Vive la Difference

There’s an interesting piece at BabyCenter giving a precis of recent research into childhood traits such as systemizing and empathy. The thing that interested me most was the way in which they connected parts of Simon Baron Cohen’s research into autism, but did so without actually looking at autistic children at all. Rather, they were looking at those who had some autistic traits (not looking people in the eye, playing alone and so on) and then comparing these with the (already known) fetal testosterone the children had been exposed to.

As regular readers here will know, Baron Cohen’s thoughts are that there is a spectrum of brain types, from “female” (or empathizing) to “male” (or systemizing) and autism is an extreme type of the “male” brain. The mechanism he suggests is exposure to fetal testosterone. More of it and the child will have a more”male” type brain. The research found that those with the autistic traits had been expsosed to up to 20 tims more fetal testosterone than those without them. No, it’s not proof of the basic theory, but it doesn’t contradict it, rather it supports but does not prove.

The one thing that really rather surprised me was that it is generally accepted (and I didn’t know this) that it is the fetus itself which generates (or perhaps regulates) the amount of testosterone. That provides a pathway for a genetic expanation, for as we know, autism does run in extended familes. If, however, we find that there are some external triggers for testosterone exposure, then we might have to go back to an environmental explanation for the cause of autism.

No, I don’t know either, but I bet that’s where the research is going to be concentrated next.

I see that Laura’s Psychology Blog has been over here and taken our EQSQ personality tests. Just a quick note for her (and of course others) about how to actually interpret the numbers that come out of the tests.

I’m not really sure how to interpret my scores–I’m apparently above average compared to other women on BOTH scales, but much more extremely so on the systemizing test. My EQ was 51, which was just slightly above the female average, but my SQ was 97, which is far above both male and female averages.

Yes, this can indeed be done but it is, I’m afraid to say, a very rough and ready way of looking at the figures. For we face the problem faced by every self-reporting test. If we use a word like “very”, or a phrase like “a lot”, or “not much” how are we to know that different people are putting the same value on those phrases? Certainly, we’ve got the bounds of ordinary language usage to guide us, but those in themselves are very rough and ready.

The way the tests are more accurate (for we’re certainly not claiming that they are perfect, or to be used as anything more than a guide) is to look at the difference between the two numbers coming out from the two tests. This allows a little control over that difference in the meanings of the words.

For example, in the first way of looking at the tests the difference between 20 SQ and 40 EQ, and 40 SQ and 80 EQ would seem rather large. Certainly, that puts people on different sides of the average results. But we could in fact find someone taking the tests twice and they get those different results: one day they’re really not bothered about anything very much (and so place a low value on “very” for example) and the other day they’re much more concerned about things (and thus place a low value on “not very”).

If, however, we look at the difference between the two numbers as being what is interesting, we can see that we’re finding out something more interesting about the person. EQ is always (in this example) higher than SQ, so we would say that someone is tending towards the empathizing end of the spectrum. And consistently so, which is after all one of the hallmarks of a useful test, that it gives the same answer to the same question, every time it’s asked.

Now quite how we measure the gap between the scores (there are many possiblities, put it on a curve, take an arithmetical look at it, log, percentage….you can get me lost in this sort of math in moments) is another matter and fortunately far above my pay grade.

It’s pretty easy to come up with scenarios, with evolutionary explanations, why psychopaths shouldn’t in fact exist. The point is that humans actually need to co-operate in order to both survive and to produce the next generation. A large number of the games (games in the real sense, not just fun) which we play with each other are about trying to work out who we can and cannot trust. Just look, for example, at the divorce rates after the uncovering of adultery: it’s almost always “I can’t trust him/her anymore”. I also like to drop in here the point that some 10% of children are not actually those of the father that thinks he fathered them.

So psychopaths, who are entirely untrustworthy (thinking only of themselves as they do) shouldn’t really exist. Think through it for a moment: If many people, if a high proportion of the population, were psychopaths, then the species would no longer exist, for there wouldn’t have been enough people to actually raise the next generation. So, if it is genetic in cause (as most think it probably is) then it should in fact have been bred out of us.

But on the other side, being the only psychopath in a trusting population brings great benefits. So when the number of people carrying the psychopath gene becomes low enough, those few who do will gain great breeding success. As Glenn Whitman explains it:

What’s nice about this explanation is that it not only explains why psychopaths exist, but also why we’re not all psychopaths. If there are few enough psychopaths in the population, then being a psychopath makes sense because you’ll mostly have winning confrontations with nice people. But if there are too many psychopaths, then the gains from taking advantage of nice people will be swamped by the losses from confronting other psychopaths. In equilibrium, you’ll get both psychos and nice folks, with each strategy generating approximately equal returns, and with the precise balance determined by the relative payoffs of different interactions.

