9.3. Final Submission and Reflection on Project 2

A Rhetorical Analysis of “The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis”

Jon Thomas

Tsuno, Yoshikazu via PopularMechanics.com

Imagine a future where realistic computer graphics have replaced all actors.  Imagine robots that are designed to look just like us, walking around and interacting with us.  Does this idea make you uneasy?  Maybe it’s because you’ve seen films such as the Terminator, and know what super-smart AI is capable of.  Or maybe it’s because you’ve seen some modern day humanoid robots and, well, they’re kind of creepy.  This disgust towards near-realistic humanoids, according to the popular culture surrounding robotics, is the uncanny valley.

While the uncanny valley is an almost universally accepted model for why we find certain robots or computerized characters 'creepy', there is some debate about whether the theory is even true.  Erik Sofge of Popular Mechanics uses a primarily logic-based argument, supported by facts and research, to show the uncanny valley may not be the titular valley that we imagine it to be.  This paper will explore the validity of one of robotics' most notorious public-relation dilemmas.

The article [1] begins with a brief summary on what the uncanny valley is.  In the 1970s, roboticist Masahiro Mori, “proposed that a robot that's too human-like can veer into unsettling territory, tripping the same psychological alarms associated with a dead or unhealthy human.” [1] One of Sofge’s strong points throughout his article is his citations and references to the comments and research of professionals in the field.  Some of his language, namely describing these unsettling robots with terms such as “Shuffling and convulsing”, brings up images of the sick or even dead, replicating the experience such a robot should give you.  Sofge gains our attention by combining an emotional and logical approach..  It’s here that Sofge drops his major revelation: that the uncanny valley is a scientifically unfounded hypothesis.

Sofge reveals to the reader that no one has ever seriously tested the idea.  Even the founder of the idea stated, "While I introduced the notion of the Uncanny Valley, I have not examined it closely so far." [1]  What research has been done has concluded that the valley may be broken into smaller theories.  Researcher Karl MacDorman states the valley may be linked to inconsistencies and not necessarily the closeness to humans.  “Realistic skin texture, but at the same time cartoonish eyes”[1] could create the disconnect.  Research also shows gender could be related, with women being more accepting of uncanny humanoids than men.  This whole section of the article relies on heavy citations and research, presenting a very logical and scientific approach.  This would be relatable to the robotics enthusiasts who would be reading.

From here on out, issues start to arise in the article.  Sofge states how when shown these realistic robots in person, people tend to be very accepting of them, rejecting any ‘uncanny valley’ response you would expect.  This tends to raise more questions than it answers.  Why do people react negatively to uncanny humanoids online and in film, but seem accepting of them in person?  What would be an explanation of that?  Could it be due to people at robotics expos being interested in the technology and are able to see ‘past’ the uncanny?  Could it be the difference of accepting it as a robot versus having to accept it as a human analogue?  Just because the people seeing it in person didn’t have the same snarky response as YouTube commentators doesn’t mean the YouTube commentators are wrong.  The situation could be reversed as, “why do people who see my robots online react negatively compared to those who see them in person?”  It could simply be the difference between seeing a robot that has humanistic traits, as robotics enthusiasts may do, and a human with robotic traits, as YouTube commentators may do.

If the uncanny valley doesn't exist, it bodes well for our previously mentioned actor-less and robot filled future.  Our feelings of disgust may be based on more than just the 'closeness' of the robot in question.  Erik Sofge presents a good reason to doubt the uncanny valley: the idea was never tested before being presented and the little research that has been done hasn’t recreated the dip that should be there.  But while this hypothesis isn’t proven, using personal experiences to cast doubt isn’t sufficient to argue against it.  How people react to robot expos will never prove or disprove the idea.  All that can is a collection of research and data that has yet to happen.

