Name: なぜ私たちはキスをするのか？ (Why Do We Kiss?)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T04:36:50.000Z
Duration: 12 min 16 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

Attachment of two people's lips kissing. The average person will spend about 20,160 minutes

of his, or her, life kissing. And the world record for the longest, continuous kiss is

58 hours, 35 minutes, and 58 seconds. But why do we kiss?

I mean, if you think about it, it seems kind of weird...right? I mean, sure, today kissing

represents peace, respect, passion, love. But, when the first two people in human history

kissed, were they just kind of being gross? Well, let's begin with what we do know: kissing

A passionate kiss burns about 2-3 calories per minute, and releases epinephryn and norepinephryn

into the blood, making your heart pump faster. Kissing, more often, is correlated with a

reduction of bad cholesteral and perceived stress- but, these positive effects didn't

become widespread by accident. Why did brains and bodies that love kissing become so common?

Well, a popular story holds it that Pacman's shape was inspired by the shape of a pizza

with a slice missing. But Toru Iwatani, the creator of Pacman, admitted that this was

only half-true. Pacman's shape was also inspired by rounding out the shape of the Japanese

character for "mouth." And it's mouths and Pacman's favorite activity, eating, which

again bring us closer to the heart of the kiss.

Evolutionary psychologists have argued that what we know today as "kissing" may have come

from "kiss-feeding": the exchange of pre-chewed food from one mouth to another. Mother birds

are famous for doing this, and many primates are frequently seen doing it as well. Not

that long ago, it was common between human mothers and their children. In fact, before

commercially produced, or DIY, baby-food instructions were readily available, it made a lot of sense.

Recently, Alicia Silverstone uploaded a clip of herself mouth feeding her child. It seemed

strange to some people, but even though, yeah, it exchanges saliva, which, like any contact

with an infant, can transfer pathogens, healthy mothers and healthy children can benefit from

the fact that kiss feeding provides nutrients: Carbohydrates, proteins, iron, and zinc, which

are not always available in breast milk. Plus, an adult saliva can help pre-digest the food,

making vitamins like B-12 easier for the baby to absorb.

So, mouth-to-mouth attachment has a history of intimacy, trust, and closeness. Your saliva

also carries information about who you are, your level of health, and, mucus membranes

in our mouth are permeable to hormones like testosterone, making a kiss a way to taste-test

a potential mate. A good kiss can be biological evidence that your kisser might be a good

So, as a strategy for mate selection, pre-historic people who enjoyed kissing, and did it more

often, may have made better decisions, picked better mates, reproduced more successfully,

and, eventually, become the norm- giving us...us. People who love kissing.

Any infant could have seen those benefits coming from a mile away, even though an infant's

vision isn't that great. From birth to four months, babies can only focus on things about

8-10 inches away from their face which, not surpisingly, is about the distance to their

So, faces, especially those looking right at us, tend to be the very first things in

our lives we can focus on and see clearly. This might explain why we are so good at detecting

faces. Humans are off the charts when it comes to this, in fact, we tend to see faces even

when there aren't any- it's called "pareidolia."

Because humans are so cooperative, it makes sense for us to be good at recognizing faces.

And, more importantly, detecting when someone is looking directly at us and clearly expressing

A predator who lives by not being seen needs a gaze that's less obvious. In fact, research

has shown that our surprisingly white sclera's, the area that borders the iris, isn't just

an accident, but is a vital piece of human eye morphology that makes it easier for us

to ascertain the direction of someone else's gaze at a glance.

We also have impressive gaze-direction networks inside our brains containing individual neurons

that fire when someone is staring directly at us, but that stop firing if that gaze shifts

So, yeah, you can tell when you're being watched, we humans are quite sensitive to it, even

those of us with "Scopophobia": the fear of being stared at. But, to be sure, in order

for this to work, the other person's gaze must be within your line of sight- your field

of vision- that is, you can see them. Otherwise, if the stare is coming, say, from behind,

there is no evidence that people can tell they are being watched.

The "Psychic Staring Effect" falls within the realm of pseudo-science. No widely-accepted

studies have ever found evidence that it exists. Anecdotally, what's more likely is that the

very act of rubber-necking to see who's watching causes people to look up, and for your gazes

But, what about attachment when no one is watching? One explanation for an infant's

love- attachment to their mother- doesn't involve vision or staring, but, instead, food.

The idea is that we love our mother's because as soon as we are born, they are a source

of life-sustaining nourishment. But, what if that nourishment came not from a loving

In the 1950's, Harry Harlow conducted a series of famous, but controversial, experiments

on monkeys at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Harlow's findings had substantial

implications on our understanding of attachment. But, by today's standards, his work would

largely be considered unethical. In one of his most famous experiments, Harlow separated

young monkeys from their mothers as soon as they were born and stuck them in cages with

two fake mothers: a soft one wrapped in cloth that did nothing, and a cold, mechanical mother

made of wire that, nonetheless, did provide food. But, despite being a cupboard mother,

the young baby monkey's didn't bond with her. When Harlow and his team scared the baby monkeys

with a strange contraption, the monkeys ran and clinged not to their wire source of life-sustaining

nourishment, but to the soft, cuddly, and otherwise useless cloth-mother.

This suggested that warmth and comfort was more important than food when it came to nurturing

attachment. Harlow also built a rejecting mother which used a blast of pressurized air

to push baby monkeys away. But, instead of finding another source of comfort, these monkeys

clung even tighter at all times than monkeys raised without rejecting mothers. And this

is what blows my mind: the instinct for warmth and comfort in newborn creatures is so strong

it not only resists attempts to frustrate it, but is paradoxically strengthened by it.

Eckhard Hess tested this by using electric shocks to discourage ducklings from following

the object they were imprinted on. But, it only strengthened the behavior and made them

follow more closely than ever before. The fact that a "wire mother," or a rejecting

mother, or receiving electric shocks for attaching to your mother, would cause more attachment,

more love, more dependence, seems like a paradox. But, paradoxes can teach us. As Oscar Wilde

put it, "a paradox is the truth standing on its head to attract attention."

And what gets our attention here is the effect uncertainty can have.

In 1955 A.E. Fisher conducted an experiment on puppies. His team separated puppies into

three groups. Members of the first group were treated kindly every time they approached

a researcher. Members of the second group were punished for approaching the researchers.

And puppies in the third group were randomly treated kindly, or punished. They grew up

never knowing what to expect. Their world was not a world of kindness or punishment,

What's really chilling is that the study found that that group, the third group of puppies,

wound up being the most attached to the researchers. The third group loved the researchers the

strongest and was the most dependent upon them. Guy Murchie called this the "Polarity