4 ms·
Finding and documenting the earliest evidence of kissing is legitimate research, and good on them. But, yes, making even the slightest assumption that this evi
by kbelder 3y ago
Finding and documenting the earliest evidence of kissing is legitimate research, and good on them.
But, yes, making even the slightest assumption that this evidence is related at all to the actual origin of kissing is ridiculous. I think researchers are very reluctant to add "of course, it obviously started 100,000 years earlier, we just don't have direct evidence" to their papers. That tacit acceptance that lack of evidence is evidence of a lack shows up in a lot of different fields, like cosmology, even our response to COVID.
I get that researchers don't want to add speculation to their publications, but overstating the certainty of evidence isn't good either. We all need some Bayesian initial priors set.
- cjohnson318 3y agoOne data point is that of all creatures, only bonobos and humans kiss. Humans don't seem to learn the concept of a kiss until at least a year, and even then it's more of a mirroring gesture. It seems like a much higher level social construct than smiling, laughing, nuzzling, etc.
- bitcurious 3y agoI guess I’m not sure what makes a human kiss distinct from a dog licking another dog’s face, for example.
- cjohnson318 3y agoWell, dogs also lick their paws when they're nervous, their wounds, and their butts. They lick us, and we interpret it as a kiss, but who really knows what why.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]