---

Sources

[1] Sofge, Erik. (2010 Jan 20). The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis. [Online].  Available: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a5001/4343054/ 

Reflection
---

1. My introduction and conclusion changed a lot from one draft to another.  I added in some images and citations, but the bulk of the body was similar.  I did listen to a lot of the advice from my classmates.

2. My thesis is mostly the same, but I did shorten and streamline the introduction to it.  A lot of people seemed confused on what the thesis was, so I tried to address that.

3. Mostly commentary from peers.  I never would have noticed the phrasing of the intro if it hadn't been pointed out.

4. Difficulty recognizing the thesis could confuse the audience on what my point was.  Inability to realize the purpose could hurt credibility by just not knowing what you're trying to say.

5. If the audience can grasp my thesis, then they'll have a better understanding of where my paper is going.  It can lose me my audience if they can't focus on the point of your article right away.

6.  I really tried to streamline the intro most of all.  I tried to make it less wordy and flow better into my thesis.

7. It should allow them to flow into the body of the article better.  That appeared to be most people's issue with it.

8. For the most part, no.  I briefly considered scrapping my intro and thesis and starting from scratch, but decided against it.  I liked my format and wanted to stay with it.

9. By reflecting, I'm forced to examine my writing, think about and defend what I did.  Without it, I'd probably write on autopilot and not think about what I was doing.

8.5 Revised Conclusion

I added an intro to the conclusion to try and tie it back to the intro of the paper.  This mirrors the 'circle back' example featured in the book.  I tried to remove uses of the word 'theory' as it doesn't fit the scientific definition of the term.

 Old conclusion:

In conclusion, Eric Sofge presents a good reason to doubt the uncanny valley: the theory was never tested before being presented and what little research has been done hasn’t recreated the dip the theory states should be there.  But while the theory isn’t proven, using personal experiences to cast doubt isn’t sufficient to argue against it.  The only way to disprove the valley is to do research showing the model doesn’t hold up.  How people react to robot expos will never prove or disprove the theory.

New Conclusion:
 

If the uncanny valley doesn't exist, it bodes well for our previously mentioned actor-less and robot filled future.  Our feelings of disgust may be based on more than just the 'closeness' of the robot in question.  Eric Sofge presents a good reason to doubt the uncanny valley: the idea was never tested before being presented and the little research that has been done hasn’t recreated the dip that should be there.  But while this hypothesis isn’t proven, using personal experiences to cast doubt isn’t sufficient to argue against it.  How people react to robot expos will never prove or disprove the idea.  All that can is a collection of research and data that has yet to happen.

8.4 Revised Introduction

I more or less already opened with a rhetorical question (bullet point 4 under tip number 1).  I used this same format with the revised opening, but made some changes.  I tried to shorten the overall paragraph a bit and put more explanation into the uncanny valley.  Since people commented on explaining the acronym of CGI, I instead opted to remove it altogether as it wasn't important to the overall paper.  I added the final sentence, using 'it will explore', as I felt an explicit forecast better suited the scientific nature of the article.  The thesis statement is actually in the second paragraph of the introduction, which I still tried to streamline.

Old intro:

Imagine a future where films no longer use real actors, but rather fully CGI characters that can be animated into realistic situations?  Imagine robots that are designed to look just like us, can mimic our very motions, walking around and interacting with us.  Does this idea make you uneasy?  Maybe it’s because you’ve seen The Matrix and Terminator movies, and know what super-smart AI is capable of.  Or maybe it’s because you’ve seen some modern day human-like robots and, well, they’re kind of creepy.  This, according to the popular culture surrounding robotics, is the uncanny valley.

The uncanny valley is an almost universally accepted model for why we find certain robots or CGI characters 'creepy'.  But what if the theory was simply not true?  Eric Sofge of Popular Mechanics uses a primarily logic-based argument, supported by facts and research, to show the uncanny valley may not have the titular valley that we imagine it to.

