Scientifically speaking, why are puppies so adorable?

Home Forums Science & tech Scientifically speaking, why are puppies so adorable?

Viewing 14 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #96414
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why did we evolve to find puppies so heckin’ cute?

    • #96416
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >why did we evolve to find these cubs so heckin’ cute?
      A lot of evopsych is glorified Posthockery so allow me my armchair suggestions.

      1. Humans find a variety of mammal baby animals cute. This indicates an underlying babyface schema existing across species. This begs the question whether, for example, non-human primates think cubs and kitties are cute. Thus, general baby schema across species.

      2. For some cat and dog species, being friendly to them (potentially to the point of taming them) paid off. Finding them cute as babies makes symbiosis/taming more likely. Thus, evolving to find them cuter -> easier domestication.

      3.Cats especially seem to have evolved to be found cute by humans. There are some theories on how cat voices imitate human infant screams, for example. Thus, approximation of other species’ appearance to be cuter for humans.

      • #96422
        Anonymous
        Guest
        • #96423
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >But human babies disgust me.
          But you’re also not going to reproduce anyway, so what were you trying to argue?

        • #96425
          OP
          Guest

          Just in case there’s any confusion, this wasn’t from me, the OP.
          I’ma tripscrote this shit so there’s no negative energy associated with me in this cuteness thread.

          • #96429
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >not disgusted by human babies
            The fucks wrong with you OP

        • #96426
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Human babies of other ethnicities disgust me. Babies from my own ethncity look cute.

          • #96427
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >baby is a rabid racist, how cute

            • #96428
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Yes.

          • #96430
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Male primates have a higher likelihood to kill babies of other tribes than of their own. Humans too – infanticide is more likely with other-race babies. Especially when the mother is still fertile.

            • #96433
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Well yes that’s natural. Only virtue signalling white people would imply otherwise. For every race it’s not as if we have the impulse to smash their skulls in, but if we see a starving, cryin baby of another ethnicity abandoned in a field we leave the ugly thing there.

        • #96440
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I do remember hearing from a study that most animals species are conditioned to like juvenile trait, regardless of species.

          I suspect human may be hardwired to find any other human baby than their own ugly

          Male primates have a higher likelihood to kill babies of other tribes than of their own. Humans too – infanticide is more likely with other-race babies. Especially when the mother is still fertile.

          And we may be hardwired to push away anyone we believe to be competing against our interest.

          • #96448
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >I suspect human may be hardwired to find any other human baby than their own ugly
            Unlikely. Have you ever seen a grandmother seeing her newborn grandchild for the first time?

            • #96449
              Anonymous
              Guest

              How about the following: I’ve heard of a study saying people are hardwired to recognize their family, the experiment took far away family members and photoshoped some visage traits on strangers, then asked people to rate those photo of random strangers.
              And don’t we keep saying "look, he has is grand father eyes!"

              I suspect face recognition algorithm are now really strong enough to recognize family members.

              • #96451
                Anonymous
                Guest

                There is even more complexities involved. Babies have a stronger likeness to the father than the mother, which is supposed to reinforce a belief that the father is the biological father. This provides net surviveability for the baby.
                These days it is fairly well known that a lot of fathers are unaware they are not the biological father to their children, which shows that we are not hardwired to recognize our own family but to believe so.

                • #96453
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >that a lot of fathers are unaware they are not the biological father to their children
                  That’s an edge case compared to the norm, fathers have no reason to think their wives would lie.
                  Not in any 1st tier countries were the slightest medical checkup will reveal the truth.
                  And even in poor countries were there’s large concentration of population, no contraception and rape go rampant due to social taboo it would not be worth calling "a lot" compared to the norm.

                  • #96455
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >That’s an edge case compared to the norm, fathers have no reason to think their wives would lie.
                    I think 5 percent is a bit more than just an edge case.
                    >Not in any 1st tier countries were the slightest medical checkup will reveal the truth.
                    And in some countries such as France this is illegal. You may wonder why…

                    • #96458
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >And in some countries such as France this is illegal. You may wonder why…
                      Only to do it without going through the justice system and for very good reasons. Laws already cover all the reasons you would want one as a decent human being, but you can’t say you won’t pay child support if a strangers paper say it’s not your child.
                      And we both know some uncivilized bastard need to be discouraged from spreading FUD to make money over insecure father, or shame families over their affairs.

                      For the French scrotes: https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F14042
                      With a legal paternity test even if the suspected father refuse to do the test, a judge can still interpret it as a confession (to keep him from running away from his responsibilities)

                      >I think 5 percent is a bit more than just an edge case.
                      And where did you get that number?
                      That’s still an edge case and there’s reason to think it’s less than that. At least in developed countries.
                      https://insidestory.org.au/the-fatherhood-myth/

                      I hope you know there’s a lot of lies like the 30% figure, be it from clinic who make money of those test, or religious/misogynous nutjob who will lie and dramatize to push men against women.

        • #96454
          Anonymous
          Guest

          it’s because your subconscious feels terrible about the inevitability lifetime of gay arbitrary suffering that child is about to endure

        • #96469
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Not woman detected.

          I am the same. I find animal babies heckin’ cute, but human babies are literally just fat, shapeless bags of shit, puke and piss.

        • #96472
          Anonymous
          Guest
      • #96431
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >This begs the question whether, for example, non-human primates think cubs and kitties are cute. Thus, general baby schema across species.
        So what happens if you put a cute kitten in a cage with gorillas (that already have had a meal). Dessert or cuddling?

        • #96432
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Search for stuff like "ape grooming/adoptig/cuddling kitten".

