Why Are Babies Cute?

[sman]

At first the solution seems obvious: Babies are cute so that adults will nurture them (at their own expense). Further, wherever babies are being born at a rate such that not all of them can survive infancy - a ubiquitous feature among all evolved life - there should arise some kind of judgment call about which one to nurture above others, powering selection for cuteness in infants analogous to sexual selection.

 

Now, the lesson of sexual selection is like this: Pea-hens prefer mates with large, flamboyant tails which confers a non-random reproductive success for pea-cocks with that feature, causing genes for growing that feature to accumulate in the pool, but - at the same time - pea-hen preference for large, flamboyant tails is, itself, being selected for, causing genes for growing that feature - preference for large tails - to accumulate in the gene pool....which is fed back into the loop creating a non-linear function of the thing that is - at least for me - not at all as “easy to see” as R.A. Fisher described it.

 

So, with that in mind, are adults being selected for their preference for cuteness at the same time as babies are being selected for cuteness? And if so, why is it as it is instead of any number of other morphological configurations that would play on our psychology just as well? Say, protruding muzzles & augmented inter-ocular displacement?

 

In the case of pea-cocks & pea-hens the function may be grounded in fitness: The burden of a large tail is an unfakeable display of the fitness of the rest of the body, which must drag that thing around as well as survive & compete. On that model, does cuteness, the way we see it & subjectively define it today, contribute to fitness in a way that simply eludes me? Or is it just a random walk?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Babies cute? I'd say that's highly a subjective matter...personally I do not find them cute....in fact quite the opposite.

 

Babies look the way they do because that's what people look like when you iron out the wrinkles, add padding and shrink them...

 

It's about the same question as "why do well maintained cars look so much nicer than similar cars that are clearly showing their age?".

[labelwench]

That which we define as 'cuteness' actually has mathematical proportions that speak to symmetry and balance, which are visually observable traits that have measurable consequences for advantageous survival.

Lack of symmetry often poses problems for normal development depending on how severe the disparity may be.

 

Herd species, such as we are, also tend to prefer familiar features over those which are greatly removed from the baseline average.

 

This tendency can also be observed in other species (dogs and horses in my experience) which will sometimes discriminate with extreme prejudice toward offspring which present noticeable differences.

[sman]

Babies cute? I'd say that's highly a subjective matter...personally I do not find them cute....in fact quite the opposite.

 

Myself, I’m pretty indifferent toward human babies. Some people, OTOH, go totally goo-goo over them - I’m sure you know what I mean. So yes, definitely, it’s a subjective matter. Also, not all babies are cute & some are cuter than others. But that doesn’t mean the bulk of the bell-curve is meaningless: Most people find most babies at least moderately cute.

 

If I showed you a series of pictures - a small kitten... an end table... a toddler... an orange... etc - and asked you which ones were “cute” and which ones were not, I have a feeling you’d pick the same ones as most anybody. Yes, even you. You may have a penchant for Death Metal, but you wouldn’t call it “cute”. The word must mean something.

 

 

 

Babies look the way they do because that's what people look like when you iron out the wrinkles, add padding and shrink them...

 

It's about the same question as "why do well maintained cars look so much nicer than similar cars that are clearly showing their age?".

 

Maybe...

 

Clean interior, no-rust body & well-maintained motor are signs of *fitness* in a car. And maybe our subjectice feelings of "cute" are an automatic, crude judgement of the fitness of an up-coming animal. That really is the question I'm thinking of.

[sman]

That which we define as 'cuteness' actually has mathematical proportions that speak to symmetry and balance, which are visually observable traits that have measurable consequences for advantageous survival.

 

Like what? What are some of these visually observable traits and why do we call them cute? That’s what I’m curious about. If these traits have, as you say “measurable consequences for advantageous survival” then the problem washes away - but do they? Would the cutest babies today be more likely to survive in a nomadic stone-tool society than the rest? Even a very subtle advantage, say 1%, would put it to bed.

 

 

Lack of symmetry often poses problems for normal development depending on how severe the disparity may be.

 

Symmetry is an available indicator of fitness for many -most?- species across the bilatera. An asymmetrical baby is certainly not cute - and would likely be left out in the woods - but I think there’s more to it than symmetry.

 

Herd species, such as we are, also tend to prefer familiar features over those which are greatly removed from the baseline average.

 

This tendency can also be observed in other species (dogs and horses in my experience) which will sometimes discriminate with extreme prejudice toward offspring which present noticeable differences.

 

I’ve noticed - only through my reading & such - that populations tend to actively hem the variation in the gene pool. Chimps do it with behavior! I find this fascinating & perplexing in itself, but off-topic here. I'm upholding that, even where all babies are discerably healthy, some are cuter than others... and not all can be eligible for adulthood (and therefore the propagation of, not only the traits for cuteness in infants, but idea of cuteness in adults).

