Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdaisy!datanguay
From: datanguay@watdaisy.UUCP (David Tanguay)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Cold blooded cuteness
Message-ID: <7362@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 14:14:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.7362
Posted: Thu Aug  1 14:14:06 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Aug-85 01:25:45 EDT
References: <2972@topaz.ARPA> <320@rti-sel.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 36

> >   Reactions to the softer, more rounded forms of younger animals and birds 
> >   have been studied by biologists.  The same sort of reactions are found 
> >   across species, never mind cultures.  
> >   For instance, if a cardboard model is
> >   placed in a bird's nest, next to the real hatchling, and it is made even
> >   more rounded (what is called "supernormal"), the adult seems to prefer it
> >   over the real hatchling.  And just watching the drawings comparing model to
> >   hatchling, you had to admit the model was cuter.  
> 
> Suggestive, but what does 'seems to prefer' mean? Greater feeding
> frequency? And have the results been replicated? And how do you
> quantify 'cuter': 30% cuter? 60% cuter? Saying that birds pay greater
> attention to a model that's more rounded than its own young is one
> thing; extrapolating this to a general cross-species genetic
> predisposition for something you call 'cuteness' is quite another.
> 'Having to admit' a high degree of cuteness is hardly a scientific
> observation.
> 
> A scientific experiment like the above doesn't mean a lot out of
> context, and you haven't mentioned either corroboration or criticism
> of the findings. I'm not familiar with the study you site since I'm
> not an animal behaviorist, but I'll wager that there's not a consensus
> on its validity OR meaning among animal behaviorists.

I've read about this as part of a series of experiments (where? one of:
Scientific American (doubtful), Science Digest (probable), Omni (maybe) all
about a year ago). The goal of the experiments was to show that birds (and some
other critters that I can't recall) don't really have much in the way of
mother-love, it's really just a set of programmed responses to physical
stimulii. For example, a mother bird (I think it was a dove) would feed
anything that poked at it's craw. It would as soon try to hatch a round rock
as it would an egg. There were some other things, one having to do with an
object of a certain temperature touching the bird at the right spot, but I
don't really remember ...

David Tanguay