          • #96434
            Anonymous
            Guest

            First hit:
            >Playing the role of mommy, the baboon also became protective of her little one, particularly when other animals at the zoo expressed interest in the new, furry creature.
            >Alas, as is the case with so many other complicated relationships, it’s not all love and roses for the seemingly-strange bedfellows.
            >The zoo’s manager told Hebrew-language Walla News that the baboon has started stealing the kitten’s food — and that if she keeps up the behavior, the two may have to be separated.
            >For now, they’re still enjoying one other’s company.

            That was … unexpected.

            • #96435
              Anonymous
              Guest

              It’s hit and miss with stories like these. Sometimes they get friendly, sometimes they get so friendly they smash, sometimes they smash each others skulls in.

        • #96465
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Gorillas aren’t really meat eaters, now chimps on the other hand…

          • #96466
            Anonymous
            Guest

            So it remains true then that a cat is fine too?

        • #96467
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >cute kitten
          no such thing tho. fuck you

          • #96470
            Anonymous
            Guest

            There is, pic. related.

            • #96473
              Anonymous
              Guest

              People who like cats have weak genes

      • #96437
        Anonymous
        Guest

        https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1632520438072.webm

        >This indicates an underlying babyface
        But I freaking hate babies

      • #96442
        Anonymous
        Guest

        https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1632565386536.webm

        >Finding them cute as babies makes symbiosis/taming more likely
        what are odds tigers would eat their orangutan mom

        • #96444
          Anonymous
          Guest

          We’ve seen case of tiger/lion who didn’t eat their human mom/father so assuming there’s a link between the two they’ll recognize each other.
          Hypothetically.

        • #96447
          Anonymous
          Guest

          https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1632574781387.webm

          After the human era, the orangutan will rise. They will find strange ruins from a mythological era but it will never be understood.

          imagine pitbulls being there

          Let’s not.

      • #96462
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >1. Humans find a variety of mammal baby animals cute
        Which is an absolutely terrible trait. If you see a cute baby wolf/tiger/bear then mama is probably nearby and will rip you to pieces of you try to play with the heckin cute woofer/meowser/growler boi.

        Without the ability to communicate and have your parents tell you to stay away from these animals that signify a very real threat then thinking baby animals are cute would be a very strong negative selection pressure. We might as well think venomous snakes are cute and have an urge to pet them.

      • #96468
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >A lot of evopsych is glorified Posthockery
        The hilarious thing is, the people that say this most vehemently find "reproduction crisis" aka sociology and psychology respectable """sciences""".

    • #96417
      Anonymous
      Guest

      cuz they’re cute :3

    • #96418
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >why did we evolve to find these cubs so heckin’ cute?
      What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

    • #96419
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >why did we evolve to find these cubs so heckin’ cute?
      We evolved to find neotenous features cute because human babies have them, and they’re 100% reliant on your patience and good will to survive.

    • #96420
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >NOOOOOO NOT THE WOOFER DOGGO NOOOOOOOOO NOT THE HECKIN POOR GOODBOI PUPPERINO BORKER LONGBOI CLOUDY BOI NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT THE BAMBOOZLED MLEM BLEP BORKING FLUFFER DOGGERINO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    • #96421
      Anonymous
      Guest

      because it’s a shared mammalian trait

    • #96424
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Theres a morphological component to the proportions of the eyes, face, hands, head, which define juveniles of almost any species.

      These proportions are like a cheat-code that induces care in social animals. Even human babies will be cared for by other mammals, depending on a few factors.

      Domesticated species like dogs demonstrate neoteny, or the persistence of juvenile features into adulthood, like having floppy years.

      Humans also neotenize themselves through sexual selection. – Big dreamy eyes being a clear example of how humans differ from their direct ancestors.

      Pic related is a little ridiculous but shows the idea

      • #96436
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Me on the left

      • #96439
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >hands
        How

        • #96445
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Complex body features start off proportionally bigger than they end up in adulthood.

          For human hands, it could be moreso about digit width/length ratios than the full thing, but by measuring sizes across life span you’ll find a lot of complex body features grow less than proportionally with height.

          • #96446
            Anonymous
            Guest
    • #96441
      Anonymous
      Guest

      THEY evolved to be cute so we don’t fuckin’ kill them.

    • #96450
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Survival of the friendliest

      • #96456
        Anonymous
        Guest

        bit racist innit

      • #96471
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Reminder that oxytocin isn’t the love hormone, but the IFF hormone. Or if you want to all it love hormone, then also enemy hormone of xenophobia hormone.

        God I freaking hate IFLS.

    • #96452
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Domesticating wolves caused humans to evolve instincts to care for and bond with young wolves. A caveman with a wolf buddy has a big survival advantage over one who doesn’t.

      We tend to think wolves evolved into dogs and humans remained exactly the same, but we were both wild animals struggling to survive. It’s like how domesticating cows caused humans to evolve lactose tolerance. Domesticating an animal effects our own evolution.

    • #96457
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I think there’s also a component of (the lack of) facial recognition as well. Notice how you’ve never seen an "ugly" dog unless it’s REALLY bonked up? We’re wired to easily find the flaws in human faces (so we don’t fuck some downie), but recognizing ugliness in animals isn’t nearly as beneficial. Our assumptions of what constitutes pretiness in critters, in other words, is a lot less restrictive.

      That’s also probably why furries are so popular. Slap an animal head on a human body, and you get the best of both worlds.

      • #96459
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Some animals have more facial uniqueness than others. Beagles for example.

    • #96460
      Anonymous
      Guest

      To protect our babies

    • #96463
      Anonymous
      Guest

      mlemito

    • #96464
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because domestication gives an evolutionary advantage. We take the babies of other animals and bend them to our will because we find them "cute".

Viewing 14 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.