= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
knb comments on Babies and Bunnies: A Caution About Evo-Psych - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (823)
This reads as though you haven't read the article. Alicorn is not arguing that evolutionary explanations should not be used.
This completely ignores the main data point presented in the article; namely, that those things are more cute than babies, which seems to need explaining.
No, she's saying the cuteness explanation offered by Dennett fails (due to a single data point, no less, her opinion about the cuteness of an animal) and that it is a cautionary note about evolutionary psychology. My comment is relevant, because the fact that we find pedomorphic things universally cute, across cultures only means that our cuteness instincts are imperfect. The fact that our evolved minds misfire sometimes is not a surprise to evolutionary psychologists, and Dennett would likely have no problem with humans finding child-evocative things cute.
They're called superstimuli,and it isn't terribly surprising that they could exist in nature as well, as I further explain in Tyrrell McAllister's comment below.