Philosophy of Cuteness

[Saeros]

I actually don't have anything to say about that picture, i just thought it was cute. What is it about certain things that make them seem cute to us? Are our brains just wired up to see certain things as being cute? If that's the case, why do we find other species to be cute? why are some inanimate objects cute? What possible evolutionary advantage could that provide?

 

[Lostwitheal]

I can think of one example. Babies are generally perceived as cute, which might cause adults to be more understanding, loving etc. If they weren't seen as cute then perhaps it would be more likely that parents would not take as great a care of them, or actively harm them, thus leading to less people who don't think of babies as cute in the gene pool?

Babies animals could be an obvious extension of that, perhaps even some objects. Others? Well, humans are all damn crazy

 

[kantor1003]

Well, I think baby humans are one of the ugliest kinds of babies and doesn't come anywhere near the likes of tigers and cats.

 

[Cognisant]

Are our brains just wired up to see certain things as being cute?

They seem to be, but, how?
How is a neural net made inherently biased towards anything?
...
In all likelihood babies, kittens, puppies, etc, produce a "nurture me" pheromone, which would explain why humans keep pets, and those rare cases when wild animals adopt the offspring of another species, although it's almost never successful.

Repeated exposure to this pheromone in the presence of "cute" things would create an association between the desire to nurture and symbols of cuteness like big eyes, softness, and certain sounds.

Well, I think baby humans are one of the ugliest kinds of babies and doesn't come anywhere near the likes of tigers and cats.

I agree, but then I've had more exposure to kittens and puppies than I've had to actual human offspring, and there's that whole uncanny valley thing too, they're clearly human, but so... not, at the same time.

 

[Lostwitheal]

Well, I think baby humans are one of the ugliest kinds of babies and doesn't come anywhere near the likes of tigers and cats.

I'm of pretty much the same opinion

 

[Anthile]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/200803/cute-the-brain

 

[Cognisant]

So they know it happens, they just have no idea why.

Reply: Yes they do, it's because such & such area becomes active.
(Not Anthile's btw, just a hypothetical idiot, which Anthile is not)

Uh huh, fantastic, so there's increased blood-flow and bioelectrical discharge, but that still doesn’t explain why that particular area became active or why it has the affect it apparently dose, it's like there's this grand rubix cube and it's just sitting there, observed, but not played with.
*practically giggling with excitement* I want to play with it.

 

[Galthian]

I find myself often questioning "What made this evolve in this way?". I find the answers to be rather interesting.

Cuteness, as Cognisant said has probabley a lot to do with pheromones (I tried to do research on this topic, but kept coming up with different colognes).

I'm currently trying to figure out a career path and if there is some sort of job/degree I could get that dealt with this kind of thing, I'd appreciate it if someone told me..
Perhaps some sort of neuroscience? Figuring out exactly how our brain evolved and works..

 

[Derocrates]

I find myself often questioning "What made this evolve in this way?". I find the answers to be rather interesting.

I think now it transcends into a different state- the metaphysics behind the biology to some degree. What I mean by that is, if you go based upon the idea that everything will tend towards disorder, evolution seems to otherwise use an impromptu evaluation system based upon how organisms are treated as a result of the phenotypes. But let's put aside the combinatorics and the possibilities that genetics are comprised of and let us instead analyze how evolution [as cold, sterile, but efficient as it is] capitalizes on the way that this cuteness is used by smaller versions of any species. Where cuteness plays a role in almost deferring any kind of...physical harm?...or let's be more conducive to say that it sets the conditions for other animals in nature of its kind, to assist it in living. So what is this immediately saying about entropy? Well if everything tends toward disorder, whereby the animal should in fact die, evolution is effectively commandeering entropy by stating it as an investment. The currency of this investment is the entropy and states that, if you nurture this ball of carbon in the trillions [baby animal], it will give rise to other animals in the trillions [of cells]. There will be genetic variance and the promise for more entropy. That's what life seems to be in the universe...A big numbers game...how heuristic.

 

[echoplex]

Aside from the nurturing instinct, cuteness might also assist humans in avoiding dangerous predators by causing them to find pleasure in the mere sight of relatively harmless creatures (most 'cute' things are harmless, no?*). I also think many of our "awww" reactions to cute animals are perhaps an expression of relief that the stimulus didn't turn out to be something trying to eat us. And if the typical 'cute' things (small, fragile, weak, etc.) are around in great abundance, the assumption would be there aren't many predators around since they would've easily eaten the little cuties if they were. This may explain the desire to be surrounded by cuteness.