[labelwench]

The juvenile features of most mammals, of proportionately large head and eyes, are indicators of it's young age and requirement for care, as you suggest in your opening post, sman. The description of 'cute' is a subjective term that varies somewhat between cultures with symmetry given equal weight across the board, IMO.

 

Any lack of symmetry may lead to potential development problems which will pose some challenges for the individual and their immediate family and community in the terms perhaps of greater need of support, less ability to contribute. From experience, we have observed that proportionate young tend to develop more quickly and require fewer resources for their nurture. They are sooner able to contribute to the group by small chores, less need of watching, caring for younger siblings etc.

 

There are some disorders that can not be detected at an early age but as a rudimentary yardstick, the symmetry that we define as 'cute' has a higher percentage for optimum development at an earlier age. Society selects for 'recruits' that will yield the best return for the investment of time and resources as a strategy.

 

At the genetic level, nature intervenes to invoke (through hormones) for most mothers to bond with their children regardless. (Not to suggest that most fathers do not also invest in their offspring.) At the societal level, another level of selection soon creeps in and greater attention and resources are often bestowed on those whom we find pleasing of form and/or disposition.

 

Those, based on my personal observations, are the survival advantages of being perceived as 'cute' by the standards of one's society.

 

 

 

 

 

Which of these three babies is the 'cutest'?

[Deepwater6]

The juvenile features of most mammals, of proportionately large head and eyes, are indicators of it's young age and requirement for care, as you suggest in your opening post, sman. The description of 'cute' is a subjective term that varies somewhat between cultures with symmetry given equal weight across the board, IMO.

 

Any lack of symmetry may lead to potential development problems which will pose some challenges for the individual and their immediate family and community in the terms perhaps of greater need of support, less ability to contribute. From experience, we have observed that proportionate young tend to develop more quickly and require fewer resources for their nurture. They are sooner able to contribute to the group by small chores, less need of watching, caring for younger siblings etc.

 

There are some disorders that can not be detected at an early age but as a rudimentary yardstick, the symmetry that we define as 'cute' has a higher percentage for optimum development at an earlier age. Society selects for 'recruits' that will yield the best return for the investment of time and resources as a strategy.

 

At the genetic level, nature intervenes to invoke (through hormones) for most mothers to bond with their children regardless. (Not to suggest that most fathers do not also invest in their offspring.) At the societal level, another level of selection soon creeps in and greater attention and resources are often bestowed on those whom we find pleasing of form and/or disposition.

 

Those, based on my personal observations, are the survival advantages of being perceived as 'cute' by the standards of one's society.

 

 

 

 

 

Which of these three babies is the 'cutest'?

 

As usual, [under the Rose] some very goods insights. To answer your "which is the cutest?" question, I think I may lean toward which child has similar traits as the healthiest of my clan or desired traits that I think they should have. I'm not an expert on any of this, but i've often wondered if adults treat babies differently by this perception.

 

As there have been studies of how men and women look for different things in a prospective mate such as height, bone structure, hair color, etc. I wonder if adults (parents) are partial to one kind of cuteness or trait when it comes to their babies if only subconciously.

 

As a parent of two I honestly couldn't detect any favoring for one of my children over the other when they were babies. Even so that's not to say it did not exist without me realizing it. I read an article in the recent past about how far we would go to save ourselves in life/death situations. The article gave the following moral dilemma. If you and group of other adults were hiding in a basement with a crying baby and there were soldiers looking to kill the group on the floor above, would you kill the baby or let the group do it to save the many?

 

As I said when my children were babies I couldn't detect any favoring, but if I were in a situation similiar to above and I was able to silence one of my children with a hand and had to choose which one had to die I don't think cutness, facial features, bone structure etc. would play into it. I'm not honestly sure how I would decide. Of course ironically they are now typical teenagers, doing typical inane teenage stunts and I often find myself wondering why I have let them live this long, but that's another story.

 

On a different note, [sman] you ask "what are some of the visually observable traits' but I think there is more than just visually observable factors. There is the cool texture of their skin and hair. I also like the unique smell of newborns compared to adults (aside from baby powder). Like the difference between a puppies breath to an adult canine.

 

As adults we seem compelled to protect babies cute or not, but I wonder if what we are really looking after is protecting the acme of human innocence, not the baby face itself.

[sman]

The juvenile features of most mammals, of proportionately large head and eyes, are indicators of it's young age and requirement for care, as you suggest in your opening post, sman. The description of 'cute' is a subjective term that varies somewhat between cultures with symmetry given equal weight across the board, IMO.

