it was being crafted.
Skipping all the common, everyday examples of animals such dogs or horses displaying behaviouor such as curiosity, I would draw the attention of anyone reading this review to the (very cool) example of firehawks. This is the nickname given to various raptor species such as the Black Kite and Brown Falcon which are known to use fire as a hunting tool. How is this not a behaviour developed through curiosity, experimentation, and systematised thinking? They will seek out a fire, use a branch to transport said fire to a hunting ground, and deliberately set a fire there. The birds have, through experimentation and the obvious employment of creative and critical thinking, understood that their prey will flee when confronted with fire, putting themselves out in the open for the raptor to catch in a way that they never will in an ordinary flame-free environment. They have extrapolated the behaviour of other animal species. They have figured out how to source fire and safely transport it to ideal locations. They have figured out how to navigate a fire front while hunting and feeding while actively taking steps to make the entire situation happen in the first place. Which part of that is not "if-and-then" thinking, exactly? (Also, isn't it just incredibly fascinating that there are several species of bird that straight-up use fire as a tool? Birds are cool.)
So, yeah. DNF. I was shocked by how lacking in basic fact-checking and academic rigour the part of the book that I read was.
Skipping all the common, everyday examples of animals such dogs or horses displaying behaviouor such as curiosity, I would draw the attention of anyone reading this review to the (very cool) example of firehawks. This is the nickname given to various raptor species such as the Black Kite and Brown Falcon which are known to use fire as a hunting tool. How is this not a behaviour developed through curiosity, experimentation, and systematised thinking? They will seek out a fire, use a branch to transport said fire to a hunting ground, and deliberately set a fire there. The birds have, through experimentation and the obvious employment of creative and critical thinking, understood that their prey will flee when confronted with fire, putting themselves out in the open for the raptor to catch in a way that they never will in an ordinary flame-free environment. They have extrapolated the behaviour of other animal species. They have figured out how to source fire and safely transport it to ideal locations. They have figured out how to navigate a fire front while hunting and feeding while actively taking steps to make the entire situation happen in the first place. Which part of that is not "if-and-then" thinking, exactly? (Also, isn't it just incredibly fascinating that there are several species of bird that straight-up use fire as a tool? Birds are cool.)
So, yeah. DNF. I was shocked by how lacking in basic fact-checking and academic rigour the part of the book that I read was.
October 21, 2023
Disclaimer: I only read the first half of the book, I couldn't stomach it anymore.
I'll give it 2 stars because I think it's not ableist in its intent, in the sense that it really values traits that occur in higher frequency in the autism community than the neurotypical population, and like who doesn't need that reassurance?? I definitely took solace in the praising of the systematizing brain.
However, the conviction with which Baron-Cohen speaks of his theory on the extreme male brain makes this book legitimately misinformation. His studies have not been replicable by other scientists, and some of his experimental methods have been proven to not demonstrate his intended results. It's his theory, his AQ test, and his takeaways from his experimental results. Baron-Cohen doesn't do his due diligence as a scientist presenting this information in this way without the necessary caveats that explain the limitations of his research, instead portraying them as proven facts. He's a scientist, not a mathematician; there should be no proofs in the room.
To be honest, while this book wasn't exactly ableist, I do think it comes off as unintentionally sexist, simply from Baron-Cohen's unwillingness to do a deep dive into possible explanations that would negate his conformation bias. Society is coming to acknowledge that we have severely harmed the female autism community by refusing to recognize their place on the spectrum because they didn't present like males. Instead of expanding the definition of autism, they were given anxiety diagnosis and expected to suffer without accommodation or acknowledgement. You're only going to find "extremely male" brains in the autism community if you're not appropriately diagnosing the female half the community.
I feel gross having to rant like this, but as a systematizer with a research background that was raised in this community, I felt the need. Hope this doesn't offend anyone ❤️
https://www.science.org/content/artic...
I'll give it 2 stars because I think it's not ableist in its intent, in the sense that it really values traits that occur in higher frequency in the autism community than the neurotypical population, and like who doesn't need that reassurance?? I definitely took solace in the praising of the systematizing brain.
However, the conviction with which Baron-Cohen speaks of his theory on the extreme male brain makes this book legitimately misinformation. His studies have not been replicable by other scientists, and some of his experimental methods have been proven to not demonstrate his intended results. It's his theory, his AQ test, and his takeaways from his experimental results. Baron-Cohen doesn't do his due diligence as a scientist presenting this information in this way without the necessary caveats that explain the limitations of his research, instead portraying them as proven facts. He's a scientist, not a mathematician; there should be no proofs in the room.
To be honest, while this book wasn't exactly ableist, I do think it comes off as unintentionally sexist, simply from Baron-Cohen's unwillingness to do a deep dive into possible explanations that would negate his conformation bias. Society is coming to acknowledge that we have severely harmed the female autism community by refusing to recognize their place on the spectrum because they didn't present like males. Instead of expanding the definition of autism, they were given anxiety diagnosis and expected to suffer without accommodation or acknowledgement. You're only going to find "extremely male" brains in the autism community if you're not appropriately diagnosing the female half the community.
I feel gross having to rant like this, but as a systematizer with a research background that was raised in this community, I felt the need. Hope this doesn't offend anyone ❤️
https://www.science.org/content/artic...
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 8, 2023
Briefly: there is very little about autism here, and it is mostly the author's musings on who should be diagnosed and who can get by. There is very little useful information, not even the proverbial inspirational content you might expect.
Detailed:
A lot of endless repetition of the same thing, water and information that has little to do with the subject of the book. There is no answer to the question of how autism contributes to human inventions, and it was not even considered in principle, the author at the very beginning separates hyper-systemizing from autism and speaks only about it. Most of the book is taken up by discussions of anthropological research and how people invented tools. In the end, it seems as if the author simply stated his assumption in this way, very weakly supported by almost unrelated arguments.
What I didn't like: first the author enthusiastically mentions a study in which the brain is divided into five narrowly defined categories based on just two parameters, and then he talks about neurodiversity. It's a bit contradictory, no? I also can't agree with his position that a diagnosis should only be given to those who have problems in everyday life because of it, if only because those very problems are often defined not by the person experiencing them, but by a medical reference book. The author also cites the notional Einsteins as an example, and then "well, they had autistic traits, but there's no way to prove it, so let's just pretend they were autistic". To what? Rigid adherence to empathy-systematization theory doesn't inspire confidence either.
What I liked:
1) A joke that wasn't a joke at all:
"I joked to my editor that this book could be the shortest book in the world-just three words long. Sensibly, she asked me to elaborate on them."
2) Utopian thoughts on how different children should be taught differently in schools + support for neurodiversity.
Detailed:
A lot of endless repetition of the same thing, water and information that has little to do with the subject of the book. There is no answer to the question of how autism contributes to human inventions, and it was not even considered in principle, the author at the very beginning separates hyper-systemizing from autism and speaks only about it. Most of the book is taken up by discussions of anthropological research and how people invented tools. In the end, it seems as if the author simply stated his assumption in this way, very weakly supported by almost unrelated arguments.
What I didn't like: first the author enthusiastically mentions a study in which the brain is divided into five narrowly defined categories based on just two parameters, and then he talks about neurodiversity. It's a bit contradictory, no? I also can't agree with his position that a diagnosis should only be given to those who have problems in everyday life because of it, if only because those very problems are often defined not by the person experiencing them, but by a medical reference book. The author also cites the notional Einsteins as an example, and then "well, they had autistic traits, but there's no way to prove it, so let's just pretend they were autistic". To what? Rigid adherence to empathy-systematization theory doesn't inspire confidence either.
What I liked:
1) A joke that wasn't a joke at all:
"I joked to my editor that this book could be the shortest book in the world-just three words long. Sensibly, she asked me to elaborate on them."
2) Utopian thoughts on how different children should be taught differently in schools + support for neurodiversity.
December 8, 2022
Most of it was pretty good, but near the end he made an argument I couldn't agree with--that those with autism that can function, even those that greatly rely on caretakers, should not get a diagnosis for it. That diagnoses should only be given to those who then need it to get government help for their condition.
We already know autism is on a scale, and leaving diagnosis to only the least functioning of them seems irresponsible to me. Diagnoses can help those with autism understand themselves better, even in higher functioning cases. Needing medical or government assistance shouldn't be a prerequisite to knowing one has a condition.
We already know autism is on a scale, and leaving diagnosis to only the least functioning of them seems irresponsible to me. Diagnoses can help those with autism understand themselves better, even in higher functioning cases. Needing medical or government assistance shouldn't be a prerequisite to knowing one has a condition.
May 26, 2021
Not a fan of this at all. I’m the father of an (very) autistic son. I guess the thing about autism is that it comes in many flavours. The way this book is written you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s been written to represent all autistic people. That their behaviour somehow all neatly conforms into the theory that the author tries to establish here. He didn’t really land it for me, it never resonated, so I’ll hope he'll forgive me for not finishing this. Hardly enlightening. Constantly infuriating. Moving on.
