9 comments

[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 29.3 ms ] thread
The question is why some humans find house cats fascinating and abide them.

I hypothesize that parasites affecting the human nervous system (and possibly the feline one) are in the causal chain.

Toxoplasmosis is not necessarily the parasite at issue, but it could be; and it serves as proof of an organism that can be transmitted between humans and house cats, and also that is known to cause behavioral changes (albeit in nonhuman mammals).

I feel this article makes up an elaborate story when a much simpler explanation is available if you've lived with a cat: they are nice to have around.
An interesting hypothesis, but I don't see similar fascination with pet snakes.
> canid predators like hyenas

Hyenas are not canids; they are feliformia ("cat-like" carnivorans).

There is a pretty graphic/emotionally-charged image in the article (I understand it's part of nature), for those who might not have the strength to see something like that today.
(comment deleted)
> What is going on here? Do we really like cats because they have ‘baby faces’ or because they are ‘neotenous’ or kittens sound a little like human babies? These are common theories, but make little sense to me. The relationship between baby-faces and animal liking is weak to begin with (eg. Archer & Monton 2010). Cats objectively do not look that much like babies.

This strikes me as a too simplistic view of neoteny.

You could have a look at Anime or Pixar or cartoon characters and ask the same questions. They also objectively don't look like kids if you make a photo comparison side-by-side (at least in certain styles). Their features are so exaggerated they strictly speaking don't even look human.

Nevertheless, they can cause strong reactions and emotions in viewers in a similar way OP here described for cats.

My guess is that both (cats and anime) hacked our visual network in a sense: They took some visual features that evoke "cuteness" in humans and which likely evolved for the purpose of driving us to protect our kids - and dialled them up to 11 and combined them with not child-like features to evoke a response that's even more intense than the one we have for kids.

So in a sense, they look more like kids than actual kids do.

I think there is a general principle here:

- evolutionarily evolved feelings do not need to be logically consistent with the evolutionary benefit, as a long as they cause the evolutionarily beneficial behavior

An example that I observe is in guinea pigs. These are quintessential prey animals, and benefit from being under cover. If domestic guinea pigs don't have cover for a few hours, and are then given it, they run under the cover. Do they then breathe a sign of relief, and show signs that their emotion is one of renewed safety? No, they jump up and down, and squeak noisily in excitement! Apparently being under cover is cool.

You remember that super popular kid (+5 CHA) in middle or high school who wouldn't acknowledge your existence in a group, but would suddenly somehow make you feel like the center of the world when there was no one else available and they deigned to turn their attention to you? That's a cat. My theory, anyway.

Also, have to mention a relevant quote from the beginning of Dungeon Crawler Carl which features an awakened cat as one of it's protagonists:

"I get it cats are assholes, but you know why people like cats despite their assholeness? BECAUSE THEY CAN'T F*$#ING TALK! If cats could talk and they were all like you, they'd be extinct because we'd have killed them already!"