4 ms·
The author of the article clearly doesn't get it. They say "8- to 12-year-old children evaluate harms more severely when they are directed toward more attractiv
by 988747 5y ago
The author of the article clearly doesn't get it. They say "8- to 12-year-old children evaluate harms more severely when they are directed toward more attractive animals." and then tries to explain that with "beauty is pleasurable". Sorry, it has nothing to do with that.
We are genetically conditioned to be attracted to beauty, to equal beauty with health, and good genes. We choose beautiful mates in effort to maximize our children's chances of survival. The fact that we also like pretty animals, and everything else described in the article, is just a side effect of that.
- vimacs2 5y agoThis comment is like saying to somebody explaining the increased rate of car crashes with people talking on phones as a consequence of divided attention as saying that has nothing to do with that and it's because we're genetically conditioned to only focus our conscious attention on one task. Mechanics and second order effects matter. Reductionism is a useful conceptual tool but it isn't a good representation of wider reality because things are more than the sum of their parts. You seem to be missing the fact that genetics are simply encoding the proteins and it is the biological feedback systems mediated by dopamine that are actually driving our actions.