I had an interesting thought a minute ago. Do you think that

>>46563
i would venture to say that the grooming instinct is at least in part the cause of it but not so much so that without it we wouldn't have pets. the first pets are pretty much agreed to be wolves, do you think the first wolf to be domesticated would allow a bald ape to start touching up on it upon first meeting? i doubt it. maybe after a few weeks or months but not that soon. if anything the grooming instinct is what made our pets like us back.

>>46654
Here's an interesting read since you brought it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

It is common among domestication of wild animals to take an infant or prepubescent animal and imprint on them. The grooming of these young animals would certainly help on imprinting. The animals like us because we can relieve pain as simple as itchiness and give pleasure like scratching sensitive areas like that one spot your dog has that causes it to shake its leg. Petting an animal is known to have a calming effect and release of brain chemicals that can help your health.

Another interesting read: http://www.healthfitnessrevolution.com/top-10-health-benefits-owning-cat/

The other thing about my original post is the emotion of cuteness. It's understandable why we find babies and children cute and get the right brain chemicals for protection of our own young. What makes us feel the same way about cute cats, dogs, and every other domesticated animal? If it were a pure instinct to protect the tribal young then we would view animals more as tools instead of the same emotion of joy that we view a cute baby as a cute animal. Is this psychological evolution to benefit us with domestic animals that was not present before domestication?

>>46656
well, you have certainly put a lot of thought into it.

>>46663
I like to think about origins of concepts and rational reasons for why things occur. For example I like cute things. It makes me feel good to look at cute cat or dog pictures. I don't know why, but maybe it is a psychological evolution that was developed in humans to better survive. Like a vestigial mechanism that is no longer needed, being redundant here, but still has effects long after their use and has transformed to a different purpose. For example petting a cat lowers risk of heart disease, a stroke, and other diseases. Most people don't think about that. It's just an emotion that is described as cute. Which gets us into emotional intelligence but I have looked too far into that so I would be out of my depth talking about it. The same goes for grooming. All primates have an instinct to groom each other. Mainly because we would eat the bugs growing on us and get rid of the parasites that would cause discomfort. We don't need that instinct because we have mostly lost all of that hair in favor of increased productivity of sweat glands. Also pesticides and chemical baths. But we still have an instinct to scratch our dogs and cats. Was that there all along or did we develop it as an evolutionary measure for bonding with animals we would consider part of our own pack or family? It brings us to how we are still evolving and changing even now which I find to be an exciting thought.