December 10, 2023
I found the portrait Baron-Cohen painted of autistic individuals to be very one note. The focus of his studies are on male type S individuals, which is all fine and good but as someone who as been diagnosed as autistic and is afab type E, I wish I was represented.
March 17, 2025
I'm soooo sorry this is less a review and more of a train of thought rebuttal that I opened and wrote every time I heard something that I thought was so strange.
I super dislike this book as I believe the author is pointlessly pigeon-holing and crafting rigid structures on an exceptionally fluid construct (patterns of thoughts).
I always fine it so incredibly annoying when people/scientists state or imply that good socialization equals lack of intelligence. In this case this author states that you can either be very good at empathy/socialization or good at pattern seeking, rarely ever both and if both to a lesser extent than very intelligent or very social people. I find this theory/point of view to be EXCEPTIONALLY narrow and inherently anti-social. Socialization itself is a pattern. For example; You have a friend that only contacts you after work or at lunch to ask if you if you want to hang out, or always tells you happy birthday on your birthday. In the majority of cases these people never asked you your work schedule or when you birthday was. They caught on that you were always home, answering messages or contacting people at specific times and inferred your schedule from that. To properly socialize/empathize you MUST listen, connect and make inferences to peoples lives and experiences. It is not unlike what you must do to write Academic papers. To be a good socializer you must have something akin to a personal file on every person you know including favoring foods, colors, history, etc etc. This is just as pattern seeking and intellectual as scientific pattern seeking. The issue here is the nature of the answer to these patterns. Social Pattern seeking is not an absolute. For example; X has a traumatic experience will eating their favorite food. Other peoples experiences, trauma science and media would dictate that this person would now dislike their favorite foods. How X may not follow this pattern due to their own natural disposition or lack of mental association between the two objects ( the trauma and the food). This means that no matter how logical the answer may be it still may not be the correct answer. Often the reason for this just tends to cater to that individual person's psychology. Scientific pattern seeking is much more narrow minded in the sense that most often there is a solid correct answer and if it deviates it is written off as an outlier and strange therefore not important.
What is very disappointing to me is that the author even made the connection that music = language and therefore a pattern that can be learned and expanded on. Which I always felt was a gateway or a tangent to the idea that socialization is a dialect using the combination of body language and spoken language with rules and structures in which to follow. I also find it interesting that he spoke of the bone flute as an invention to invent music (already states as an approved system of pattern seeking), but not knuckle bone dice. This invention was created for the sole purpose of socializing as all games are. This bridges the gap between pattern seeking and socialization to notice the patterns of dice, and the patterns of socialization to create a game win which all people play at pattern guessing/seeking. It makes this connection with the creation of religion but still discredits the empathy system as just a material used in pattern seeking and not a subsystem of pattern seeking in itself. However, I believe that is shows an inherent pattern to be able to manipulate an object (social structure) to create a rigged rules and beliefs structure.
I'm also disgruntled by the author not discussing how associative learning is NOT PATTERN SEEKING? Associative learning is literally noticing patterns and associating answers to those patterns.
Anyway, that was my freak rant as an autistic person with a hyper-fixation on patterns of socialization. Not to pat this book on the back but that is semi-common among autistic women. Women are socialized to care more about social structures and therefore when a young girl can not fit within those structures a good number of those women become fixated on why they do not fit and how to understand the unspoken set of rules within society.
I also very much so dislike how all of this author's examples are men and he had to throw in "but I know many autistic women scientists"(except for mentioning one girl who can draw horses). In full honesty this also makes me question his claims that autism is a genetic byproduct of the "masculinization of the brain". I can believe the concept that a majority of autistic people had an over production of testosterone in the brain during the fetal state (however I would not equate the production of a hormone found within both genders in varying degrees as a masculinization and very that as an oversimplification of hormones, gender and hormone production).
I'm not even going to talk about the wealth=intelligence conversation. I trust anyone reading this knows how incredibly flawed that train of assumption was.
I super dislike this book as I believe the author is pointlessly pigeon-holing and crafting rigid structures on an exceptionally fluid construct (patterns of thoughts).
