11.3 Outlining My Public Argument

Introducing

• Start by defining the uncanny valley
• State how whether the theory is believed or not defines whether animators and roboticists even attempt to create human analogues.
• Show how the uncanny valley shapes our views on media.
• If the uncanny valley is not true, but believed, it prevents people from investigating techniques in creating realistic human analogues.
• Problem: The uncanny valley is accepted by people in the industry despite no empirical data showing its veracity.

Supporting Paragraphs

•  Supporting arguments against the valley: The idea was never tested before being accepted.  Different experiments are getting different results.  Not all human analogues create an uncanny response.
• Criticisms: The valley does explain a documented behavior: people's seeming aversion towards near-lifelike human analogues.  Certain criticisms could still fit in the uncanny model. 
• Point #1: The theory was never tested (rebuttal: Mori never intended it do be a definitive explanation).
• Point #2: Research shows an uncanny response based more on conflict of realistic and unrealistic features, less on how close to real it is (rebuttal: this may be the basis of the valley in general, features that aren't quite 'human').
• Point #3: Research shows actual humans don't get quite the same emotional response as some not-human figures (rebuttal: The valley may be a rough approximation and may vary example to example).
• Point #1: Despite its popularity and near universal acceptation, especially since the rise of CGI films, the theory was never actually tested.
• Point #2: Another study done by [source] shows that the uncanny valley may exist, but is not based simply on how 'close' something appears to be human.  The effect may be caused by a conflict of realistic features, such as expressions or hair, and unrealistic features, such as plasticy skin or unnatural movements.
• Point #3: Another problem relates to the original graph itself.  The graph shows a standard increasing line of emotional response based on how close to human something is, sans the titular valley.  However experiments done by [source] show that real, actual humans don't get quite the same emotional response some of the less realistic examples further down the graph.
• Point #1 Evidence: "However, the validity of the uncanny valley has not been confirmed with psychological evidence. Thus it is uncertain whether the uncanny valley actually emerges at certain realism levels." - (Seyama, Nagayama)
• Point #2 Evidence: "These results suggest that to have an almost perfectly realistic human appearance is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the uncanny valley. The uncanny valley emerges only when there is also an abnormal feature." - (Seyama, Nagayama)
• Point #3 Evidence: "Interestingly, the most liked anthropomorphism levels were all robots: toy robots and humanoids.  They were even preferred over real humans." - (Bartneck, et. al.)
• Outline
• Introduction
• Define the valley and provide examples.
• Brief history involving the valley.
• Explain the conflict
• Point #1
• The uncanny valley is an accepted but unproven hypothesis.
• Data showing the unverified nature of the theory
• Defense: The theory is just a hypothesis and explains an observed phenomenon
• Point #2
• The uncanny valley may exist, but is not based on 'closeness' to humans, but on abnormal features.
• Cite data showing study
• Defense: The data may prove the valley.  Perhaps the valley is made of these imperfections. 
• Point #3
• Real humans aren't rated as highly as some humanoid robots or toys.
• Show data conflicting humans with humanoid robots.
• Defense: The original model is just a hypothesis.  The real model would have some perfecting to do.
• Conclusion
• Sum up what the theory means
• Sum up what all the evidence is
• Conclusion: The uncanny valley is probably true on some level.  The real model is probably more nuanced that the hypothesized one.

Concluding Strategies

• Call to action: Until we have a clear cut empirically backed model of the uncanny valley, I wouldn't worry too much about whether you venture into it.  Go ahead and try to make creepy robots.
• Negative consequences: If you avoid the valley for fear of alienating people, you risk setting back robotics and animation potential years of progress.
• Positive consequences: If we attempt to push the boundaries of human realism, maybe we can one day cross the uncanny valley, making this whole scenario a non-issue.
• Common ground: Everyone agrees there is some sort of uncanny response.  It's more of the specific model and whether its a big issue that's debated.
• Future of the Debate: Research will probably give us a more accurate model.  The debate will turn to whether we should try and push the valley or not.