i remember my sister introduced me to Chobits (the anime) two years ago. Finished 1-10. Yesterday i finished all the rest (11-26) at one sitting. Each episode is 30 mins.

wonderful anime. i tried to clear the thoughts away using paul's wheel, but the feeling remains, and lingers around my mind, affecting whatever i think and do. The reason why one thinks is because of what one feels, and an unfeeling person cannot think. In this case, my mind is so bloggled with feelings and reflections that i couldn't sleep, couldn't play, couldn't think, couldn't read, couldn't study. I think thats what a good anime does to you. The concept forces you to think, and if it doesn't, the images force you to feel. The power of anime is amazing. It can be used or abused.

I wonder why even though some anime characters are out of proportion, we still instinctively find them beautiful. I am quite sure that an anime girl's face wouldn't fit the golden mask [the eyes are far too big and the mouth is far too small]. The anime guy's nose is too small. But why, despite the golden mask thingy, we still find them beautiful?

I've heard that the golden mask measures beauty, but not 'cuteness'. Now that is an interesting comment. what is the difference between beauty and cuteness? Isn't a cute person imperfect in terms of genetics? (I am assuming here that ultimate beauty shows perfection of the genes that control the shape of the face) So is our attraction to cute people, after all, a genetic defect?
On scrutiny, this genetic defect makes evolutionary sense. If the population is only attracted to a small number of people, then there would be harsh competition between species.

Now the thing here is that there must be a balance between competition and propagation. In the case of spiders and crabs, there can be very fierce competition between members of the same species for a mating partner, because their birth rates are very high, and they mature quickly. Fierce competition for mates would ensure that only the best would propagate. Humans, however, cannot afford that. The gestation period is 9 months, the maturity age is 14 years, and most of the time only one is given birth at a time. There cannot be so much competition such that only one in a hundred can mate: if that were so, we would have long been extinct. Also, the chance of genetic defects is also, to a certain extent, lowered by the high sperm count and the rather harsh environment in which the sperms must travel through in order to fertilise the egg.

Back to what I mentioned in the previous paragraph, if the people only competed for the small, say 5-10% with faces that fit the golden mask well, then the remaining would not be able to propagate well. We must also bear in mind that the average human lifespan in the prehistoric times was about 36 years. The average lifespan does not take infant mortality into account.

How was this problem overcome? I think that there were a few ways:

1. lower expectations
2. stronger instinct to reproduce
3. other criteria for choosing a mate

The first one is very subjective, so i would not try to tackle that.

The second one doesn't seem to be true, as almost all other animals are more desperate for sex. Perhaps this is due to education? If that is the case we ought to observe the natives. I would not say whether i agree with this or not.

The third one seems to be quite important, especially since the invention of language. It is not hard to show that people do not only look out for looks, but also other attributes that are easily observed through speech or writing. However, the attraction would not be intuitive, it would only appear after a certain amount of time. However, if the people who did not invent language yet could not survive, then how can we be existing now?

Then the so-called "love at the first sight" come into play (lincoln stated that it is not true love, I agree, but for the purpose in this entry, a physical attraction would suffice). If everyone is only attracted to the 5-10% that are more beautiful, wouldn't there be very few couples, and hence a low fertility rate?

Here is where I think "cuteness" comes into play. My assumption here is that cuteness and beauty are mutually exclusive. So, the physical attraction to cute people is actually a measure that allows for a higher fertility rate.

If beauty is hereditary, and that beauty and cuteness are mutually exclusive, then it would be quite easy to test this hypothesis:

Couples consisting of only cute people would not have children who grow up to be beautiful.
Couples consisting of only beautiful people would not have children who grow up to be cute.

Of course, a surefire way to disprove this theory is to use the golden mask on cute people. If it fits, my argument would all go down the drain. If my hypothesis is correct, then I suppose cuteness is probably second class beauty, technically speaking.