I always fine it so incredibly annoying when people/scientists state or imply that good socialization equals lack of intelligence. In this case this author states that you can either be very good at empathy/socialization or good at pattern seeking, rarely ever both and if both to a lesser extent than very intelligent or very social people. I find this theory/point of view to be EXCEPTIONALLY narrow and inherently anti-social. Socialization itself is a pattern. For example; You have a friend that only contacts you after work or at lunch to ask if you if you want to hang out, or always tells you happy birthday on your birthday. In the majority of cases these people never asked you your work schedule or when you birthday was. They caught on that you were always home, answering messages or contacting people at specific times and inferred your schedule from that. To properly socialize/empathize you MUST listen, connect and make inferences to peoples lives and experiences. It is not unlike what you must do to write Academic papers. To be a good socializer you must have something akin to a personal file on every person you know including favoring foods, colors, history, etc etc. This is just as pattern seeking and intellectual as scientific pattern seeking. The issue here is the nature of the answer to these patterns. Social Pattern seeking is not an absolute. For example; X has a traumatic experience will eating their favorite food. Other peoples experiences, trauma science and media would dictate that this person would now dislike their favorite foods. How X may not follow this pattern due to their own natural disposition or lack of mental association between the two objects ( the trauma and the food). This means that no matter how logical the answer may be it still may not be the correct answer. Often the reason for this just tends to cater to that individual person's psychology. Scientific pattern seeking is much more narrow minded in the sense that most often there is a solid correct answer and if it deviates it is written off as an outlier and strange therefore not important.
What is very disappointing to me is that the author even made the connection that music = language and therefore a pattern that can be learned and expanded on. Which I always felt was a gateway or a tangent to the idea that socialization is a dialect using the combination of body language and spoken language with rules and structures in which to follow. I also find it interesting that he spoke of the bone flute as an invention to invent music (already states as an approved system of pattern seeking), but not knuckle bone dice. This invention was created for the sole purpose of socializing as all games are. This bridges the gap between pattern seeking and socialization to notice the patterns of dice, and the patterns of socialization to create a game win which all people play at pattern guessing/seeking. It makes this connection with the creation of religion but still discredits the empathy system as just a material used in pattern seeking and not a subsystem of pattern seeking in itself. However, I believe that is shows an inherent pattern to be able to manipulate an object (social structure) to create a rigged rules and beliefs structure.
I'm also disgruntled by the author not discussing how associative learning is NOT PATTERN SEEKING? Associative learning is literally noticing patterns and associating answers to those patterns.
Anyway, that was my freak rant as an autistic person with a hyper-fixation on patterns of socialization. Not to pat this book on the back but that is semi-common among autistic women. Women are socialized to care more about social structures and therefore when a young girl can not fit within those structures a good number of those women become fixated on why they do not fit and how to understand the unspoken set of rules within society.
I also very much so dislike how all of this author's examples are men and he had to throw in "but I know many autistic women scientists"(except for mentioning one girl who can draw horses). In full honesty this also makes me question his claims that autism is a genetic byproduct of the "masculinization of the brain". I can believe the concept that a majority of autistic people had an over production of testosterone in the brain during the fetal state (however I would not equate the production of a hormone found within both genders in varying degrees as a masculinization and very that as an oversimplification of hormones, gender and hormone production).
I'm not even going to talk about the wealth=intelligence conversation. I trust anyone reading this knows how incredibly flawed that train of assumption was.
July 18, 2023
Hmmmm. Ah du, systematiserande hjärna. Jävligt kluven kring hans centrala del hur människan är det enda djuret som experimenterar och har drivkraften att komma på nya adaptioner på redan existerande verktyg de använder. Tänker på klippet man fick se någon kurs med en apa som bokstavligt experimenterar med en tvättsvamp i en å där den kalibrerar om hur mycket vatten den kan suga i. Systematisering följer ”If-and-then”-regeln vilket människan är ensam om (enligt författaren) då för många individer aktiveras belöningssystemet när vi systematiserar. Däremot följer djur det här mönstret, vilket är ett faktum, och alla motbevis avfärdas av författaren som basal associativ inlärning. Men ah, finns flera exempel som motbevisar honom helt. En apa tänker: OM jag greppet tag i den här saken (tvättsvampen) OCH jag håller den under vattenytan OCH tar upp den OCH kramar åt SÅ kommer vatten. Sedan går den tillbaka till ”och-steget” och modifierar (den utforskar sig fram till nya innovation): … OCH jag håller den längre SÅ kommer ännu mer vatten. Baron Cohen är helt ute o cyklar här.
