Who would have thought it? Apparently estrogen makes you susceptible to finding babies cute. And you can check for that by including post-menopausal women in your test sample, including some on HRT and some not. Amazing. But I suspect the research may also be in line for an IgNobel.
Just for the record, I thought the differences in the photos were blindingly obvious, and yes, I am under the influence of estrogen.
I find the disembodied baby heads distressing. Really.
I found Baby D cutest. I found the others odd-looking.
Biologically female and not prone to finding babies cute. Larger kids, sure. And the actions of babies can be cute. But in and of themselves? No, not even ones in the family.
You could interpret it another way, that estrogen makes you better able to distinguish ugly babies from cute ones. What’s the possible benefit of that? If you have an ugly baby you’re going to take worse care of it?
This sentence particularly bothers me, as I like all sentences to make sense:
“Pre-menopausal women and young women taking oral contraceptives – which raise hormone levels artificially – were more sensitive to variations of cuteness than their respective comparison groups.”
Young women on the pill are a subset of premenopausal women. How can you construct a meaningful comparison group? Meh.
I agree with stacie about Baby D. I had to read the instructions twice to get it. And what is a cute baby anyway? I know on kittenwar I thought one of the losingest kittens was cute.
Then again, I tend to find kittens cuter than infants overall. I get fascinated by infants sometimes and how they seem to puzzle out the world, like any baby animal, but I tend not to find them cute.
But then, these studies are sort of weird anyway. Probably one would respond differently at different points in one’s cycle or whatever equivalent for meds.
Maybe the kitten thing I say above is just modern culture reshaping our brains. After all, although I have no pets I know of folks who have them instead of kids. hence cute overload and such? Not much of a theory really.
Odd. I can certainly see the difference, but I find the uglier babies cuter.
I guess that’s Evolution preparing me for Bad News… ;}P>
I can see the difference without much trouble.
Note: While I’m male, around mid-September I will be 66.6 years old. So my level of manly-mannish hormones has probably gone down considerably, and estrogen level might not have gone down or gone down rather less.
I’m going to chime in on immediately thinking Baby D was cutest. Oddly, I was equally of the opinion that Baby C was least cute. So what does that tell me? Boys have to be cuter to get my attention? My standards for female beauty are off cultural norms? (On the other hand, I thought both female babies were cuter than either male baby.) Post-menopausal, though, so my judgement may be damaged by my hormone levels.
It strikes me that Baby D looks most elfen. Perhaps we like her because of our avocation?
Hmm, and all the babies are white as far as I can see.
What does that say about the research?
I wonder what their sample group was? ***I’m not accusing them of anything***, I’m just noticing that and puzzling over it.