 

Any lack of symmetry may lead to potential development problems which will pose some challenges for the individual and their immediate family and community in the terms perhaps of greater need of support, less ability to contribute. From experience, we have observed that proportionate young tend to develop more quickly and require fewer resources for their nurture. They are sooner able to contribute to the group by small chores, less need of watching, caring for younger siblings etc.

 

 

So, you’re in the confers survival camp. But do you think maybe some of the features being selected for- all of which, together, we experience as “cute” - are arbitrary genetic meanders?

[sman]

On a different note, [sman] you ask "what are some of the visually observable traits' but I think there is more than just visually observable factors. There is the cool texture of their skin and hair. I also like the unique smell of newborns compared to adults (aside from baby powder). Like the difference between a puppies breath to an adult canine.

 

Good point! Selection can act on any observable phenotype, even behavior. An infant can coo, drool, scream, cry, look cute... & very little else in competition with contemporaries for the nurture of adults.

 

I think, if we like to think about these things, that it’s essential to keep in mind the timescales necessary for morphological/behavioral features to evolve in an organism with such long gestation as us, and thus to realize that the modern era is not important to consider. The environment is one without medicine, refrigeration... etc - and many more babies are being birthed than the economy will support. Moral dilemmas like the one you describe are salient, even commonplace.

Edited August 17, 2012 by sman

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Myself, I’m pretty indifferent toward human babies. Some people, OTOH, go totally goo-goo over them - I’m sure you know what I mean. So yes, definitely, it’s a subjective matter. Also, not all babies are cute & some are cuter than others. But that doesn’t mean the bulk of the bell-curve is meaningless: Most people find most babies at least moderately cute.

 

If I showed you a series of pictures - a small kitten... an end table... a toddler... an orange... etc - and asked you which ones were “cute” and which ones were not, I have a feeling you’d pick the same ones as most anybody. Yes, even you. You may have a penchant for Death Metal, but you wouldn’t call it “cute”. The word must mean something.

Who are you?!?! And How did you know of my fondness for Metal!?!?!

 

Kitten cute the rest not so much and kitten definitely not as cute as puppy!!!

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

A less subjective (I think that's the word I was looking for) question is , Why are some people/animals predisposed to finding babies appealing and feel the urge to care for offspring in many cases even when it is not their own. That is unless you are specifically speaking of human's interaction with human offspring.

 

I suggest it is hardwired by nature in some creatures to ensure the offspring receives care. The phrase a ____________ only a mother could love comes to mind.

Because in the case of a person/animal afflicted as such it really does not matter how butt ugly or sickly the child/animal, the offspring will receive all the care that can be provided.

 

At some point in time it is likely that a sickly child would have been ignored. Though I find it hard to believe by it's mother judging by the amount of crap mothers seem to be willing to take from their offspring, the lengths mothers are willing to go to preserve the life of children with severe health issues, their willingness to sacrifice for mentally/physically deficient (I before E except after C and a bout a dozen other exceptions) and the lengths their willing to go to protect them.

 

There has been a lot said about hormonal influences that in usual circumstances strengthen the bond between offspring and parent which likely influences the cute factor as well.

 

Surely the "cute" factor is all about preservation of the species by

1. instilling the desire to produce offspring (before and after hormones switch on sex drive)

2. Instilling the desire to protect and care for the offspring within the herd in as many members as possible

 

But, since there are those of us that are not so enthralled by the idea of having children, it raises the question Exactly how much of the influence is from programming Ie. environment.

 

In some cultures eating live earthworms is a delicious treat, having not been raised eating worms I find the idea extremely disgusting.

 

Could lack of interest in babies be due to being raised in an environment where offspring are ignored, neglected and mistreated?

It is commonly believed that offspring raised in such an environment tend to engage in the same behavior when dealing with offspring.

And what of the bond between some species and humans (or other species). Why are generally intelligent animals seemingly predisposed to care not only about the offspring of their own species but the offspring of other species as well?

 

Again it seems to come down to environmental influence....more importantly it seems the answer lies in understanding what causes the "need' for companionship in herd animals....Which AFAIK are the only ones (with a few exceptions I'm sure) that care for their offspring until maturity.

 

At some point I'm sure all of this boils down to a natural drive for preservation of the species.

 

 

 

 

As to the answer to the question "what is cute?"

Depends on environment. More specifically hwat features are valued within a given herd. to some extent...

Though not all features are easily fit into a particular _______. For example blue eyes have no more value as a survival aid than say brown but to some people are extremely attractive, same for lips, ears, hair, teeth. Some people find skinny attractive, some prefer more heavyset...but in a society where physical appearance has little to do with survival...I don't know. If you can figure out what causes "attractive" you will find the answer to "cute". And if you can figure out what causes "love at first sight" you will gain insight into "attractive" and "cute".

