










Why Children Love Their Security Blankets2. Comment #24743 by Devolution on March 8, 2007 at 9:36 am
3. Comment #24755 by Corylus on March 8, 2007 at 10:38 am
4. Comment #24771 by Skep on March 8, 2007 at 12:48 pm
This really isn't surprising considering how adults like to collect ordinary objects that once belonged to someone famous. Even as adults we imbue certain objects special magical properties. Likewise with gifts or mementos that remind us of a person or event.5. Comment #24776 by Thinkingmom on March 8, 2007 at 1:52 pm
This study is interesting, but it could go further. I suggest that this innate preference can probably be informed. My daughter hasn't been fooled by any of the 3 mostly identical bears we've rotated through the wash since she was 18mos old. She ~knows~ they're different, but we treat them like they're not so she plays along. (How's that for frighteningly impressionable?)6. Comment #24777 by Alison on March 8, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I think many people apply the same reasoning to individuals. For example, a warrior is considered to "have courage", as if "courage" was some sort of essence which when possessed confers some sort of power to overcome fear. I think whenever we talk about the "nature" or "essence" of a person, the same kind of thinking is involved, and it's likely the source for notions like Spirit and Soul.7. Comment #24778 by MIND_REBEL on March 8, 2007 at 1:57 pm
8. Comment #24781 by neander on March 8, 2007 at 2:04 pm
9. Comment #24783 by weavehole on March 8, 2007 at 2:25 pm
These kids sound quite astute. Surely a metal goblet owned by the queen would be worth more than an identical one owned by me. In fact, I feel another attempt to break-in to the Palace coming on.10. Comment #24784 by freestateofmind on March 8, 2007 at 2:33 pm
11. Comment #24786 by mmurray on March 8, 2007 at 2:46 pm
12. Comment #24796 by John P on March 8, 2007 at 3:42 pm
13. Comment #24804 by Sancus on March 8, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Are you people serious? Science journalists aren't exactly masters of communicating science, but I'd think a group of discerning people would recognize the obvious.Hood and Bloom liken this early reasoning to adult notions of 'essences' where we think invisible properties inhabit objects that make them unique as if these properties were physically real.
14. Comment #24859 by icouldbewrongbut on March 8, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Huh?15. Comment #24872 by AbstractMonkey on March 9, 2007 at 2:18 am
16. Comment #24904 by Chris Davis on March 9, 2007 at 5:38 am
Hmm. Damn.17. Comment #24922 by CF1 on March 9, 2007 at 9:51 am
Good article. I have sensed this for years. I think that this approach to religious belief, (looking at WHY we humans have a tendency to believe in a god figure) will likely be the most productive method of aiding the masses to grow up and drop their security blanket of religion.18. Comment #24958 by jeepyjay on March 9, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I was interested in the piece at the end about the lost 'Mouse', since something very similar happened to me. As a child I had a very small pink knitted bear, to which I gave a name and about which I made up stories. One day, while out shopping with my mother (in Welling, Kent, in case anyone found it and kept it -- I'd still like it back!), it got lost (fell out of my pocket or something). Apparently I was terribly upset because of this loss. An aunt, or someone, knitted me a replacement, but it just wasn't the same. I think this episode was an important experience in 'growing up' -- a sort of bereavement. 19. Comment #25048 by Cwazy Cat Lady on March 9, 2007 at 10:31 pm
20. Comment #25168 by phiwilli on March 10, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Hood and Bloom (and no doubt lots of other people nowadays) have a very untraditional notion of "essence." In a history of ideas tradition going back to Plato, a thing's essence consists of the properties it shares with all other things of its kind. There is only one teddy bear essence, shared by all teddy bears. It is the NON-essential properties that a given teddy bear has that give it uniqueness and distinguish it from all the other teddy bears. So the essence of a given teddy bear is not some invisible property of that particular bear, it is the (invisible) total of all the properties that bear shares with all other teddy bears. So the children (and lots of us adults) are attached not to the essence of our favorite things, but to the non-essential properties that make a given favorite thing unique. That's why an apparent "exact" duplicate just won't do. There aren't any absolutely exact or identical duplicates. No individual thing is absolutely identical with anything other than itself.21. Comment #25203 by Bruce Hood on March 10, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Phiwolli is correct to draw the distinction between essence attributed to individuals and essenes attributed to members of the same group. In fact, we do so in the paper by referring to the terms introduced by the medieval philosopher, John Duns Scotus. Individual essence is 'haecceity' (Gr. 'thisness') whereas group essence is 'quiddity' (Gr. 'whichness'). We do actually use the terms in the full paper but as I am sure readers of the RDF will know, the press does not always fully report the whole story.22. Comment #25293 by killer_rabbit79 on March 11, 2007 at 6:33 pm
This emotion seems kinda stupid to have but I think it is necessary because it's probably the same feeling that tells us who our mothers and fathers are and which people at school or work are our friends. Neurologists have categorized this type of behavior in the amygdela (might be mispelled) which is used to determine how we emotionally respond to stimuli. It can be used to emotionally identify both individual organisms (eg. mother, father, pet) and objects.23. Comment #25307 by Bruce Hood on March 12, 2007 at 1:44 am
Dear killer_rabbitt79,
1. Comment #24739 by AntonyR on March 8, 2007 at 9:28 am
I don't fully understand why I felt the need to wish it well, I know logically it is a hunk of metal and plastic. I guess that is why it is refered to as sentimental value.
Other Comments by AntonyR