"In many ways, parents can be conceptualized as 'external frontal lobes' for their children, helping to interpret environmental demands, and construct and execute appropriate responses. Given the behavioral consequences of having an immature frontal cortex, parents subsume a number of frontal functions by instructing their children in the absence of their own abstract reasoning. Parents attempt to maintain control of where and with whom a child goes in order to minimize behavioral transgressions in the absence of the child’s ability to make good decisions. Importantly, parents also provide feedback that allows the child to modify their behavior."

Egad, there's one that's patently offensive.

Can't the same function be served through a respected mentor? or just by learning to get along with those in society whose views and needs differ?

I find that in their search for "what works" kids will bounce ideas off of those who have previous or greater experience; just as adults will. Nobody likes solo trial-and-error when there's a means of smoothing the path.

Yes that role can be fulfilled by a parent too whose presence in a child's life may put them in this position more frequently.

But an amazing number of parents have little or no experience with abstract reasoning. Reasoning, like any skill is taught. Some adults have more experience than others. Why stymie a childs ability to seek out the best just because of an accident of genetics?

And remember, "I'm the parent; THAT'S WHY!" is not a substitute for reason. Nor should it be heeded unless you respect laws that reduce children to chattel property.

"Emotional Intelligence" and "Stumbling Upon Happiness." My we are tapping into the poppier end of Pop Psychology.

Back when I was strip-mining the library for books on long-term relationships and on step-parenting; I found that the Pop-Psych section had the highest BS ratio per capita. And remember, I primarily read books about Vampires and Space Aliens ;p

I found a few kernels among the chaff. But I waded through a LOT of chaff.

"The Origin of Consciousness in The Breakdown of The Bicameral Mind?"

It certainly has the rep as a weighty tome. Marvel Comics placed it among Hank McCoy's light reading along with "Atlas Shrugged" to establish his cred among the intelligensia circa 1974.

Perhaps when we feel this attraction to babies - and perhaps by extension to the young in general we misinterpret our emotions and attraction to them as being sexual. Research has shown that arousal can be misinterpreted so that fear may be seen as lust for example (example in Gilbert's book), how much easier would it be for a child to misinterpret their feelings than an adult?

Methinks you're grasping at straws for validation. Most who make the argument from Neoteny don't believe that there's any misinterpretation going on here. Folks like David Brin point out that those adult women who are found to be sexiest have faces that are proportionally more "baby-like" than those found in the general populace.

And fear as lust? That might apply in safe but unfamiliar surroundings. But are you truly gonna tell me that flight-from-danger could turn into "Hello Sailor" as a result of misinterpretation?

You are right that we can misinterpret feelings. But I think children are no more prone to this than adults. What adults have is more experience in rationalization and denial. We can argue ourselves into what we wish to believe in a much more convincing way. See, all those years being processed by the system are "good" for something.

Dante