New intro:

Imagine a future where realistic computer graphics have replaced all actors.  Imagine robots that are designed to look just like us, walking around and interacting with us.  Does this idea make you uneasy?  Maybe it’s because you’ve seen films such as the Terminator, and know what super-smart AI is capable of.  Or maybe it’s because you’ve seen some modern day humanoid robots and, well, they’re kind of creepy.  This disgust towards near-realistic humanoids, according to the popular culture surrounding robotics, is the uncanny valley. 

While the uncanny valley is an almost universally accepted model for why we find certain robots or CGI characters 'creepy', there is some debate about whether the theory is even true.  Eric Sofge of Popular Mechanics uses a primarily logic-based argument, supported by facts and research, to show the uncanny valley may not be the titular valley that we imagine it to.  This paper will explore the validity of one of robotics' most notorious public-relations dilemmas.

8. 2 Reflection on Project 2 Draft

For my peer reviews, I reviewed Deb and Andrew's papers.  Both were scientific articles which mostly focused on logic and reasoning to establish their credibility rather than any emotion.  Both utilized their in-text citations and quotations very well, and I feel I need to go back and revise my article to these higher standards.

7.5 Draft of P2 Rhetorical Analysis

Here is a link to my draft.  I got it in late, but if anyone could review it, that would help.  I have no real things I'm looking for, so just tell if if it works.  Thank you.

7.5 Project 2 Outline

The introduction

Provide quick summary of the claim the article is refuting (the uncanny valley).

The thesis (adapted or revised from one of your draft theses)

Use Thesis #3 from thesis drafts.

The body paragraphs

The article is broken into three sections, so I’ll look at each section at its own paragraph.  Paragraph 1 is the summary.  Paragraph 2 would be the history of the theory.  Paragraph 3 would be his counter-evidence.

Your analytical claims

I agree with most of his points in the first sections.  I’ll go over his methods, but have nothing much to argue or debate against.  In section 3 is where his argument falls short and that’s where I’ll likely spend most of my time analyzing what his says.

The support for each claim

The first two sections are all logical, and I’ll point out where he provides his logic and reasoning behind his claims.  Paragraph 3 shifts to more evidence from personal experience, which is a break from his previous form.  I’ll likely point out his fallacies in that area.

The conclusion

Sofge makes a good point in why we shouldn’t accept the uncanny valley, as it’s not proven by any metric.  I don’t agree with some of his evidence against the theory, as it boils down to ‘I saw some people who liked these robots other called creepy’.

7.4 Draft Thesis Statements

Thesis Statement #1

The Uncanny Valley is an oft-cited theory in robotics and animation, explaining our apparent disgust with not quite 'real enough' human analogues.  However, according to research done by Popular Mechanics writer Erik Sofge, the uncanny valley may not exist at all.

Thesis Statement #2

Erik Sofge of Popular mechanics tackles a major theory in the fields of robotics and animation: the uncanny valley.  Through a logical breakdown using expert opinions and research, Sofge reveals that the uncanny valley may not be the intuitive model we believe to to be.


Thesis Statement #3

The uncanny valley is an almost universally accepted model for why we find certain robots or CGI characters 'creepy'.  Eric Sofge of Popular Mechanics uses a primarily logic-based argument, supported by facts and research, to show the uncanny valley may not have the titular valley we imagine it to.

---

This project shouldn't be too complicated for this article.  The bulk of the article is interviews with experts in the field and references to research that's been done.  The one point where the article struggles is where the author uses a personal experience, which clashes with a previous focus on expert opinion.  Overall, I don't think I should struggle too badly with this project.

7.3 Analyzing My Audience for Project 2

Who am I writing for? What are the Audiences beliefs and assumptions?

My primary audience would be my fellow classmates, but I will likely write for an audience that would be in this field or related to this field.  Most audiences' view towards the uncanny valley (those who know about it at least) would be that it's a valid and recognized theory (as it does seem fairly intuitive).  Therefore my paper would geared to an audience that has the opposite view of what this paper presents.