Sen däremot sista kapitlet. Genetik och beteendemönsters samband mellan individer med höga systemiserande poäng (självkskattning) och sannolikhet att få en unge med autism. En studie med 600.000 deltagare visar på 25% genetisk överlapp mellan systematiserande hjärnor (som han klassar det) och autismspektrumtillstånd. Techindustristäder (Silicon Valley, Eindhoven etc) utgörs av betydande mängd människor som flyttar dit från världens alla hörn för att jobba inom techbranschen. Vad måste man (på Gruppnivå) vara då? Jövligt systematiserade (för att vara bra på det och desto viktigaste finna det intressant till att börja med - kille som tjej). Vad har då dessa städer en - kraftig - överrepresentation av? Barn med autismdiagnos. Och vi vet att det finns genetisk överlapp från tidigare studie. Hmm. Globalisering, arbetskraftinvandring och Brain drain. Ja, nyliberalism i kort. Skit i vaccinet, det är Thatcher, Reagan och Clinton (och efterföljande) som ligger till grund för ökningen av ASD. Kanske, jag vet inte. Men det är jävligt spännande.
Om man inte fattar det så är boken, och jag, för en ”neurodiversity”. Många av historiens mest framträdande karaktärer och uppfinnare var systematiserande individer - och tänk hur många vi har glömt bort i världshistorien som påverkar vårt liv till det bättre varje dag.
Kluven. Svettig. 3+
Sen däremot sista kapitlet. Genetik och beteendemönsters samband mellan individer med höga systemiserande poäng (självkskattning) och sannolikhet att få en unge med autism. En studie med 600.000 deltagare visar på 25% genetisk överlapp mellan systematiserande hjärnor (som han klassar det) och autismspektrumtillstånd. Techindustristäder (Silicon Valley, Eindhoven etc) utgörs av betydande mängd människor som flyttar dit från världens alla hörn för att jobba inom techbranschen. Vad måste man (på Gruppnivå) vara då? Jövligt systematiserade (för att vara bra på det och desto viktigaste finna det intressant till att börja med - kille som tjej). Vad har då dessa städer en - kraftig - överrepresentation av? Barn med autismdiagnos. Och vi vet att det finns genetisk överlapp från tidigare studie. Hmm. Globalisering, arbetskraftinvandring och Brain drain. Ja, nyliberalism i kort. Skit i vaccinet, det är Thatcher, Reagan och Clinton (och efterföljande) som ligger till grund för ökningen av ASD. Kanske, jag vet inte. Men det är jävligt spännande.
Om man inte fattar det så är boken, och jag, för en ”neurodiversity”. Många av historiens mest framträdande karaktärer och uppfinnare var systematiserande individer - och tänk hur många vi har glömt bort i världshistorien som påverkar vårt liv till det bättre varje dag.
Kluven. Svettig. 3+
February 9, 2021
Page nos. refer to the hardback version, which I borrowed from my library. I sent these observations to Mr. Baron-Cohen but have not heard back. If he replies I will update this.
Page 21
Stonehenge was built 5019 years ago? What’s the secret of such remarkably precise dating?
Page 33
“Consider how Sir Isaac Newton inferred gravity as a cause from seeing an apple fall from a tree (in my college, Trinity, in Cambridge).” This reminds me of professors who tossed off asides about their time at Harvard or Yale. “The Dante Society used to meet at Longfellow House …” When students returned blank looks, he would add, “That’s just off campus from Harvard.” The strength of your argument should stand on its own.
Page 35
“Last week … I noticed that someone had invented a different kind of seesaw … the plank could move in any plane in three-dimensional space.” My father installed one of those for me and my sisters in our backyard circa 1960. He did not invent it but had seen the plans somewhere. His consisted of a pipe, well greased, inserted into a slightly larger pipe that was set in concrete.
Chapter 3, “Five Types of Brain”
Type E, empathizing; Type B, balanced; Type S, systematizing; Type E Extreme, very empathizing; Type S Extreme, very systematizing. But these 5 go back to a binary division: you’re an empathizer or a systematizer. Why is it that grand schemes to explain everything always seem to rest on a simple binary foundation?
I scored 15 on the Systematizing Quotient and 19 when I took it online. An engineer I know scored 4 on the SQ. She holds an MS in aerospace engineering from Churchill College, Cambridge, and an MS in aerospace engineering from Stanford (she dropped out of the PhD program because she was bored with the glacial pace at which university labs conduct research). She is now an analyst for an aerospace company, looking for patterns in rocket motor test data, and she’s good at her job. She wrote, “The SQ test had questions like ‘When I look at a mountain, I think about how precisely it was formed.’ That’s a question for someone like you. I don’t care, never think that.” I know that we are but two test takers; however, I’m left wondering what, precisely, the Systematizing Quotient Revised test tells us.