That, I think, really rather explains the problem of spam emails rather well. There’s always a few glib enough, and uncaring about others enough, out there to fool the trusting majority. But if we were all like that, then the strategy wouldn’t work.

There’s a fascinating piece over at Reason by Ron Bailey, their science correspondent. He’s talking about empathy (as you know, something closely connected with our EQSQ personality tests) and the precise physiological methods by which we humans actually get there, to having empathy that is. The whole thing is explained by the recently discovered mirror neurons. Essentially, when we see somebody doing something, we react, via these mirror neurons, as if we were doing it ourselves. This is what generates the empathy: we feel, at least in part, what the person we are observing feels.

In one way this is slightly trivial: it might explain how a yawn is catching, for example. But in another it’s extremely important. As Bailey goes on to point out, via MRIs and the like we can actually see that at least some of those with autism have in fact problems with their mirror neurons. They’re there all right, but they don’t seem to wire up to the brain in quite the same way:

In normal individuals, mu brain wave activity is suppressed whenever they move their hand, imagine moving their hand, or see someone else move their hand. “The ASD group showed significant mu suppression to self-performed hand movements but not to observed hand movements. These results support the hypothesis of a dysfunctional mirror neuron system in high-functioning individuals with ASD,” concluded the study.

So we’re actually seeing some of the pieces coming together. Don’t forget, our EQSQ tests are based on Simon Baron Cohen’s (the leading autism researcher) thoughts about autism and male and female brains. Autism is, in his view, an expression of an extreme male brain. We’re now finding what it is that “causes” empathy, those mirror neurons, and we’re also finding that those with autism have problems with theirs.

N0w this might simply be descriptive but fortunately it isn’t. What we’re also finding is that those mirror neurons can be trained to work properly. So we’re in fact, edging towards being able to, well, if not cure, at least ameliorate autism. And wouldn’t that be grand?

In fact, there’s one other piece that we can add to the puzzle right here, ourselves. You recall how we looked at the way in which doctors and nurses train themselves to eradicate empathy? So that they can perform treatments which have short term pain but long term benefits? If you can train those mirror neurons down, then why not be able to train them up?

I will admit though that for me the best part of the article is about Adam Smith. Given my interest in economics, it’s rather wonderful to see that he had the whole thing worked out nearly 250 years ago:

“As we have no immediate experience of what other men feel, we can form no idea of the manner in which they are affected, but by conceiving what we ourselves should feel in the like situation,” observed British philosopher and economist Adam Smith in the first chapter of his magisterial The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). “Whatever is the passion which arises from any object in the person principally concerned, an analogous emotion springs up, at the thought of his situation, in the breast of every attentive spectator.” Smith’s argument is that our ability to empathize with others is at the root of our morality.

(Note: if you’re interested in where those quotes came from, Gavin Kennedy has the details.)

Wifi Autism is something that is making the intertubes hum at present.

For us, here, who know something about both subjects, our answer on wifi autism is here.

The answer is: “No”, just to make it clear.

Arrgh! The charlatans are after us again! Yes, it is clearly and obviously true that autism is real and that it can be, for some sufferers (depending upon where on the spectrum they are), something that makes a normal life entirely impossible. However, we do think we know what causes it, as Simon Baron Cohen’s research tells us (and you will recall that he is the inventor of our EQSQ personality tests as well, something that comes directly out of his research).

Simply put there is a spectrum of brain types: from female to male, passing through balanced. The female brain type is associated with greater empathy and the male with more systemizing. There is a probability that those who are genetically female will have the female type brain and those male the male: but it is a probability, not a certainty. Some 17% of men have the female and vice versa female the male. That, within the definitions we’ve set ourselves, is observable. Quite why and how this happens is as yet unproven, although the thought is that it’s something to do with exposure to fetal testosterone.

The link with autism is that it is an expression of an extreme type of the male brain. There has been a rise in autism in recent years and so there are a lot of people wanting to point to a reason for that rise. One paper blamed TV (although it was pointed out that his association worked just as well for rain). Others have blamed the MMR vaccine, something that is now conclusively disproven. Another line has been the use of mercury in vaccines. As Japan took mercury out and the autism rate didn’t fall that one has fallen by the way side as well.