What position might they take on this issue?  How will I need to respond to this position?

As stated above, they likely already subscribe to the uncanny valley.  My first task would be to get them to doubt the validity of the theory.  My best bet would be to present the lack of scientific data on the theory, and hope that a scientific/technology based audience would accept that.

What will they want to know?

They will want to see what research there is on the uncanny valley.  Since the theory is somewhat intuitive, the audience will need to see/hear all arguments against it to prove the point.

How might they react to my argument?

Anyone logically minded might accept the argument and doubt the validity of the theory.  More emotionally minded people might get defensive of the theory and not accept the argument.

How am I trying to relate to or connect with my audience?

I'll have to approach it logically and scientifically, as that's how the original article and audience were.  Since the argument boils down to 'it's really not proven', I'm not sure if there's much of an emotional angle to go at.

Are there any specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help me relate to them in this way?

I need to relate all of the original sources the article used for its argument, as 'proof' is my best tool.  My best bet would be to focus on the references and research to prove my point.

7.2 Cluster of The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis

For my cluster, I broke up the argument into Message, Author and Audience.  I broke down the major points of the article under message, described the likely readers under Audience, and discussed the history/style of the author under author.

6.7 Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis

Appeals to Credibility or Character

Which items on the bulleted list of strategies on page 182 can you recognize in your text?

Referencing credible sources, such as Masahiro Mori (who coined the phrase uncanny valley). Personal stories (such as referencing their research for another article).

How and why would the author use these strategies?

The author is attempting to establish credibility, so that their opinion on the matter will be seen as valid by the audience.

How do these strategies affect the audience’s perception of the author’s credibility and character?

They likely have the effect of establishing the author's knowledge of the topic. By citing sources and establishing their method, the audience accepts the author's word.

How does the use of these strategies impact the effectiveness of the text’s overall message?

The author's character is established, so the message should be accepted by the audience.

Does the author seem to have any biases or assumptions that might impact his or her credibility?

The author does appear to stay relatively unbiased throughout the article. While he does take a stance on the issue, his points are backed by references in the field of robotics.

Appeals to Emotion

Which items on the bulleted list of strategies on pages 182-3 can you recognize in your text?

Language used to describe the bottom of the valley, such as, "shuffling and convulsing", and, "glassy and corpse-like." The use of such language isn't so much inspiring disgust as it is humor.

What emotional response is the author attempting to create?

The use of humor also helps to describe the emotions people usually experience in regards to 'creepy' robots or CGI. The makes the author seem empathetic to the audience, even though he'll go on to argue against the uncanny valley.

What is the actual result?

The small amount of humor doesn't do much for the author's argument, but does help in connecting with the audience. It would help set up the audience for more in depth arguments later in the text.

Are these emotions effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

Popular Mechanics, while scientific in content, is still a magazine read for entertainment. The article does need some humor to help engage the audience. I would say it's effective.

How do these emotional appeals affect the credibility of the author or the logic of the text?

Humor won't improve the logic of the text, but can help engage the audience. The author does great on logic throughout the text, so the humor towards the beginning helps.

Appeals to Logic

Which items on the bulleted list of appeals on page 183 can you recognize in your text?

Expert opinions, organization of ideas, statistics, and referencing studies/research.

What response is the author attempting to create by employing these strategies?

The authors primary strategy is to appeal to logic, which makes sense seeing as how it's a scientific publication. While there is personal experience to assist, the bulk of the argument is in the data and research.

What is the actual result?

The author succeeds in conveying the article logically, which is good since it's a scientific article.

Are these strategies effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

This strategy is perfect for the publication. The best way to convey a point to an audience of a scientific publication is with a scientific approach. It would be the best method out of the three to do so.

Which items on the list of logical fallacies on pages 185-6 can you recognize in your text?