Page 90
General Electric’s profit “grew by more than $1 billion” when they implemented Six Sigma. Yes, but since 2007 GE’s profits have shrunk from nearly $100 billion to less than $20 billion. Was that also due to Six Sigma? Post hoc ergo propter hoc, or, Six Sigma works until it doesn’t?
Six Sigma has great tools, but they apply to manufacturing operations. I worked at a Fortune 50 company in the 90s when Six Sigma was forced into white-collar jobs. A large aerospace customer told us that their goal for our reports was 3.4 errors per million pages. Why should a page be the denominator? Why not paragraphs? Sentences? Words? Characters? Needless to say, we heard no more about that goal.
Page 95
Here appears the most masterful use of apophasis I've seen in some time. After listing famous people who had many autistic traits (Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Andy Warhol, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Hans Christian Anderson, Bill Gates, Henry Cavendish, Albert Einstein), Baron-Cohen says, "Diagnosing someone—living or not—on the basis of fragmentary biographical information is unreliable and arguably unethical." So are we to forget what we have just read in the pages and pages (“unreliable and arguably unethical”) devoted to the autistic characteristics of Thomas Edison, Bill Gates et al.?
Page 117
“If I take my ox, and castrate him, then he will be more obedient.” You’d have a hard time doing that. Better start with a bull, or better yet, a bull calf.
Page 118
“The flywheel (to cast a fishing hook)”: A fishing rod has a reel, not a flywheel. I looked up “flywheel” in Oxford’s Learner Dictionaries and Collins English Dictionary, both online, to see if this is UK usage and found no indication the word is used for fishing gear.
Page 134
“Although chimps make spears to stab their prey with, their hunting with sharpened branches is still just very simple tool use.” How can any of us know that the use of spears does not rest on an understanding of causality? Because they haven’t improved them, attaching a flint? Why would chimps use spears unless at some level they understand that the weapons make them more effective?
Page 213, N37
Did early farmers really plant potato seeds? Or do you mean seed potatoes? It is far more common to cut a potato into several pieces, each with at least one eye, and plant those. That way the plants are all first generation, i.e., the potatoes are the same type. Plants grown from potato seeds (for research and hybridization) do not run true to type, resulting in a crop with exceedingly various tubers.
Page 213, N38
This note is a paean to hunter-gatherers. Agriculture “led to babies developing more infections … [c]hild mortality increased … and because agriculture often failed as well as succeeded, this led to malnutrition.” Tell me, do game and wild fruits and berries never fail?
“Agriculture also curbed the freedom of a nomadic lifestyle.” Why is it that students of early cultures are always enraptured by the joys of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle? Have they ever sustained themselves for, let’s say, a year by hunting and gathering? If the agricultural lifestyle was manifestly inferior, why did humans persist in it?
“Agriculture did not lead to working less—rather, humans now had to toil on the land and their quality of life became far worse.” We live in an agricultural civilization now, in which we work very few hours per day to put food in our mouths while enjoying clean water, heated water, running water, central heating, antibiotics, and myriads of other things that our ancestors would have killed for.
Page 225, N21
“There were some places on the planet that decided not to go into ‘lockdown’ [for Covid], such as Sweden, but lockdown was effective across huge populations including India and China.” The implication is that Sweden was irresponsible, that its mortality rate must be terrible. In truth, its rate per 100,000 is nearly identical to that of France and far better than 20 other countries, including the UK, which is still using strict lockdowns. See the Johns Hopkins ranking of countries, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mort...
As for China, with a mortality rate of only 0.35/100,000, i.e., 454 times lower than that of the UK, do you find the statistics from China credible?
Page 21
Stonehenge was built 5019 years ago? What’s the secret of such remarkably precise dating?
Page 33
“Consider how Sir Isaac Newton inferred gravity as a cause from seeing an apple fall from a tree (in my college, Trinity, in Cambridge).” This reminds me of professors who tossed off asides about their time at Harvard or Yale. “The Dante Society used to meet at Longfellow House …” When students returned blank looks, he would add, “That’s just off campus from Harvard.” The strength of your argument should stand on its own.
Page 35
“Last week … I noticed that someone had invented a different kind of seesaw … the plank could move in any plane in three-dimensional space.” My father installed one of those for me and my sisters in our backyard circa 1960. He did not invent it but had seen the plans somewhere. His consisted of a pipe, well greased, inserted into a slightly larger pipe that was set in concrete.
Chapter 3, “Five Types of Brain”
Type E, empathizing; Type B, balanced; Type S, systematizing; Type E Extreme, very empathizing; Type S Extreme, very systematizing. But these 5 go back to a binary division: you’re an empathizer or a systematizer. Why is it that grand schemes to explain everything always seem to rest on a simple binary foundation?