*except for me, rwaaaar *burp* nevermind...

 

[Galthian]

I think now it transcends into a different state- the metaphysics behind the biology to some degree. What I mean by that is, if you go based upon the idea that everything will tend towards disorder, evolution seems to otherwise use an impromptu evaluation system based upon how organisms are treated as a result of the phenotypes. But let's put aside the combinatorics and the possibilities that genetics are comprised of and let us instead analyze how evolution [as cold, sterile, but efficient as it is] capitalizes on the way that this cuteness is used by smaller versions of any species. Where cuteness plays a role in almost deferring any kind of...physical harm?...or let's be more conducive to say that it sets the conditions for other animals in nature of its kind, to assist it in living. So what is this immediately saying about entropy? Well if everything tends toward disorder, whereby the animal should in fact die, evolution is effectively commandeering entropy by stating it as an investment. The currency of this investment is the entropy and states that, if you nurture this ball of carbon in the trillions [baby animal], it will give rise to other animals in the trillions [of cells]. There will be genetic variance and the promise for more entropy. That's what life seems to be in the universe...A big numbers game...how heuristic.

So you're viewing it as what is essentially a mass of carbon cells that have only two purposes (proliferate & variate?) I suppose that's what it all comes down to. Though it is disheartening to think of.

I didn't notice that trend of entropy before.. very interesting

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Helplessness, nonthreatening, naive, underdeveloped, lovable and a touch of beauty compromises cuteness.

 

[Trebuchet]

I agree, but then I've had more exposure to kittens and puppies than I've had to actual human offspring, and there's that whole uncanny valley thing too, they're clearly human, but so... not, at the same time.

I LOVE the idea of babies falling in the uncanny valley. Even though I am a mother, I know exactly what you are talking about. It never occurred to me that this might be why babies can be so.... Hmm, I see why you had to resort to an ellipsis.

As for what makes something cute, here is a section of one article I found:

Scientists who study the evolution of visual signaling have identified a wide and still expanding assortment of features and behaviors that make something look cute: bright forward-facing eyes set low on a big round face, a pair of big round ears, floppy limbs and a side-to-side, teeter-totter gait, among many others.

Cute cues are those that indicate extreme youth, vulnerability, harmlessness and need, scientists say, and attending to them closely makes good Darwinian sense. As a species whose youngest members are so pathetically helpless they can't lift their heads to suckle without adult supervision, human beings must be wired to respond quickly and gamely to any and all signs of infantile desire.

The human cuteness detector is set at such a low bar, researchers said, that it sweeps in and deems cute practically anything remotely resembling a human baby or a part thereof, and so ends up including the young of virtually every mammalian species, fuzzy-headed birds like Japanese cranes, woolly bear caterpillars, a bobbing balloon, a big round rock stacked on a smaller rock, a colon, a hyphen and a close parenthesis typed in succession.

From the NY Times Science section 1/3/06​

 

[Agent Intellect]

What caused humans find babies cute? Because people like to take care of things that are cute. Our ancestors that found babies cute would take care of their babies (which shared these same 'find babies cute' genetics) so they could grow up and find their own babies cute and take care of them. People who were repulsed by their helpless, completely dependent, wailing, drooling, smelly shit machines (or were just apathetic towards them) would not take care of them, so they wouldn't grow up and pass on 'repulsed by babies' genetics.

When a woman is in labor, her levels of oxytocin ("Liquid Trust") are highly elevated. Oxytocin is a neuromodulator, allowing for neuroplastic change. With oxytocin levels elevated, a mother is capable of undergoing large neuroplastic changes, which allows her to "rewire" her brain for taking care of the new offspring. Much the same (and more) happens in the brains of fathers in pair-bonds.

But let's think about it objectively: if babies weren't cute and didn't "rewire" our brains to care for them, who would want to deal with it?

 

[snafupants]

imagine how far ahead of the curve humans would be intellectually if they were not consumed with reproduction, gestation, babies and the like. humans would be the ufos at this point.

 

[babrock]

imagine how far ahead of the curve humans would be intellectually if they were not consumed with reproduction, gestation, babies and the like. humans would be the ufos at this point.

I have to say that that patticular bit of yearning there seams to me to realy make no sence. First off you seam to be wishing we had no sex drive (something i personaly rather enjoy and apriciate). Also secondly it has been of some benifit after all. It is at least somewhat responsible for my birth and the birth of quite a few other people of some importance and value.