The only one I thought I saw was the "Either...or" fallacy. The author mentions that a robot that got creepy remarks on YouTube didn't get any negative response in person. This doesn't mean that the visitors weren't experiencing the uncanny valley, as they could have been acting polite, or their disgust was outweighed by their interest in robotics.

What effect does the use of these logical fallacies have on the reader?

The fallacy is probably unnoticed by the bulk of readers. If the fallacy is noticed, it could hurt the character of the author.

6.6 Analyzing Message in The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis

Out of all the bullet points on page 181, which seem most relevant to your text’s message and purpose? Why?

The most obvious is "What contemporary events may have shaped the author's views and the audience's responses?"  The most obvious contemporary event would be the advent of CGI in the past 25 years.  The use of CGI to create human-like creatures that don't quite look right will bring up the topic of the uncanny valley.

Which bullet points to not seem relevant to your text’s message and purpose? Why not?

Probably "What are the physical and material surroundings of the event or text?"  The article discusses the robotics industry in general, and CGI in film isn't localized to one location.  Whether or not the uncanny valley is valid isn't dependent on where the magazine is published or where the industry is located.

Are there nuances and layers to the message the author/speaker is trying to get across? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

I would say there isn't much in terms of nuance, as the author says what he wants to say.  If there was any message to take away, it would be that theories should be supported by evidence before believed, and that human acceptance of robots hinges on more than how creepy they look.

6.5 Analyzing My Own Assumptions

1. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we share with the society or culture in which the text was written? Why have they endured?

Most people in our society (that know of the uncanny valley) do seem to believe in it at least in some regard.  The belief in the theory is supported by no real studies being pushed that disprove it, and the theory does appear intuitive (almost realistic robots do appear creepy).

2. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we not share? Why not?

Society may be split on its acceptance of robotics in general.  A lot of people may have an unfavorable view of robots, and any robot, no matter how realistic or unrealistic, will be viewed unfavorably.  Others may be fascinated by robots, and any robot, no matter how creepy, will be viewed favorably.  There likely is not a clear cut 'view' that all of society shares on the topic.

3. If the text is written in a culture distant or different from our own, what social values, beliefs, etc., connect to or reflect our own culture? What social values,beliefs, etc., can we not see in our own culture?

The culture of article is more scientific than normal society would be.  So while normal culture might buy into the uncanny valley because, "yeah, Polar Express was creepy", the scientific community would argue that no matter how intuitive the theory seems, they can't accept it until it has evidence supporting it.

They would agree in that the creepiness of some robots is observed, but it's just the uncanny valley model that is disputed.

4. If the text is written in our culture but in a different historical time, how have social values, beliefs, etc., developed or changed over time?

The article might read differently if written 10, 20 or 100 years in the future.  In this time frame, the line between realism and CGI would be thinner, and more and more CGI would be passed off as the real thing.  It's possible in this time that we will have 'crossed' the uncanny valley, and it may be a non-issue anymore.  It's also possible that the uncanny valley could have been disproved in this time, and replaced with a more accurate model.

6.4 Analyzing Audience in The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis

The article could be said to have both a primary and secondary audience.  The primary audience would be those interested in robotics or animation, who are reading the article because it mentions a topic that interests them.  The secondary audience would be the rest of the demographic that would read Popular Mechanics, mainly those with at least a passive interest in science and engineering.  As the article deals with a specific theory of a specific industry, it's definitely not a 'general audiences' piece.  The article is directed at people with an at least 'passive' interest in robotics.

6.2 Cultural Analysis of The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis

I've decided to do my analysis on this article by Popular Science, called The Truth about Robotics and the Uncanny Valley.  There are cultural values represents the science and tech industry with phrases such as "robotics", "theory", "study", and "algorithms", showing a respect for scientific process and development.  Cultural references include references to film (such as the Polar Express), robotics companies, robotics experts, YouTube video comments, and other staples of the technology and robotics industries.

The author uses the scientific method, research and a lot of scientific terminology to discuss the plausibility and validity of the uncanny valley.