The author's implied premise that a smile is a universal form of emotional expression vs a cultural adaptation was presented in the Darwin paper he cited: "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals". Interestingly, a 2012 paper tested this hypothesis:
"In sum, our data directly show that across cultures, emotions are expressed using culture-specific facial signals. Although some basic facial expressions such as fear and disgust (2) originally served as an adaptive function when humans “existed in a much lower and animal-like condition” (ref. 1, p. 19), facial expression signals have since evolved and diversified to serve the primary role of emotion communication during social interaction. As a result, these once biologically hardwired and universal signals have been molded by the diverse social ideologies and practices of the cultural groups who use them for social communication."
Alas, the ability to smile is something that is innate, and some babies do smile right after birth. (rare, but it happens), but it is not necessary tied to emotional content.
"Neonatal smiling occurs from birth to one month of age and shows no emotional content. Smiles are spontaneous and often occur while the baby is drowsy or during REM stages of sleep. Baby smiles are subcortical in origin and will actually decrease with maturity (so premature babies smile more than full-term babies)."
Also there is proof that babies seems to be able to smile even though they are uborn/ still in the womb, which means the ability to smile is a universal human trait that is culture independent.
The ability to smile is not necessarily connected to the meaning of a smile, though. The article seems to assume a connection between smiling and happiness that isn't necessarily supported. (A good explanation of such a connection would need to contrast it to other aspects of communication which we don't question the cultural basis for.)
Evolutionary, I think the intention is to bring parents further under the baby's spell, since otherwise they might give up because taking care of a baby is a lot of work!
More than parents which are attached to the child with hormones, the smile is for the strangers so they do not harm them. At some stage babies smile all the time to strangers. That's before they get older and understand the concept of parents vs strangers.
Our baby is a fascinating example of this - every time he sees a stranger he makes a big smile.
He seems to just love people, and because of his big eyes and big smile it is rare that I can take him shopping, or for a walk, without at least one stranger talking to me about how happy he looks.
What you saying is one side of speculation/explanation. The article particularly mentions that when babies are in the womb, they feel content and that's what the smiling is, but we don't know if it is for sure. (i.e. it can be just a reflex, or actual display of being "content").
Smiling, however, cannot be interpreted as preparation for birth but may be a reflex, Prof Campbell said.
He added: "What's behind the smile, of course, I can't say, but the corners turn up and the cheeks bulge ... I think it must be some indication of contentment in a stress-free environment."
in any way, so socialization is a big part of it. We know most humans are born with the ability of speech, but if they are not taught/socialized at early age, then they will never be able to speak later (apart from uttering primitive sounds), but they still can utter sounds.
It could be the same with smiling. All humans are born with the ability of a 'primitive smile' which can be further developed and refined socially, but ability is innate.
The studies that mention that all smiling is socialized is yet another wave of bunk science that tries to attribute "socializing" and indoctrination to every human behavior, where there are clear indication that it is not true.
Ours did it right after birth - I know one shouldn‘t prescribe meaning to it but it‘s really quite something seeing it. I got photos but I guess I shouldn‘t upload publicly.
For some babies it's definitely true. Ours makes a very cute open mouth smile when she is trying to push gas (or poop) out. You don't need a scientific study to tell you that a big smile while grunting, followed by a big fart or dirty diaper several times a day makes the smile a sign.
Interesting, I'll have to look into this. A quick search was inconclusive but showed a split between "sciency" sources (saying no relation between infant smiles and gas) and "parenty" sources saying it's gas. Thanks!
I meant 'inconclusive' as in "in 2 minutes of searching I found a couple of papers whose abstracts said no causation between gas and smiling, and about four of five 'mummy-type' sites that asserted the correlation." To me that points to 'no causation' being the likely case but I'm not going to just declare it as proven on the basis of the first two papers I turned up.
That paper refutes very little by using adult humans. Some facial expressions are universal among human cultures and even among primates, and yes, even among mammals.
Liking and disliking facial reactions to sweet or bitter water are universal among mammals.
That papers use of modeled faces makes me skeptical. The data proves their conclusion but they also made the facial models and didn’t use real faces experiencing emotions
> Briefly stated, the universality hypothesis claims that all humans communicate six basic internal emotional states (happy, surprise, fear, disgust, anger, and sad) [...]
What the fuck. It's either "happiness, surprise, fear, disgust, anger, and sadness" or "happy, surprised, afraid, disgusted, angry, and sad". I can't help but feel that there is something very wrong with a mind that would mix up the pattern like they did. It's very difficult for me to take the paper seriously after this. I would forgive it if all the authors were Chinese, but most of the names are western enough.
I thought I recalled reading in the past that babies actually can't see very far in the newborn stages. The fact that the areola and nipple are super high contrast to the surrounding skin and whose dimensions are optimally situated for a babies focal length is a mark of that. Scent and sound play large roles in the early stages. Our baby would respond to her siblings voices since she's heard and played with them since in utero. It would make sense that the most capable sense would develop more utility. I recall reading a story where a musician was said to have dived into a new body of work to study some cello concerto or something he's never been exposed to or learned before. But as he dived into it he found it all so strangely familiar. He brought that up to his mother of this strange dejavu like experience and she had then told him that when he was in the womb she was vigorously mastering that piece herself.
