Going back to the reasoning of the type I-need-him-because-I-love-him. Just watched the video of Dan Dennett’s presentation on TED called “Cute, sexy, sweet, funny“. Nothing new for those in the field of science but for the rest of us might sound somewhat surprising (that’s one of the reasons I love it!).
I always thought I liked sweet stuff because it was sweet. It appears I got the causality backwards! I don’t like honey because it is sweet but honey is sweet so that I like it. Sugar is high energy which was what we needed when we were had a more active lifestyle. Nature wired our brain so that we preferred sugar. There is actullay nothing intransically sweet in honey; it is our brain that makes it experience as sweet.
A friend of mine who has no kids and doesn’t want to have any of his own was telling me the other day how his little niece manipulated him into giving her his undivided attention. She was so unbelievably cute that he simply could not resist. We think we like babies because they are cute. Backwards reasoning again. Babies are dependent on us as they need to be cared for and protected. Being cute is their way of making us like them.
So where does it leave us with the original argument? One thing’s for sure: nothing’s certain. Just because we perceive the connection going one way doesn’t mean we’ve figured the direction right (besides there can be more than two dimensions to that plane) and we have to be careful making assumptions. I choose “Curiosity over assumptions” as a motto any time.