The New York times reads Cute Overload? Could it be? Regardless, you gotta read this article, just posted in their science section. Free Log-in required (come on, you need one, it’s the Times for Crissakes)
***Addendum: So many alert readers sent this in, thank you. Especially Mr. Brett Lider.
Or just hit up http://www.bugmenot.com for a working free login to avoid all the registration forms…
Cuteness = like crack – it says it right there on page 2.
THAT’s why I’m here 20x a day!
Cool!
That is too interesting. They say that Japan has one of the highest preferences for cute stuff. That makes me wonder which countries are least interested in cute.
Actually I thought they were mentioning or crediting your blog. It’s funny how the writer found this subject matter, huh? Could it be only syncronicity?
Wow..That’s reallly cool!!
my boyfriend called me, he couldn’t believe that the Times ran an article on cute. I’ve been obsessed with this site, and many others for a long time. and I’ve been collecting japanese toys, and stuffed animals for ages. “cute” is a good distraction from the gray, hazy days of the world’s current situation.
No registration link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/science/03cute.html?ex=1293944400&en=9942fdaf51f1211c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Frankly, I’m more surprised that there are meme scientists, and they study cuteness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cute lists this blog as one of its links.
Thanks for posting this, Meg. Glad you liked the article.
Long years ago I had a book about the art of animation, and it described how to make a cartoon character cute: give it a large head, especially large eyes, small lower face, plump belly, short limbs. In short, give it the proportions of a human baby. As for the science of it, there are obvious evolutionary reasons why our brains would be wired to think babies, or things that look like babies, are attractive. If we didn’t think so, our offspring wouldn’t survive, and we’d go extinct.
that is cool