A blackpill analysis of this article (my comments in bold): https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/...anishing-grandmothers-and-the-decline-empathy
Unlike chimpanzees and our other Great Ape cousins who almost never let anyone near (let alone hold!) their infants, human mothers are the only primates who let other people touch, handle, hold, care for….and sometimes neglect their babies. Human mothers are also unprecedented among primates in possessing the ability to selectively care for their offspring. The human record has consistently shown that mothers in our species demonstrate by far the highest rates of abandonment, neglect, and infanticide.
The same biological mechanism, that essentially turns females into cold-hearted genetic fitness selectors in mating, is also actively influencing how females will treat their own offspring. That mechanism even allows for the mother to kill her own child.
In her careful analysis of this difficult question, however, she readily acknowledges that like most mammals, and perhaps to a greater extent, humans are neurobiologically predisposed to respond to infant “cuteness” cues that activate a strong desire to hold, hug, and care for babies, pups, and cubs of all kinds. The ethologist Konrad Lorenz was the first scientist to systematically observe how big eyes, round heads, chubby cheeks, and other infant traits appeared to universally evoke cuteness. He called these “baby cuteness” cues kindchenschema.
There are a set of physical features that trigger the mother's instinct to bond and care for her newborn infant. Conversely, if an infant's features don't trigger the caring instinct then logically, it is possible that such an infant will trigger a rejection response in the mother.
Several decades of research inspired by Lorenz’ observations have demonstrated that chubbier babies who appear to be full term, healthy, and likelier to survive are consistently rated as “cuter” and elicit more attention and care. If you are skeptical, take a look at the picture below, and ask yourself who you find cutest among the two babies. Or perform the simple mental trick of visualizing a round-faced, chubby-cheeked, smiling baby. If, like me, you experience rising warmth in your chest and feel the urge to smile just by thinking of a baby, you have just experienced an oxytocin surge!
Babies on the left are 'incelfants', the middle 'normiefants', and the right 'chadfants'. Where the infant is on this scale determines their mother's instinctual reaction to them. The more to the right, the higher the chance of the mother adopting a caring role and feeling 'love', the more to the left the higher the chance of the mother rejecting her child and perhaps feeling disgust. So, even a mother has a biological instinct to prefer her own son to be a chadfant vs. an incelfant.
Recent advances in neuroscience have shown that exposure to cuteness cues and the presence of babies cause oxytocin (often associated with love and bonding) and prolactin (associated with lactation) hormones to surge in women. This response has been documented in mothers, nulliparous women (women who haven’t given birth to a child), and even in men, whose testosterone levels also lower in the presence of babies.
The infant's looks determine whether the mother will love the baby, and whether she will go on to produce enough milk for the baby. If the baby is an incelfant then the mother's love chemical is diminished, and her body struggles to produce enough milk, which in a sense is a means of starving the incelfant to death. So, if, even your own mother is unable to love you, and instinctually tries to starve you to death, how could any other female behave more positively toward you?
I understand this information will be very upsetting but that is not my intention. It is simply to add more evidence to the blackpill so that we can stop hoping for things to be different. Perhaps it will also give understanding to those of us who have struggled to understand why our mothers have always felt so cold toward us. It really wasn't a choice they were able to make; they were biologically programmed to respond this way.
Unlike chimpanzees and our other Great Ape cousins who almost never let anyone near (let alone hold!) their infants, human mothers are the only primates who let other people touch, handle, hold, care for….and sometimes neglect their babies. Human mothers are also unprecedented among primates in possessing the ability to selectively care for their offspring. The human record has consistently shown that mothers in our species demonstrate by far the highest rates of abandonment, neglect, and infanticide.
The same biological mechanism, that essentially turns females into cold-hearted genetic fitness selectors in mating, is also actively influencing how females will treat their own offspring. That mechanism even allows for the mother to kill her own child.
In her careful analysis of this difficult question, however, she readily acknowledges that like most mammals, and perhaps to a greater extent, humans are neurobiologically predisposed to respond to infant “cuteness” cues that activate a strong desire to hold, hug, and care for babies, pups, and cubs of all kinds. The ethologist Konrad Lorenz was the first scientist to systematically observe how big eyes, round heads, chubby cheeks, and other infant traits appeared to universally evoke cuteness. He called these “baby cuteness” cues kindchenschema.
There are a set of physical features that trigger the mother's instinct to bond and care for her newborn infant. Conversely, if an infant's features don't trigger the caring instinct then logically, it is possible that such an infant will trigger a rejection response in the mother.
Several decades of research inspired by Lorenz’ observations have demonstrated that chubbier babies who appear to be full term, healthy, and likelier to survive are consistently rated as “cuter” and elicit more attention and care. If you are skeptical, take a look at the picture below, and ask yourself who you find cutest among the two babies. Or perform the simple mental trick of visualizing a round-faced, chubby-cheeked, smiling baby. If, like me, you experience rising warmth in your chest and feel the urge to smile just by thinking of a baby, you have just experienced an oxytocin surge!
Babies on the left are 'incelfants', the middle 'normiefants', and the right 'chadfants'. Where the infant is on this scale determines their mother's instinctual reaction to them. The more to the right, the higher the chance of the mother adopting a caring role and feeling 'love', the more to the left the higher the chance of the mother rejecting her child and perhaps feeling disgust. So, even a mother has a biological instinct to prefer her own son to be a chadfant vs. an incelfant.
Recent advances in neuroscience have shown that exposure to cuteness cues and the presence of babies cause oxytocin (often associated with love and bonding) and prolactin (associated with lactation) hormones to surge in women. This response has been documented in mothers, nulliparous women (women who haven’t given birth to a child), and even in men, whose testosterone levels also lower in the presence of babies.
The infant's looks determine whether the mother will love the baby, and whether she will go on to produce enough milk for the baby. If the baby is an incelfant then the mother's love chemical is diminished, and her body struggles to produce enough milk, which in a sense is a means of starving the incelfant to death. So, if, even your own mother is unable to love you, and instinctually tries to starve you to death, how could any other female behave more positively toward you?
I understand this information will be very upsetting but that is not my intention. It is simply to add more evidence to the blackpill so that we can stop hoping for things to be different. Perhaps it will also give understanding to those of us who have struggled to understand why our mothers have always felt so cold toward us. It really wasn't a choice they were able to make; they were biologically programmed to respond this way.
