WEBVTT - BrainStuff Classics: Why Do We Make Our Monsters Cute?

0:00:01.880 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Brainstuff, a production of iHeartRadio. Hey brain Stuff

0:00:07.600 --> 0:00:11.799
<v Speaker 1>Lauren vogelbaumb here with another classic from the vault. If

0:00:11.840 --> 0:00:14.880
<v Speaker 1>you're listening as this episode comes out, we are officially

0:00:14.960 --> 0:00:18.319
<v Speaker 1>in spooky season, though I think spooky season lives in

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:21.840
<v Speaker 1>your heart year round. So today I wanted to revisit

0:00:21.880 --> 0:00:24.759
<v Speaker 1>a fun one about the psychology behind all of those

0:00:24.880 --> 0:00:31.640
<v Speaker 1>pop culture instances of monsters made adorable. Welcome to brain

0:00:31.680 --> 0:00:37.040
<v Speaker 1>Stuff from How Stuff Works, Hey brain Stuff, Lauren vogelbaumb Here.

0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:40.320
<v Speaker 1>If you can think of a terrifying monster from popular culture,

0:00:40.600 --> 0:00:43.040
<v Speaker 1>I can show you a version of that monster designed

0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:46.400
<v Speaker 1>to be cute. From Freddy Krueger and Godzilla to Cthulhu

0:00:46.479 --> 0:00:50.080
<v Speaker 1>and Pennywise the Dancing Clown. We seem determined to transform

0:00:50.120 --> 0:00:54.720
<v Speaker 1>our monsters into plushies, cartoon characters, and other cuties. But

0:00:54.840 --> 0:00:58.120
<v Speaker 1>why let's take a second to discuss what monsters and

0:00:58.160 --> 0:01:01.280
<v Speaker 1>cuties actually are. You can go down the rabbit hole

0:01:01.320 --> 0:01:04.720
<v Speaker 1>on the cognitive origin of monsters, but essentially, a monster

0:01:04.840 --> 0:01:08.080
<v Speaker 1>is an unreal creature that's awesome in size or novel

0:01:08.080 --> 0:01:11.880
<v Speaker 1>in its chimerical combination of natural forms. It threatens and

0:01:11.959 --> 0:01:15.280
<v Speaker 1>terrifies us even as it relates some lesson or understanding

0:01:15.360 --> 0:01:18.600
<v Speaker 1>of the world around us. For instance, a werewolf combines

0:01:18.680 --> 0:01:22.039
<v Speaker 1>human and lupine characteristics, but also relays a message about

0:01:22.040 --> 0:01:24.839
<v Speaker 1>the dual nature of human beings. We are both beast

0:01:24.959 --> 0:01:29.080
<v Speaker 1>and something that aspires to be more. Acuteness is easier

0:01:29.120 --> 0:01:31.640
<v Speaker 1>to nail down, if only because it's so rooted in

0:01:31.680 --> 0:01:35.360
<v Speaker 1>conditioned responses to human infants. The features that we call

0:01:35.440 --> 0:01:38.800
<v Speaker 1>cute in babies, big eyes, fat cheeks are simply the

0:01:38.800 --> 0:01:42.600
<v Speaker 1>ones that hijack human attention and response. After all, the

0:01:42.680 --> 0:01:45.679
<v Speaker 1>infant is the fruit of our genetic programming. We can't

0:01:45.680 --> 0:01:48.880
<v Speaker 1>help but attend to its needs. This view of cuteness

0:01:48.880 --> 0:01:51.880
<v Speaker 1>falls in line with Charles Darwin's theory that natural selection

0:01:52.080 --> 0:01:55.880
<v Speaker 1>favors creatures that, in infancy possess features that cause adults

0:01:55.960 --> 0:02:00.640
<v Speaker 1>to protect them. Austrianithologist Conrad Laurens when on to outline

0:02:00.680 --> 0:02:05.480
<v Speaker 1>these specific triggers involved, including short, thick extremities, and clumsy movements,

0:02:05.520 --> 0:02:09.080
<v Speaker 1>in addition to the big eyes and chubby cheeks. To

0:02:09.160 --> 0:02:12.680
<v Speaker 1>what degree does cuteness hijack our senses? Though scientists have

0:02:12.720 --> 0:02:15.880
<v Speaker 1>observed one seventh of a second response time in adults

0:02:16.000 --> 0:02:20.239
<v Speaker 1>to unfamiliar infant faces, but not to adult faces. A

0:02:20.320 --> 0:02:23.240
<v Speaker 1>twenty twelve Japanese study found that people who viewed images

0:02:23.240 --> 0:02:26.239
<v Speaker 1>of infant animals performed tasks better than those who viewed

0:02:26.280 --> 0:02:30.560
<v Speaker 1>images of adult animals. In other words, cute stimuli improve

0:02:30.639 --> 0:02:35.760
<v Speaker 1>performance in tasks that require behavioral carefulness. Were simply hardwired

0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:38.920
<v Speaker 1>to become careful guardians when qutes call to us, and

0:02:39.120 --> 0:02:42.919
<v Speaker 1>that bleeds over into inhuman cuties as well the kittens, puppies,

0:02:42.919 --> 0:02:46.240
<v Speaker 1>and cartoon characters. Maybe those cute kitten posters in the

0:02:46.240 --> 0:02:50.120
<v Speaker 1>office actually serve a purpose after all. At this point,

0:02:50.200 --> 0:02:53.760
<v Speaker 1>it's easy to think of cuteness and monstrosity as separate entities,

