Uncanny Valley Effect - or Why You Might Hate Gays

One of the more interesting theories out there in regards to robotics is called the Uncanny Valley Effect (UVE). It holds that our perception of a robot becomes more and more positive until it hits a certain level of almost human likeness at which point that positive response turns into repulsion, until it finally improves to a totally human look at which point the positive response returns.

There are a number of thoughts behind why this is, but one of them is that at a certain point the robot looks human enough that we stop judging it AS a robot and start judging it as a human. At that point it strikes us as wrong, because it is NOT QUITE human, and we are repulsed because it is a natural reaction to humans who are either diseased or have genetic defects that make them unfit mates.

What struck me the other day is that I think this may tie somewhat into why people hate certain groups of people so violently.

Take gays for instance and the recent battle over gay marriage in California.

Now a typical response to something that you don't care for is relatively mild. Say your best friend loves asparagus and you hate it. They say, "I love asparagus," and your reasonable response is, "Ugh, I hate that shit, but you enjoy yourself!" Obviously another person loving asparagus doesn't take anything away from you, so why should you get upset, even though you find it personally distasteful.

Now suppose a gay friend says, "I love sucking dick." A reasonable heterosexual response, even one repulsed by the idea of men sucking men's dicks, would be along the lines of, "Yuck, I hate the idea of a dude sucking a dick, but you enjoy yourself!" After all, a man loving the taste of some dick on his tongue doesn't take anything away from you.

But that's not how people react. They react as though this thing they don't like is a disease. Something negative and infectious that will spread and destroy what they love. They act as though homosexuality, for this particular example, DOES take something away from them. And so they actively fight it.

The vigor they put into the battle against gay marriage becomes the same sort of energy they would use to fight the idea that people carrying smallpox is normal and healthy.

So what is the explanation for why people would look at homosexuality as a pathogen. It certainly doesn't make any logical sense. It's neither infectious, nor can it be passed on through traditional mating. The answer may be in the Uncanny Valley Effect.

Stereotypes by their nature paint a certain group as less than human. Just like a robot is less than human. And to a point stereotypes can be useful in that we cannot know every person in the world, so having some way to quickly judge the outlook and culture of a group of people helps us to organize a very big world. But as we apply those stereotypes more specifically to a person, instead of keeping them as a broad stroke way to know a group, we begin to merge the depersonalization of a stereotype with the personalization of interacting with an individual human.

It is at this point that the Uncanny Valley Effect could apply, for we begin to have the same repulsion that we have for a robot that looks almost human, but not human enough. We recognize an individual member of a stereotyped group in the same way - almost human, but not human enough. The repulsion then becomes attached to the stereotype and it could be argued leads to the desire to fight the spread of this "type" of person.

In seeing the group as less than human because of a stereotype, our one theory behind the reason for UVE discussed above, a disease model, would indicate that we start to see that stereotype as a pathological model.

So a group that views homosexuality as distasteful because of religious, cultural, or societal upbringing, finds itself repulsed and warps a simple disinterest in, or distaste for something, into a need to end it and label it as wrong.

If this is the case, the basic model can be applied to many cultural issues, as this is likely why there remain problems with racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. In every case, an other is judged as almost, but not quite human. And when the UVE takes hold, fear and anger lead to hatred and violence. A desire to end that other.

Treating it not like asparagus, but cancer.

Probably only through further personalization can this be ended, forcing the disapproving party to see the stereotype they hate as a real person through specific interaction. Not a particularly realistic solution, but certainly a path worth exploring for those who wish to actively supersede their prejudices.

Baring that, since it is an emotional, not logical reaction, there's no real use trying to argue someone out of their UVE induced hate. The focus should then be on educating others, and illuminating the illogical hate and fear in arguments against a particular group instead of pretending that both sides are presenting equally valid arguments.

When it comes to stereotype driven perspectives, especially in regards to law, it's like one side believes the sky is blue, and the other believes it's made of pudding.

As a species it is in our best interest to evolve past the pudding, and get into the blue when dealing with issues such as immigration, racial profiling, gay marriage, etc. Just be aware, that those on the pudding side of things seem to really love their pudding.

The Mechanics of Joy

I waited on some friends of a co-worker recently, and she shared today that one of them said, "It was kind of sad, he seemed to think he was funny, but he wasn't".

Kind of an ouch for sure, definitely rude, and overall a big "Who gives a fuck?" because I don't know this person at all so really it doesn't much matter what a stranger thinks of me be it positive or negative.

Except that it bugged me, because people are structured weirdly.

We are emotionally built to feel pain more intensely than joy. Perhaps from a survival standpoint this has some benefit, the focus on avoidance rather than pursuit. But given where we are in the evolution of the species, it's a curious thing that we're so negatively driven.

In regards to money it's called "Prospect Theory" and holds that the loss of a set amount of money is twice as painful as the pleasure of gaining that same sum.

It also seems to be true in other emotional matters, and make no mistake, anything that elicits a pleasure/pain reaction is strongly tied to emotions. For instance, a loved one tells you that you look really good today. You probably say thank you, and go about your day without giving the compliment much further consideration. But say you're in traffic and someone cuts you off, flips you off, and or screams at you for no apparent reason. You'll probably steam about that for the rest of the day.

Why?

Why do we allow the random opinions or actions of people that are nothing more than a flash in our life to effect us deeply while often missing out on the opportunity to cherish positive vibes from those closest to us?

I don't have an answer to that.

I do know that I'm trying to focus on enjoying, consciously enjoying the positives in my life, and letting the bad stuff slide. At the very least I hope that I can continue to be amused at myself when I let some anonymous Internet feedback to one of my articles, or some tactless customer wielding the maturity of a high schooler, bother me. 'Cause I may not be funny, but that shit is.

The Cleavage of Parenting

It seems weird in the new millennium and all, but in my experience stay-at-home dad's are still viewed as more a curiosity than a legitimate child rearing force. In fact, many women seem to have an active prejudice against the idea that men could be as good at the job as nature has made THE MOM!

Which is mostly fine. Socially and stereotypically the area of family runner has long been perceived as ya'lls bailiwick. But there is a creeping irony as more and more dads opt for time with the kids over a strict business focus and find that the glass ceiling that women have fought for so long exists in all sorts of environments. Of course the currency of parenting isn't currency, it's acknowledgement and respect.

Talking to an educator, a doctor, a nurse, really any professional who deals with your child, is often similar to getting a lecture from someone who thinks you're as adorable as Corky (LIFE GOES ON, not ROMANO). The predominant image of a dad raising kids appears to be Michael Keaton in MR. MOM, which was so long ago that Teri Garr was still hot.

All of this is pretty much part of the game though, and I certainly didn't decide to stay at home to win awards or get seduced by marginally attractive neighborhood women (although I'm slightly disappointed that no one has even tried!) I did it because it makes financial sense for our family, and because given the likelihood that when the boys turn 11 or 12 they probably won't want to talk to me for a decade, I'm greedy for all the time I can get with them.

When we decided to have kids we wanted to make sure that WE raised them. We are fortunate that we had that decision open to us.

BUT, the one thing that drives me nuts is anytime a conversation comes up about the kids when my wife is around. I love her and she's a great mother, but ladies, you know how much fun it is to talk to a guy or an aggressive lesbian who won't look away from your chest during a conversation. That's what you make us dudes feel like when you totally ignore us in favor of the woman's opinion when child stuff comes up. I work hard to raise my kids to be polite, educated, charming little sociopaths.

So as adorably incompetent as the romantic comedies of the world want to make us, there are competent men out here doing a damn fine job of raising the kids. Just thought you should know.