The fact is that, as best we know, autism is a genetic problem (it certainly runs very strongly in extended families) and not an environmental one. The best explanation for the rise is assortative mating. However, there do seem to be those who are insistent that there must be an environmental cause. Perhaps out of idiocy, perhaps out of a predatory instinct to feed off the fears and hopes of the parents of autistic children, but no less mistaken for that. The latest candidate is Wi-Fi: yes, it’s the old radio waves scam again.

The autistic children followed specific detoxification protocols in an environment that was mitigated with regard to sources of EMR including mobile phones and WiFi. Heavy metal excretions were monitored from hair, urine and feces over periods ranging from several weeks to several months. The researchers found that with protocols administered in the mitigated environment, heavy metals were cleared from the children?s bodies in a pattern dependent on time and molecular weight. The heaviest metals, such as mercury and uranium, cleared last. In many of the children, the decrease in metals was concomitant with symptom amelioration.

This is simply the worst poosible preying upon the gullible yet from the “alternative” health field. Well, until you get to this one:

Although Mariea believes that autism is a complicated condition that must have several factors at play for a child to fall to this diagnosis, she does believe that the three largest factors at play are:

• Genetically determined detoxification capacity,
• Early insult to immune system via contaminated vaccines and
• Being born with high levels of toxic burden and into a technologically advanced society riddled with ever increasing levels of radiation.

These are the key areas for research regarding the cause and etiology of autism spectrum disorders. Perhaps the genetic mutations that are being discovered in autism research are created through the DNA damage from radiation emitting devices used by families and in the households of ever member of our global society.

Nope, it’s not true. It’s the charlatans coming out of the woodwork again.

Yes, autism exists, yes there are indeed ameliorative treatments (Simon Baron Cohen reports some success with a DVD of trains with faces on them for example) but it isn’t Wi-Fi, it’s not heavy metals, it’s not DNA damage and it most certainly is not the MMR vaccine that causes it.

There’s been an interesting little bit of research published recently. By staking out of series of coffee shops the researchers were able to show that women, on average, waited longer for their drinks than men did. Now note that this was the time between the order being taken and the order being delivered to the thirsty customer. The extra wait was only 20 seconds, but that’s 24% of the total wait, and as the researcher explains here at Tim Harford’s blog, that’s the important point about it. Not the time itself, but the thought that if there’s as much as 24% discrimination in many such small markets then we do indeed have a problem that needs explaining.

No one is quite sure why the discrimination happens: it disappears if there are only female baristas then there is no discrimination. So it’s clearly something male baristas do to women customers. But why? For only if we know why can we decide whether to do anything about it or even what to do if we should so wish to.

That thought in itself sometimes gets economists given strange looks. Surely, if there is discrimination, we’d want to do something about it? Well, no, perhaps not. The next question is whether the discrimination is rational or not. Think of the gender pay gap. Certainly it was true in the past that at least some of it was explained by irrational prejudice (married women often were not allowed to work, only certain careers were open and so on) but we think now that most (if not all) of the current gender pay gap is explained by the fact that it is women who have children. And that it is rational for employers to offer less money to those with children of the liklihood of having them. If such people are less productive, or more expensive to employ, then logically their wages will be lower.

So what we want to know about the coffee shop story is why the discrimination? Only then can we work on whether we want to do something about it or not. And unfortunately, at the moment we don’t know. Research, as they say, is ongoing.

There’s been a little surprise recently when some academics started to look at who terrorists actually were and where they came from, their backgrounds etc. Instead of what many people think, that they are the poorest of the poor, people with nothing to lose (and we’d all think that would be true of suicide bombers, of course), they’re not. They tend to be middle class and well educated. More than that, they tend to be engineers:

We find that graduates from subjects such as science, engineering, and medicine are strongly overrepresented among Islamist movements in the Muslim world, though not among the extremist Islamic groups which have emerged in Western countries more recently. We also find that engineers alone are strongly over-represented among graduates in violent groups in both realms. This is all the more puzzling for engineers are virtually absent from left-wing violent extremists and only present rather than over-represented among right-wing extremists. We consider four hypotheses that could explain this pattern. Is the engineers’ prominence among violent Islamists an accident of history amplified through network links, or do their technical skills make them attractive recruits? Do engineers have a ‘mindset’ that makes them a particularly good match for Islamism, or is their vigorous radicalization explained by the social conditions they endured in Islamic countries? We argue that the interaction between the last two causes is the most plausible explanation of our findings…

This of course touches upon our EQSQ personality tests and that’s where I would put the influence, myself.