I scored 15 on the Systematizing Quotient and 19 when I took it online. An engineer I know scored 4 on the SQ. She holds an MS in aerospace engineering from Churchill College, Cambridge, and an MS in aerospace engineering from Stanford (she dropped out of the PhD program because she was bored with the glacial pace at which university labs conduct research). She is now an analyst for an aerospace company, looking for patterns in rocket motor test data, and she’s good at her job. She wrote, “The SQ test had questions like ‘When I look at a mountain, I think about how precisely it was formed.’ That’s a question for someone like you. I don’t care, never think that.” I know that we are but two test takers; however, I’m left wondering what, precisely, the Systematizing Quotient Revised test tells us.
Page 90
General Electric’s profit “grew by more than $1 billion” when they implemented Six Sigma. Yes, but since 2007 GE’s profits have shrunk from nearly $100 billion to less than $20 billion. Was that also due to Six Sigma? Post hoc ergo propter hoc, or, Six Sigma works until it doesn’t?
Six Sigma has great tools, but they apply to manufacturing operations. I worked at a Fortune 50 company in the 90s when Six Sigma was forced into white-collar jobs. A large aerospace customer told us that their goal for our reports was 3.4 errors per million pages. Why should a page be the denominator? Why not paragraphs? Sentences? Words? Characters? Needless to say, we heard no more about that goal.
Page 95
Here appears the most masterful use of apophasis I've seen in some time. After listing famous people who had many autistic traits (Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Andy Warhol, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Hans Christian Anderson, Bill Gates, Henry Cavendish, Albert Einstein), Baron-Cohen says, "Diagnosing someone—living or not—on the basis of fragmentary biographical information is unreliable and arguably unethical." So are we to forget what we have just read in the pages and pages (“unreliable and arguably unethical”) devoted to the autistic characteristics of Thomas Edison, Bill Gates et al.?
Page 117
“If I take my ox, and castrate him, then he will be more obedient.” You’d have a hard time doing that. Better start with a bull, or better yet, a bull calf.
Page 118
“The flywheel (to cast a fishing hook)”: A fishing rod has a reel, not a flywheel. I looked up “flywheel” in Oxford’s Learner Dictionaries and Collins English Dictionary, both online, to see if this is UK usage and found no indication the word is used for fishing gear.
Page 134
“Although chimps make spears to stab their prey with, their hunting with sharpened branches is still just very simple tool use.” How can any of us know that the use of spears does not rest on an understanding of causality? Because they haven’t improved them, attaching a flint? Why would chimps use spears unless at some level they understand that the weapons make them more effective?
Page 213, N37
Did early farmers really plant potato seeds? Or do you mean seed potatoes? It is far more common to cut a potato into several pieces, each with at least one eye, and plant those. That way the plants are all first generation, i.e., the potatoes are the same type. Plants grown from potato seeds (for research and hybridization) do not run true to type, resulting in a crop with exceedingly various tubers.
Page 213, N38
This note is a paean to hunter-gatherers. Agriculture “led to babies developing more infections … [c]hild mortality increased … and because agriculture often failed as well as succeeded, this led to malnutrition.” Tell me, do game and wild fruits and berries never fail?
“Agriculture also curbed the freedom of a nomadic lifestyle.” Why is it that students of early cultures are always enraptured by the joys of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle? Have they ever sustained themselves for, let’s say, a year by hunting and gathering? If the agricultural lifestyle was manifestly inferior, why did humans persist in it?
“Agriculture did not lead to working less—rather, humans now had to toil on the land and their quality of life became far worse.” We live in an agricultural civilization now, in which we work very few hours per day to put food in our mouths while enjoying clean water, heated water, running water, central heating, antibiotics, and myriads of other things that our ancestors would have killed for.
Page 225, N21
“There were some places on the planet that decided not to go into ‘lockdown’ [for Covid], such as Sweden, but lockdown was effective across huge populations including India and China.” The implication is that Sweden was irresponsible, that its mortality rate must be terrible. In truth, its rate per 100,000 is nearly identical to that of France and far better than 20 other countries, including the UK, which is still using strict lockdowns. See the Johns Hopkins ranking of countries, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mort...
As for China, with a mortality rate of only 0.35/100,000, i.e., 454 times lower than that of the UK, do you find the statistics from China credible?
May 30, 2021
Learned so much about autism spectrum disorder. Also learned about asbergers.
