You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Emile comments on Stupid Questions Open Thread - Less Wrong Discussion

42 Post author: Costanza 29 December 2011 11:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (265)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Emile 04 January 2012 03:18:44PM 10 points [-]

Many flowers are optimized for being easily found by insects, who don't have particularly good eyesight. To stick out from their surroundings, they can use bright unnatural colors (i.e. not green or brown), unusual patterns (concentric circles is a popular one), have a large surface, etc.

Also, flowers are often quite short-lived, and thus mostly undamaged; we find smoothness and symmetry attractive (for evolutionary reasons - they're signs of health in a human).

In addition, humans select flowers that they themselves find pretty to place in gardens and the like, so when you think of "flowers", the pretty varieties are more likely to come to mind than the less attractive ones (like say that of the plane tree, or of many species of grass - many flowers are also prettier if you look at them in the UltraViolet.). If you take a walk in the woods, most plants you encounter won't have flowers you'll find that pretty; ugly or unremarkable flowers may not even register in your mind as "flowers".

Comment author: peter_hurford 05 January 2012 05:57:48AM 0 points [-]

Also, flowers are often quite short-lived, and thus mostly undamaged; we find smoothness and symmetry attractive (for evolutionary reasons - they're signs of health in a human).

That makes sense, thanks. Do you have any more references on this?