I see it often enough with engineers who want to study economics: and a terrorist is similarly trying to study society in order to work out a way to change it. What happens is that the systemizing mind gets to work and decides that, as society itself isn’t actually how it “ought” to be then there must be some error with the system. With economics it tends to be engineers insisting that it’s all just like hydraulics: with the terrorists it’s the Jooos! or the CIA or somebody. It’s not possible, to this systemizing mindset, that society could in fact just be like people are: a messy, incomplete thing, which doesn’t really have such a system to it to be identified.

That, I think, is what makes them think that, like blowing on support of a bridge, they can make the current society fall over, if only they could apply the correct pressure at just the right point. That society isn’t a system like that, that there is no specific point at which you can kill a few people to change it, not just doesn’t occur to them, it doesn’t even enter their frame of reference that society could be like that.

This blogger, Dismal Aesthetics, took our EQSQ personality tests and found that, while being genetically female, she had very much a male brain, right at the very systemizing end of the possible results. This then leads to the thought that:

Could it be that I’m on the autistic spectrum instead of being a female-to-male transsexual?

Now as regular readers know, I’m not a doctor by any stretch of the imagination, I’m an economist by training. I’m simply an interested amateur in these matters, blogging here to find out things as much as to try and tell them to anyone.

But could there be a link between sexual attraction and having either a male or female brain as determined by our personality tests? Certainly, there could be, it’s possible. We think that the formation of the male/female brain comes from the exposure to fetal testosterone, more leading to a more male type brain. This then leads to the greater systemizing behaviour.

But looking at the actual figures, I’m not sure that we can then make that leap to thinking this might lead to either same sex attraction or to transexuality (and yes, I’m aware that the two things are different yet intertwined). For weactually find that some 17% of men have the female or empathic brain type. But the numbers of men who are either gay or transexuals is (depending upon who you ask, the higher numbers relate to those who have had a homosexual experience, the lower to those who self-define as gay) is somewhere between 1or 2% and 10%. Similarly, we also find that 17% of women have the male or systemizing type brain and the number of those who self-define as lesbian is, I think, even lower than those men who identify as gay.

Further, we’ve found no evidence that the number of gays/lesbians in the men /women who have the female/male brain type is any different from their number in the general population.

So while it is still possible that there is a connection between systemizing and empathizing and sexual identity, as we can’t actually see any correlation I tend to think that it’s unlikely. Trivialising slightly, being left or right handed is also something determined by hte structure of the brain, but we see no correlation betwen male and female brain types and this, either. It may just be that there are many things determined by difference in brains and what we’re looking at here with the EQSQ tests is only one of them, the others caused by, umm, different differences in the brain.

A new research paper out making a slightly odd claim about the way in which women walk.

Love songs may rhapsodise “something in the way she moves”, but a sexy walk is not a sign that a woman is ready to become pregnant. In fact, a new study suggests that the way a woman walks changes during her monthly cycle, and that the most seductive wiggle occurs when she is least fertile. As such, a woman’s walk is just another of her feminine wiles, experts say, designed to put off unsuitable partners from a distance.

If she flaunts herself too openly at fertile times, she could be made pregnant by an unsuitable man, so women may have an evolutionary interest in sending out mixed messages, says Meghan Provost and her team, from Queen’s University, Ontario.

That last, that a woman has an interest in sending out mixed messages is indeed true, although perhaps not for the reasons given there. The thing is we get back to this thing of breeding and evolution as being a subset of Game Theory. For, as is well known, for a man to have the maximum number of children possible he wants to impregnate the maximum number of women possible. However, for a woman to raise the maximum number of children possible she needs a man to stick around and help raise them (this is all entirely different in modern times, but was true up until just a couple of centuries ago and it’s the hundreds of thousands of years of the species’ development that create these inbuilt habits).

Now this getting the man to stick around part would mean that the woman needs to appear sexually attractive even when she isn’t fertile. Now as we know from that earlier paper about lapdancers and their tips, men can, at some subliminal level, tell when a woman is indeed fertile. So as and when the woman is not fertile she could therefore be swaying those hips just to remind the man, as a trick to make him remember what he’d be giving up if he went elsewhere.

However, there are those who dismiss all such “just so” stories from evolutionary psychology. Quite who is right here I wouldn’t even want to hazard a guess: I’m sure that some of the subject is indeed true, that some of the stories are just so, but don’t perhaps, have the capacity or knowledge of the subject to work out which ones are.