Is it unreasonable to think that humans are instinctually( shallow..

[Newmummee]

If you read this article and indeed I've read this somewhere else too that babies have evolved to have big eyes and look endearing and cute etc so that the mothers will want to take care of them and not abandon them.

If this is in fact true and inherent in us as humans then are we actually quite shallow that evolution had to make sure we looked after our children!

www.parents.com/baby/care/newborn/newborn-guide/

Your thoughts?

instinctually is not a word

I can't be arsed to care

www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/instinctually

Dictionary says it is???

how does that theory pan out when not all babies are cute and plenty of babies are abandoned?

Can't be arsed to care but can be arsed to reply..... Interesting

mmm most new babies look like Winstone Churchill, mine included.

didn't abandon them though.

Well I've learned a new word tonight...

Not true.

my sister was an ugly baby yet mum kept her. She really had a face only a mother could love

She's beautiful now.

Most baby's look like potatoes

Surely it's just that we associate big eyes/heads and round features with babies which ignites in us snuggly feelings of protectiveness, rather than it being the other way around?

And it's not necessarily shallow to take visual and other sensory information into account - the reason that poo smells so horrible to us is because it could be harmful if we ate it. But dogs for example will often eat various kinds of animal (and presumably, human?) poo because it isn't unpalatable to them.

If this was evolution, then babies being cute would have evolved from babies being ugly and thus being abandoned/unloved.

If the babies were so ugly and unloved, they wouldn't have survived, as they'd have been abandoned.

This paradox cannot exist, ergo this article and idea is bullshit.

bet you glad you started this thread op.

It rather sounds to me like how they used to say women wiggle when they walk and have big breasts to attract mates. When really they are just how women are built and so therefore men (heterosexual) find those features sexy. We did evolve to walk that way to attract men we evolved hips to carry children.

Babies look cute to us because we love babies, not because they have big eyes.

Ha Juno

I don't wiggle when I walk

Most baby animals look cute - look at lambs for instance - lovely with mint sauce & gravy & cute & grow into hideous reptile-eyed moronic sheep

My arse jiggles but there is no wiggle

I'm more of a wobbler than a wiggler if truth be told

newmummie yes you do. You might not realise, or it might be a tiny single wiggle, but unless you have somehow evolved differently (or of course, you have hip issues) then your hips absolutely 'wiggle' as you walk.

It would be physically impossible for you to walk without your hips raising on simultaneous sides.

Alternating - not simultaneous!

I wiggle - DH the pervert contrives to follow me upstairs whenever possible

I think I heard something about this 'research' except it was coming form the angle that puppy dogs developed puppy dog eyes so they'd look like babies and we'd look after them.

God I'm sure there is real science somewhere in this area but no wonder it just comes across as evopsych bullshit when this is how it percolates to the layman

Well that's it then juno I'm going to have to get my OH to walk behind me to film me so I can check how much of a wiggle I do have!! I'm curious to know now

You should be able to feel your hips moving as you walk.

You don't need to film it.

I've just walked up and down the kitchen and ended not been able to walk naturally

I am now catwalk worthy

Apparently this is way they gave ET big eyes too, so the audience would fall in love with him. It worked.