Psychologist Alan Slater of Exeter University showed pictures rated by adults as being more or less attractive to babies which were, on average, 2 and a half days old and found that babies invariably stared longer at faces which adults had rated as more attractive.
Babies are born with an eye for beauty. Infants only hours old will choose to stare at an attractive face rather than an unattractive one - and they also prefer to listen to Vivaldi straight, rather than Vivaldi backwards.
According to Alan Slater, a developmental psychologist at the University of Exeter, humans may have a biologically ingrained preference for beauty.
As Steven Pinker has argued we are not blank slates! Here's yet another report that is a nail in the coffin of the blank slate myth. Attraction to beauty is an instinctive trait that is present from birth.
Dr Alan Slater, a psychologist at Exeter University, said this proved that attraction to better-looking people was an instinctive human trait, something we are all born with.
"It used to be thought that new-born babies came into the world as a totally blank sheet of paper on which experience will then write," he said yesterday. "But what we are finding more and more is that babies are born with a number of in-built mechanisms that help them to organise and make sense of their newly-perceived world - and one of these is that they display an attractiveness effect."
Another preference present from birth is the ability to appreciate Vivaldi played forward. But then why is it that I didn't come to recognize and appreciate his Seasons until I was well into adulthood?
Beautiful faces look more typically human than do less attractive faces.
In a baby's mind, these beautiful faces may represent the stereotypical human face, says Slater, which they have evolved to recognise. Such built-in information helps babies learn quickly including the ability to pair faces with sounds like voices.
So much for the myth of beauty being in the eye of the beholder.
"Attractiveness is not simply in the eye of the beholder, it is in the brain of the newborn infant right from the moment of birth and possibly prior to birth," the University of Exeter researcher said.
In spite of the huge number of nails now splintering the Blank Slate coffin into toothpicks some diehard defenders keep soldiering on fighting for the myth that humans are only products of their social environments. See Godless Capitalist's most recent encounter with one of these intellectual dinosaurs in GC's post In which a Lewontinite is introduced to the 21st century. Secular faiths can be just as strongly held as religious ones.
By Randall Parker at 2004 September 07 02:09 AM Biological Mind | TrackBackI have nothing against this study, but why must the scientist over-generalize with statements like: "It used to be thought that new-born babies came into the world as a totally blank sheet of paper on which experience will then write" Such a statement deserves the ignoble prize. Unsubstantiated because its immanently falsifible with only a casual personal of the philosophy texts of the last several thousand years. Tabla Rosa was never a universally held "thought." Even granting it has been thunk in the past, it's largely been the CONTENTIOUS claim; not the most widely-held orthodox one.
I don't think "It used to be thought" needs to imply that it was ever the dominant theory, merely that it was once given serious consideration; now, it's not.
For most of history the tabula rasa view was not widely held. But in the 20th century it was very widely held. One can still find academics who profess to believe it.
One can still find academics who profess to believe it.
Indeed, one can find guys like Myers who think Gould is a great scientist but are completely ignorant of Trivers, Hamilton, parental investment theory, kin selection, etc.
I do think the steady onslaught by Pinker, Buss, Ridley, Dawkins, Segerstrale, Geoff Miller, Chandler Burr and even pop books like "men are from mars" are eroding the social constructionist consensus among the public. The structure is fragile now, but a good hit or two from the hapmap will probably shatter it.
This whole discussion of tabula rasa, from Pinker on down seems confused to me. Tabula Rasa was a theory originated by John Locke to describe Ideas and Conceptual knowledge. To this extent I think modern neuro-science quite supports the tabula rasa view. People do not have innate ideas, ideas are formed through experience provided by the senses and various kinds of mental reflection. Without experience even the most basic of neuron structures won't form properly, let alone conceptual knowledge.
Granted the idea that all aspects of personality and the basis of preferences are socially constructed is quite anti-empirical. But this is more a primacy of consciousness argument, than a tabla rasa argument. If we believe hard enough these people think, we can alter reality to our will. It seems sloppy to associate this with idea the one started by Locke.
To this extent I think modern neuro-science quite supports the tabula rasa view. People do not have innate ideas, ideas are formed through experience provided by the senses and various kinds of mental reflection. Without experience even the most basic of neuron structures won't form properly, let alone conceptual knowledge.
The "tabula rasists" take it a good deal further, though - they don't just make the (obvious) statement that our knowledge of English or Japanese is due to the environment that we're brought up in. They believe there is no such thing as genetically influenced human nature. They really believe that the environment/society can program not just whether we speak X language or wear Y shirt, but whether we smile or frown, whether we prefer men or women, or whether we have a partner engage in "free love" without feeling sexually jealous.
Tom Bouchard's twin experiments have dealt a severe blow to the modern tabula rasaists. It is inconceivable that some people still believe there is no genetic component to intelligence. The brain comes with an amazing range of "pre-sets." Any parent who has more than one child already knew that.
And to think I've heard people describe this world as a fortunate accident! The things shared here only point to a Creator, who made us with the ability to appreciate the beauty of His creation ...
What if we go back to "ground zero", and begin with the premis of a blank slate. Then it becomes obvious that as humans evolve, experience becomes "hard wired" into our psyche. The next logical conclusion is transmission, through the genome, to the unborn. Hence Dr. Slater's conclusions takes the form of a self fulfilling prophecy. Our "socialization" is transmitted to the unborn, hence the unborn accepts the standards it inherits, and gravitate toward what it has innately been programmed to accept as a standard for beauty. The old chicken and egg paradox.
but who can really defy which kind of face could be called beauty?
I think that it is fairly obvious whats hot and whats not jane
Anyone who has a symmetrical face is considered beautiful, regardless of heritage.
The study would have made more sense if it had said babies tend to stare at symmetrical faces rather then saying beautiful faces.
When people say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" that basically means people have different preference's, like the color of a persons hair/eyes or the way they dress. So people are attracted to beautiful people, but more so to beautiful people who possessed the certain traits you are attracted to. If for example you had a set of identical twins but one has dyed their hair and has colored contacts on, and each twin has a different style of clothing, you will probably be attracted to one twin more then the other even though they are just as beautiful, its just personal preference of certain traits.
This is where society comes in, because society can influence your preference of certain traits.
Babies arn't programed to like blond hair and blue eyes or black hair and brown eyes, they are just programed to be attracted to symmetrical faces, beautiful faces.
In a way babies are programed to appreciate anything beautiful wither it be faces or music.
Hi
I'm not particularly attractive. I'd rate me 5 out of 10. But babies tend to stare at me all the time. I used to be in sales and every baby that came through the door stared at me. Personally I think your study is flawed.