> “Being happy requires a fair amount of self-referential thinking, whereas being in pain or being unhappy doesn’t require that in the same way,” he suggested. “To be happy, you have to know that you’re happy.
This doesn't seem right at all. Just like pain doesn't require self-referential thinking, neither should pleasure.
My sons only smiled when they were sleeping, and presumably dreaming, until they were about 6 months. But they smiled while they were sleeping since birth (4 or 5 days old technically).
When they finally did smile while awake it was at a stuffed monkey.
Here's (another) SA article[1] that seems to somewhat counter the claims found here; namely, that joy, laughter, and humor are not "culturally adapted" but built into our neural correlates. This is a famous (and ground-breaking) study conducted by Jaak Panksepp[2].
Maybe smiling is culturally-specific, but laughter certainly isn't. I'm not sure if there's much of a difference between the two -- to me it seems to be a difference of intensity (of emotion) and not a difference in kind.
Answer:
Because!! Imagine how horrific that would be if you were aware in any capacity whatsoever.
Longer Answer:
Ok so let's make some prly pretty inaccurate assumptions & imagine you're aware the second water breaks. You're about to join us other flesh-bags in the land of taxes, internet, and really unrealistic expectations.
Your eyes, first of all, exist. They are also not opening which is prly good cuz like SIGHT MAN?! WHO ARE ALL THESE MOVING THINGS WHAT?! Also you're covered in about as viscous a human-juice as exists. Technically men have a more viscous one which used to be half of you but like ok moving on...
No body said "hey baby, you're about to get borned right now." Naturally this means stuff's about to change & even though maybe it's a little bit cramped or whatever, you're kinda warm in here.
K so best-case now, no C-Section necessary. Your whole universe starts to open up above you while the likely epic blood-curdling screams of your future Mom start to percolate themselves into...oh what's this?...A BRAND NEW SENSATION CALLED HEARING WHAT IS THIS?!
K so then you crest. If dad's around he's probably terrified of you because you look like an alien + the aforementioned Mom-labor-screams. Well and like I said your eyes are welded closed, but you prly still know: babies are psychic according to science.
But I digress. Babies prly (at least partially) don't smile from birth for the same reason you wouldn't.
Indeed, aka birth trauma. You're getting squeezed by very powerful muscles through a small opening. Especially if you end up coming out butt first. Your lungs are full of fluid, and you gotta expel that before you can breathe. So yeah, I can't imagine that it's much fun.
> "“Have you ever wondered,” one visiting professor asked, “why a colt doesn’t get up and gallop around inside the mare?” After all, a horse only minutes old is already able to hobble around the barnyard. The answer, as Mellor reported in an influential review published in 2005, is that biochemicals produced by the placenta and fetus have a sedating and even an anesthetizing effect on the fetus (both equine and human). This fetal cocktail includes adenosine, which suppresses brain activity; pregnanolone, which relieves pain; and prostaglandin D2, which induces sleep — “pretty potent stuff,” he says.
Combined with the warmth and buoyancy of the womb, this brew lulls the fetus into a near-continuous slumber, rendering it effectively unconscious no matter what the state of its anatomy."
C-section can have its own traumas. For months after being born, my (c-section-born) son would startle and cry horribly at anything that made a snick-snick scissors sound, including certain doors/doorknobs, metal chopsticks, etc. And think of it from the evolutionary perspective and the baby-being-born perspective (vs. our external perspective, birthing or watching/helping), and maybe we can posit shock at the transitions that happen with a c-section (inside, cozy and familiar, and then BOOM: Cold! Bright! Lack of pressure! Loud!).
Less traumatic, maybe, but that still seems unpleasant. You go from this nice, calm environment, with basically zero need to do anything for oxygen, nutrients, waste, etc., and are thrust into blinding lights and noises; suddenly you must breath with lungs (after coughing out all the liquid filling them), the temperature is no longer always perfect, you promptly get to experience hunger and have to scream to be fed... Sure, C-section skips "get shoved forcefully through tiny opening" at the start, but you're not skipping that much.
I wouldn't even be sure skipping that part makes it an better, because that sensation might actually distract from all the others, and while it wears of, the others don't in the same way.
Another thought is that babies knowledge of the world is want and pain. Give them a break. They want to go back to the pleasant place they just came from.
"In sum, our data directly show that across cultures, emotions are expressed using culture-specific facial signals. Although some basic facial expressions such as fear and disgust (2) originally served as an adaptive function when humans “existed in a much lower and animal-like condition” (ref. 1, p. 19), facial expression signals have since evolved and diversified to serve the primary role of emotion communication during social interaction. As a result, these once biologically hardwired and universal signals have been molded by the diverse social ideologies and practices of the cultural groups who use them for social communication."
"Facial expressions of emotion are not culturally universal", http://www.pnas.org/content/109/19/7241