0:02:54.000 --> 0:02:56.480
<v Speaker 1>but the two states may exist upon the same spectrum

0:02:56.520 --> 0:03:00.280
<v Speaker 1>of attention grabbing stimuli. Imagine a slider mechanism them in

0:03:00.320 --> 0:03:02.880
<v Speaker 1>a program or a video game. One direction takes you

0:03:02.960 --> 0:03:05.600
<v Speaker 1>into the realm of disgusting terror, and the other is

0:03:05.639 --> 0:03:09.720
<v Speaker 1>a one way ticket to cute town. Social scientist Maya

0:03:09.760 --> 0:03:13.840
<v Speaker 1>Jejovska Brivchinska wrote a paper on this subject, Monstrous Cute

0:03:14.080 --> 0:03:17.360
<v Speaker 1>Notes on the Ambivalent nature of Cuteness. In it, she

0:03:17.560 --> 0:03:19.880
<v Speaker 1>argues that the cute and the monstrous exist in a

0:03:19.880 --> 0:03:22.400
<v Speaker 1>single dimension, and that there is a tipping point as

0:03:22.400 --> 0:03:25.760
<v Speaker 1>to how far you can push that cute slash monstrous slider.

0:03:26.639 --> 0:03:30.000
<v Speaker 1>She writes that this spectrum quote works inevitably as a

0:03:30.040 --> 0:03:33.160
<v Speaker 1>sort of pendulum, swinging to and fro, and thus being

0:03:33.200 --> 0:03:35.200
<v Speaker 1>able to play its role only up to a certain

0:03:35.240 --> 0:03:38.280
<v Speaker 1>point where the sweetness becomes a mock and a pitiful

0:03:38.360 --> 0:03:41.839
<v Speaker 1>or ironic alter ego of itself. In other words, it's

0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:45.280
<v Speaker 1>possible to push cuteness so far that it becomes sickening.

0:03:45.720 --> 0:03:47.680
<v Speaker 1>If we're to push too far in the other direction,

0:03:48.040 --> 0:03:52.520
<v Speaker 1>arguably the monstrous simply becomes ridiculous. Of course, in either case,

0:03:52.720 --> 0:03:57.560
<v Speaker 1>individual thresholds to cute slash monster overload will vary. Monsters

0:03:57.560 --> 0:04:00.560
<v Speaker 1>and cuties may stand at opposing exaggerations on the same

0:04:00.600 --> 0:04:03.560
<v Speaker 1>slider of visual stimuli. But why would we move that

0:04:03.600 --> 0:04:07.120
<v Speaker 1>slider to begin with? In making our monsters cute, we

0:04:07.200 --> 0:04:11.200
<v Speaker 1>diminish the underlying natural or cultural horrors that they entail.

0:04:11.480 --> 0:04:14.640
<v Speaker 1>In making the cute monstrous, we also dilute its brain

0:04:14.760 --> 0:04:19.160
<v Speaker 1>hijacking potency. This might also entail what psychologist Orienta Aragon

0:04:19.320 --> 0:04:23.240
<v Speaker 1>calls a dimorphous expression, in which an overly positive emotion

0:04:23.400 --> 0:04:26.880
<v Speaker 1>produces a negative reaction. If you've ever felt the desire

0:04:26.960 --> 0:04:30.040
<v Speaker 1>to pinch an overly cute infant or kitten, then you've

0:04:30.040 --> 0:04:33.760
<v Speaker 1>felt this phenomenon firsthand. When cute gets tough to handle,

0:04:33.960 --> 0:04:37.280
<v Speaker 1>a dash of horror balances it out. It would seem

0:04:37.320 --> 0:04:40.440
<v Speaker 1>we create monsters for a variety of reasons, to entertain,

0:04:40.640 --> 0:04:44.479
<v Speaker 1>to warn, or to chastise and thrill. We turn them cute,

0:04:44.480 --> 0:04:47.320
<v Speaker 1>to dull their power, or repurpose them for commercial gain.

0:04:47.800 --> 0:04:50.440
<v Speaker 1>But the slider can always run back in the opposite direction.

0:04:50.960 --> 0:04:53.080
<v Speaker 1>We can only rob our monsters of their powers for

0:04:53.120 --> 0:05:01.599
<v Speaker 1>so long. This episode is based on the article why

0:05:01.600 --> 0:05:04.400
<v Speaker 1>do we keep turning our monsters cute? On HowStuffWorks dot Com,

0:05:04.440 --> 0:05:07.080
<v Speaker 1>written by Robert Lamb. For lots more about the science

0:05:07.120 --> 0:05:09.800
<v Speaker 1>behind monsters, check out Robert's podcast Stuff to blow your

0:05:09.800 --> 0:05:12.880
<v Speaker 1>mind and to hear a monster story he wrote. Listen

0:05:12.920 --> 0:05:15.640
<v Speaker 1>to the podcast mini series the second oil age. You'll

0:05:15.720 --> 0:05:18.719
<v Speaker 1>recognize the voice of one of the characters. Brain Stuff

0:05:18.760 --> 0:05:21.560
<v Speaker 1>is production of iHeartRadio in partnership with how stuffworks dot Com.

0:05:21.600 --> 0:05:24.320
<v Speaker 1>It is produced by Tyler Klang. Four more podcasts from

0:05:24.320 --> 0:05:27.440
<v Speaker 1>my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or

0:05:27.480 --> 0:05:29.320
<v Speaker 1>wherever you listen to your favorite shows,