and both males and females with autism have higher than average androgen levels. males have higher ft levels naturally meaning that there is less of a change required in the hormone levels to reach a point high enough to cause the developmental changes seen in autism. this is a possible cause for the male prevalence seen in autism. cognitive versus affective empathy empathy can be subdivided into two major components: cognitive empathy (also termed 'mentalising'), the ability to understand another's mental state; affective or emotional empathy, the ability to emotionally respond to another's mental states. affective empathy can be subdivided into personal distress (self-centered feelings of discomfort and anxiety in response to another's suffering) and empathic concern (sympathy towards others that are suffering). studies found that individuals with autism spectrum disorder (asd) self-report lower levels of empathic concern, show less or absent comforting responses toward someone who is suffering, and report equal or higher levels of personal distress compared to controls. the combination of reduced empathic concern and increased personal distress may lead to the overall reduction of empathy in asd. studies also suggest that individuals with asd may have impaired theory of mind, involving the ability to understand the perspectives of others. the terms cognitive empathy and theory of mind are often used synonymously, but due to a lack of studies comparing theory of mind with types of empathy, it is unclear whether these are equivalent. notably, many reports on the empathic deficits of individuals with asperger syndrome are actually based on impairments in theory of mind. baron-cohen argued that psychopathy is associated with intact cognitive empathy but reduced affective empathy while asd is associated with both reduced cognitive and affective empathy. criticism the empathising-systematising theory has been criticised on multiple grounds. time magazine wrote that baron-cohen "most dramatically wandered into fraught territory in 2003, when he published the book the essential difference, which called autism a manifestation of an extreme 'male brain'—one that's 'predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems,' as opposed to a 'female brain,' one that's 'predominantly hard-wired for empathy'—and ended up on the wrong side of the debate on science and sex differences." a book review published in the journal nature, wrote:"the idea that males are more interested in systemizing than females merits serious consideration ... it is unquestionably a novel and fascinating idea that seems likely to generate a rich empirical body of literature as its properties are tested. the second part of the theory—that females are more empathic than males—is more problematic ... other measures, however, show that males are highly socially skilled."others criticize the original eq and sq, which form most of the research basis behind the notions of empathising and systemising. both measure more than one factor, and sex differences exist on only some of the factors. isabelle rapin and helen tager-flusberg said about the theory; isabelle rapin ... finds dr. baron-cohen's theory "provocative" but adds that "it does not account for some of the many neurological features of the disorder, like the motor symptoms , the sleep problems or the seizures." others worry that the term "extreme male brain" could be misinterpreted. males are commonly associated with "qualities such as aggression," says helen tager-flusberg ... "what's dangerous is that's the inference people will make: oh, these are extreme males." some research in systemizing and empathizing in early life indicates that boys and girls develop in similar ways, casting considerable doubt on the theory of sex differences in these areas. a cognitive style that more naturally opposes empathizing is machiavellianism, which emphasizes self-interest and which has been shown to be strongly correlated with competitiveness; evolutionary theory predicts that males will be more competitive than females. in contrast, research has generally shown a weak negative correlation between empathizing and systemizing. the extreme male brain theory has also been criticized, with critics saying that the tests behind this theory are based on gender stereotypes, and not on hard science. professor catherine lord of ucla says the theory is based on "gross misinterpretations" of developmental data. professor david skuse of university college london claimed that communication differences between genders are likely to be small. meng-chuan lai, assistant professor of psychiatry at the university of toronto, says the results have not been replicated. as a basis for his theory, baron-cohen cites a study done on newborn infants in which baby boys looked longer at an object and baby girls looked longer at a person. however, a review of studies done with very young children found no consistent differences between boys and girls. critics say that because his work has focused on higher-functioning individuals with autism spectrum disorders, his work requires independent replication with broader samples. a nature article published in 2011 says, "some critics are also rankled by baron-cohen's history of headline-grabbing theories—particularly one that autism is an 'extreme male' brain state. they worry that his theory about technically minded parents may be giving the public wrong ideas, including the impression that autism is linked to being a 'geek'." phenomenology and the cognitive sciences characterized the essential difference as "very disappointing" with a "superficial notion of intelligence", concluding that baron-cohen's major claims about mind-blindness and systemizing–empathizing are "at best, dubious". the spectator says that "the emphasis on the ultra-maleness approach is no doubt attributable to the fact that baron-cohen works mainly with higher functioning autism and asperger's syndrome." in her 2010 book delusions of gender, cordelia fine used baron-cohen's views as an example of "neurosexism"; she also criticized some of the experimental work that baron-cohen claims supports his views as being methodologically flawed. in the 2017 book inferior: how science got women wrong and the new research that's rewriting the story, science journalist angela saini criticizes cohen's research, arguing that he vastly overstates the significance of his findings and noting that the study on babies on which he bases much of his research has never been successfully replicated, while his studies of foetal testosterone levels have consistently failed to provide any evidence for his theories. another neuroscientist, gina rippon, criticizes his theories in her book the gendered brain: the new neuroscience that shatters the myth of the female brain. she has criticized baron-cohen works, cataloguing his book the essential difference as "neurotrash" because of its weak research methods. reviewing her work for nature, neuroscientist lise eliot has supported rippon's approach, arguing "the hunt for male and female distinctions inside the skull is a lesson in bad research practice". rippon also argues against using "male" and "female" for describing different types of brains which do not correspond to genders.