I really got a lot out of the systemizing thinking and how it places empathy lower. For example, someone with autism may find it more difficult to identify sarcasm, reading facial expressions, or other social subtleties.
I really liked the stories on inventing and testing things, as well as the stats on people in STEM having higher potential of autism.
However, two thirds into the book, it suddenly turns into a reiteration of the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. I was not wanting a human history lesson. I want to learn more about ASD.
Some really shocking information about MIT not wishing to participate in a study that looks at STEM graduates having children with a higher rate of autism. Because of how it will make them look.
The science seems to point to upwards of 10% of children of STEM have autism, where the normal rate is around 2%
I also really liked the parts on neurodiversity.
Great read on disabilities.
Really enjoyed this.
Learned about some outstanding companies who hire and train autistic people specifically. Very encouraging to hear, as the book outlines that only 16% of adults with autism have full time employment. Very inspired by companies like Auticon.
Some really great recommendations for education, how to better help and teach students with highly systimized minds.
Touching read. Learned a lot.
Specifically thought that the book had excellent opening chapters.
3.8/5
I really got a lot out of the systemizing thinking and how it places empathy lower. For example, someone with autism may find it more difficult to identify sarcasm, reading facial expressions, or other social subtleties.
I really liked the stories on inventing and testing things, as well as the stats on people in STEM having higher potential of autism.
However, two thirds into the book, it suddenly turns into a reiteration of the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. I was not wanting a human history lesson. I want to learn more about ASD.
Some really shocking information about MIT not wishing to participate in a study that looks at STEM graduates having children with a higher rate of autism. Because of how it will make them look.
The science seems to point to upwards of 10% of children of STEM have autism, where the normal rate is around 2%
I also really liked the parts on neurodiversity.
Great read on disabilities.
Really enjoyed this.
Learned about some outstanding companies who hire and train autistic people specifically. Very encouraging to hear, as the book outlines that only 16% of adults with autism have full time employment. Very inspired by companies like Auticon.
Some really great recommendations for education, how to better help and teach students with highly systimized minds.
Touching read. Learned a lot.
Specifically thought that the book had excellent opening chapters.
3.8/5
July 23, 2023
I got this in Groningen after telling myself I don’t need to buy anything more. But this is a very interesting topic to me, and so I caved in as usual.
It’s a fine book. It’s difficult for me to examine its quality without mentioning my enamoration with the topic of autism, largely because of my own desire to figure things out about myself. Some social interactions leave me genuinely wondering.
Nonetheless, the book gets quite janky in the middle, but the beginning and the end really hook you. Although I understand why the book is about its connection to evolution, I would have much rather preferred (and enjoyed) a book on the history or the pecularities of the (disorder? illness? disability? impediment?) itself.
And there’s a study that revealed that Eindhoven has, on average, twice the autism cases in school then Utrecht or Haarlem. Go figure.
It’s a fine book. It’s difficult for me to examine its quality without mentioning my enamoration with the topic of autism, largely because of my own desire to figure things out about myself. Some social interactions leave me genuinely wondering.
Nonetheless, the book gets quite janky in the middle, but the beginning and the end really hook you. Although I understand why the book is about its connection to evolution, I would have much rather preferred (and enjoyed) a book on the history or the pecularities of the (disorder? illness? disability? impediment?) itself.
And there’s a study that revealed that Eindhoven has, on average, twice the autism cases in school then Utrecht or Haarlem. Go figure.
April 17, 2024
The pattern seekers book of Simon Baron Cohen about Autism are actually two books. That is my personal impression when I finished this book.
You get interesting read about Autism and then you get another interesting read about human ingenuity throughout the ages. Great two books for price of one!
There is also third end closing part that I called Autismvagelism when the author is making his final plea for autism and autistic people and their access into the general workforce.
I just only dont get it why is autor trying to combine that two big themes Autism and human ingenuity throughout the centuries into one book when he states that it is not right / ethical to try " diagnose " notorious historical figures such us for Example Leonardo da Vinci with autism.
Yet it still is great book and I am very curious about author second great book The science of Evil.
You get interesting read about Autism and then you get another interesting read about human ingenuity throughout the ages. Great two books for price of one!
There is also third end closing part that I called Autismvagelism when the author is making his final plea for autism and autistic people and their access into the general workforce.
I just only dont get it why is autor trying to combine that two big themes Autism and human ingenuity throughout the centuries into one book when he states that it is not right / ethical to try " diagnose " notorious historical figures such us for Example Leonardo da Vinci with autism.
Yet it still is great book and I am very curious about author second great book The science of Evil.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 208 reviews