For instance, kittens also purr, mew, play-hunt, rub themselves against people, and lick people. All of which are cute, attractive behaviors that babies lack.
To me, a baby’s babbling is a lot cuter than purring or mewing. And to me, a baby grabbing at something with its tiny hands is a lot cuter than play-hunting, rubbing, or licking.
So for me, the real conundrum is fur. As far as I can tell.
But I admit that this is based on introspection and I’m assuming that my own cuteness standard is somewhat universal.
To me, a baby’s babbling is a lot cuter than purring or mewing. And to me, a baby grabbing at something with its tiny hands is a lot cuter than play-hunting, rubbing, or licking.
Same here.
So for me, the real conundrum is fur. As far as I can tell.
Our ancestors were furrier, so we might have evolutionary baggage leading us to find furriness cute. As long as this baggage didn’t hurt human reproductive success, there would be no reason for it to disappear.
Our ancestors were furrier, so we might have evolutionary baggage leading us to find furriness cute. As long as this baggage didn’t hurt human reproductive success, there would be no reason for it to disappear.
I think this is the best explanation, but I have to admit it doesn’t satisfy me 100%. Logically it seems to me that have the cute instinct triggered by a furry creature must hurt human reproductive success at least a tiny amount. Over a long time, this arguably should have a big impact.
I think this is the best explanation, but I have to admit it doesn’t satisfy me 100%. Logically it seems to me that have the cute instinct triggered by a furry creature must hurt human reproductive success at least a tiny amount.
Well, maybe. But I would want to see some actual historical accounts or folktales of humans getting sidetracked by cute animals recently enough in our evolutionary history to matter. In the EEA, the availability of cute animals as pets would have been a lot lower than it was today. And trying to get a wild animal as a pet would’ve been harder. When you couple those facts with social norms towards reproducing, people failing to mate or take care of their kids due to being distracted by cute animals seems less and less likely.
But I would want to see some actual historical accounts or folktales of humans getting sidetracked by cute animals recently enough in our evolutionary history to matter.
Well dogs have been domesticated throughout history, as far as I know. So it seems to me that in the last 10 or 20k years there would have been decent opportunities for a lot of people to be distracted by cute puppies. Obviously before that there aren’t any records.
But it seems to me that if humans interacted with other animals on a regular basis—hunting, watering holes, etc., then it must have happened occasionally that they would interact with a baby animal from another species.
Perhaps the hunger instinct can be relied upon to steer one straight in such a situation.
Actually the fur thing makes some sense if you consider that being born furry was pretty common not that far in the past. Most hispanic babies today are born furry around the head area, and shed it over the first few weeks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanugo
Fundamentally, aren’t you asking why furry mammals are cuter than non-furry mammals?
That’s not the only determinant of cuteness.
For instance, kittens also purr, mew, play-hunt, rub themselves against people, and lick people. All of which are cute, attractive behaviors that babies lack.
To me, a baby’s babbling is a lot cuter than purring or mewing. And to me, a baby grabbing at something with its tiny hands is a lot cuter than play-hunting, rubbing, or licking.
So for me, the real conundrum is fur. As far as I can tell.
But I admit that this is based on introspection and I’m assuming that my own cuteness standard is somewhat universal.
Same here.
Our ancestors were furrier, so we might have evolutionary baggage leading us to find furriness cute. As long as this baggage didn’t hurt human reproductive success, there would be no reason for it to disappear.
I think this is the best explanation, but I have to admit it doesn’t satisfy me 100%. Logically it seems to me that have the cute instinct triggered by a furry creature must hurt human reproductive success at least a tiny amount. Over a long time, this arguably should have a big impact.
Well, maybe. But I would want to see some actual historical accounts or folktales of humans getting sidetracked by cute animals recently enough in our evolutionary history to matter. In the EEA, the availability of cute animals as pets would have been a lot lower than it was today. And trying to get a wild animal as a pet would’ve been harder. When you couple those facts with social norms towards reproducing, people failing to mate or take care of their kids due to being distracted by cute animals seems less and less likely.
Well dogs have been domesticated throughout history, as far as I know. So it seems to me that in the last 10 or 20k years there would have been decent opportunities for a lot of people to be distracted by cute puppies. Obviously before that there aren’t any records.
But it seems to me that if humans interacted with other animals on a regular basis—hunting, watering holes, etc., then it must have happened occasionally that they would interact with a baby animal from another species.
Perhaps the hunger instinct can be relied upon to steer one straight in such a situation.
Actually the fur thing makes some sense if you consider that being born furry was pretty common not that far in the past. Most hispanic babies today are born furry around the head area, and shed it over the first few weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanugo