Don't take candy from strangers

This is one of the first lessons we teach children. Don't talk to strangers, and never ever take candy from a stranger. But why do we have to tell this to our kids? Is it because they're naive? Is it because kids are just too trusting?

As it turns out, small children come equipped with a pretty strong preference to be physically close to their mother, father, and other relatives.  By relatives I mean genetic kin, or those living in such close proximity that they are presumed to be genetic kin. This is why children cry when mom and dad go out to a movie, why it's hard to drop off kids at school for the first time, and why kids are more likely to get homesick than adults. It's a pretty simple rule: Trust people who have the same genes as you.  It's no different in most of the animal kingdom.

Candy is a safety-override switch. The appeal of sugar, particularly once a child is hooked on it, is so strong that it overwhelms the evolutionary mechanism that has tended to keep children safe for time immemorial.  Of course, sugar is what most parents use to control the behavior of their children.  A devil's bargain.

 

So as not to be a total killjoy, here is Jerry Seinfeld on the power of candy (the first 1:30).  Sometimes it takes a comedian to point out the absurdity of the mundane.

 

Comments

Interesting post.

Interesting post.

Ever run across any articles

Ever run across any articles about sugar altering sexual selection? Although I'm purely speculating, I think it's more than a coincidence that 'aphrodisiacs' are often glucose-rich. Throughout our evolutionary history, it's possible that the less-than-fit have used sugar as an aid in their reproductive efforts. Several years ago, an evolutionary psychology/biology book entitled A Natural History of Rape posited that unfit individuals used rape to pass on their genes (you're probably familiar with this work, as it was quite controversial and was released while you were study evolutionary psychology in college). I'd like to believe that they were a little more humane, and creative, than that. Any thoughts?