 

I was attracted to my wife long before I ever spoke or was even within a hundred feet of her. Something about her had my attention the instant I saw her across the store and all I knew was she was "the one". Does she fit the typical mold of skinny, tall, blonde etc. ...no odds, are there are many who wouldn't notice her or even give her a second glance. So why even after 10 years is she still so irresistibly cute to me. It is obviously not for reproductive purposes as she cannot have any more kids and hers are grown which eliminates any drive to ensure they reach adulthood.

 

I dunno.....Sorry for the ramble.

Edited August 24, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[sman]

A less subjective (I think that's the word I was looking for) question is , Why are some people/animals predisposed to finding babies appealing and feel the urge to care for offspring in many cases even when it is not their own. That is unless you are specifically speaking of human's interaction with human offspring.

 

I meant humans & human babies, but only because I thought they would be the easiest to talk about.

 

 

Could lack of interest in babies be due to being raised in an environment where offspring are ignored, neglected and mistreated?

 

Dude, I think we grew up in the same household!

 

 

As to the answer to the question "what is cute?"

Depends on environment.

 

I say no, “cute” is a cultural universal and even if it wanders a little from culture to culture - and from generation to generation within cultures, like fads in music or hat-wearing - that the general idea is grounded in human nature. The way food taboos are culturally universal, even as different cultures have different foods tabooed. I think part of my initial response to you belies this assumption of mine:

 

If I showed you a series of pictures - a small kitten... an end table... a toddler... an orange... etc - and asked you which ones were “cute” and which ones were not, I have a feeling you’d pick the same ones as most anybody.

 

However, since I started this thread I’m beginning to see this as it is: an unsupported assumption. It’s possible that certain aspects of the attractiveness of our young - especially any aspects that may be independent of fitness - may diverge arbitrarily in the cultural stream.

 

 

... blue eyes have no more value as a survival aid than say brown but to some people are extremely attractive, same for lips, ears, hair, teeth. Some people find skinny attractive, some prefer more heavyset...but in a society where physical appearance has little to do with survival...I don't know. If you can figure out what causes "attractive" you will find the answer to "cute". And if you can figure out what causes "love at first sight" you will gain insight into "attractive" and "cute".

 

I was attracted to my wife long before I ever spoke or was even within a hundred feet of her. Something about her had my attention the instant I saw her across the store and all I knew was she was "the one". Does she fit the typical mold of skinny, tall, blonde etc. ...no odds, are there are many who wouldn't notice her or even give her a second glance. So why even after 10 years is she still so irresistibly cute to me. It is obviously not for reproductive purposes as she cannot have any more kids and hers are grown which eliminates any drive to ensure they reach adulthood.

 

I dunno.....Sorry for the ramble.

 

It’s interesting that your “ramble” stumbles into sexual selection when I started the thread with the same digression. Seems off-topic but, also seems like there’s a link between the questions in this thread and neoteny.

 

I have an answer for you though; why you - an genetic animal - are allowed to live your epicurean life despite genetic designs for procreation. You’re already grown. The genes are done with you. They can’t peek out into the air, notice that your girl’s been fixed, and take alternative actions with your design. All they can do is lay down some embryological instructions and hope for the best. If that particular model turns out to be a Darwinian failure … c’est la vie. Try again with the next one.

 

Perhaps the biggest mistake of the genes is endowing us with the choice to ignore them, and the ability to appreciate that life can be much better for us if we do. :D

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

It’s interesting that your “ramble” stumbles into sexual selection when I started the thread with the same digression. Seems off-topic but, also seems like there’s a link between the questions in this thread and neoteny.

the wiki link proved extremely interesting reading

It makes sense to me now FTR my wife is 4'9" with shoes on, has big eyes, small button nose, short legs compared to her torso, etc etc....those blokes are on to something there!. As are you it seems.

[King Author]

There are really nice and most informative post. I am totally surprised after read your all post. According to me Its true that baby are cute and i think it's because they have not done bad deeds like us. You are also cute when you small. Because you are innocent. It's a nature.

[Guest MacPhee]

Suppose Deepwater's post #7 had shown babies of 3 different ethnic groups? What would the response have been?

[Buffy]

Suppose Deepwater's post #7 had shown babies of 3 different ethnic groups? What would the response have been?

 

Well as long as we made sure that we had equal percentages of racists from each of the ethnic groups, probably no difference at all.

 

Gotta avoid selection bias ya' know.

 

 

Racism tears down your insides so that no matter what you achieve, you're not quite up to snuff, :phones:

Buffy

[Guest MacPhee]

"I like an avatar which shows a blonde blue-eyed Arayan maiden! It is so encouraging" A.H