Yeah, except that
An extension, the extreme male brain theory, hypothesizes that autism is an extreme case of the male brain, defined psychometrically as individuals in whom systemizing is better than empathizing; this extension is controversial, as many studies contradict the idea that baby boys and girls respond differently to people and objects.
The same is applicable across all levels of Environment and Environmental influences.
Toss in Biology plus Environment, the division into narrow fields, disciplines, and sub-disciplies and the whole thing gets squishy.
Extreme "male brain" theories are, let me put it, wrong headed. We don't know enough to make those kind of conclusions. People study them because they limit the scope of the investigation. I concede there is a utility there, gotta draw the line somewhere, but to then recursively wander back to a gross generalization of the entire subject population is more than a bit intellectually pretentious.
We've been here before with the Social Darwinism, eugenics and ethnographic movements of the 1880-1945s. It was a disaster, from both scientific and humanitarian considerations. Yet there was useful work: clinical therapies for Hypothermia and deep insights into the epidemiology of Sexual Diseases, to name two, that resulted. But at what a cost!
And, too, there are some personal experiences, that I don't need to get into, driving my intellectual position. (If ya remember what I'm referencing. ;-)
So when we start talking about tendencies that's ALL we're talking about. And we're talking low-order tendencies, to boot, spread across the entire test or subject population.
