Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

The "second uncanny valley" there is the same thing as the first one. There's no difference. The only reason they're bringing a "second" into the picture is because it's making value judgments about what's "more" or "less" than human, when in fact the point of the uncanny valley idea is more about things being more or less similar to humans: The fact that the theorized graph winds up symmetrical shows how unnecessary it is.

They're just making shit up; the original "uncanny valley" graph goes from "not human at all" to "completely human", not "worse than a human" to "perfect human".

[Agdune]

Yeah, the whole 'posthuman' template thing is kinda stupid. There would be no way for us to psychologically recognise something as being somehow better than human, we'd just see it as not-human. So the realistic concept would be that rather than there being some inane linear progression, a subject who (as per the example paragraph) had wings would just slide back on down into the traditional uncanny valley, away from "human", not go on past it into some stupid realm of super-human. Unless you're of the opinion that we were made by god and have some sort of innate understanding of the concept, we have no evolutionary or historical precedent for anything that's human-plus, ergo, we cannot naturally recognise what's "better". Only apply the concept afterwards through cultural or personal values, at which point it isn't really relevant to the uncanny valley anymore (which is to my understanding, an involuntary thing), it's then just a learned concept.

I mean, look at that Heidi lady from the Hills. No-one would say she's somehow on this hypothetical "better" side of the uncanny valley, even though she's probably physiologically healthier than most people, thanks to her probably intensive workout routine. She still just looks freaky.

[Cthulhu]

The whole "posthuman" thing entirely is kinda stupid in my opinion.  The chart is just additional dumbness, and none of the people being listed are anywhere near hot enough to be considered beyond human.

[mendonca]

On OP: My theory - Quite a lot of people seem to shun the concept of independent thought, or at least expressing independent thought.

I suppose after being beaten down by your peers (who were beaten down by their peers) when they express an opinion away from a particular given 'correct answer', it tends to became the easy thing to do to avoid ridicule.

See how such things as the FHM (man* magazine) top 100 list of most attractive females is so sensitive what the current annual crop of 14 year old boys is told. Theoretically if this was a accurate, significant survey none of 'The Saturdays' would make it in, just because some dull marketeer is shelling out the big dollars to keep them on our TV screens when we** would rather be watching re-runs of Ray Harryhausen flicks.

I would suggest calling people ugly without deeper analysis is the same phenomenon, but just expressing itself in a typical kind of 'rebellious' way.

In summary: it's easy.

People either don't know what they think, or don't want to express what they actually think. (perhaps at the stage of their lives they are struggling with all sorts of urges - brought about by impossibly beautiful celebrity? - which they don't understand and don't want to admit to the world?).

As long as they can, in time, learn to untangle these emotions and start being honest with the world, it's all okay though.

*14 yr old boy

**I

Slightly on the train of the thread - these impossibly beautiful but empty people on the television make me uncomfortable. Not because they are horrible to look at per se, they generally are formed correctly and are attractive, it's just the notion that the idiot children watching these shows will subconsciously think that there is a role model in front of them and seek vapidity over substance (Thereby bringing civilisation to it's knees and heralding the dawn of a Grazia-inspired dystopia where the dogs don't bark and the women don't think.)

I mean, what in the name of F*ck is the Hills about? That's horrible horrible horrible horrible.

Have I too little faith in the intelligence of wo/mankind?

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

What's this about The Hills?

From what I can tell according to Wikipedia it's one of those "scripted reality TV shows".  Then again maybe the fact that I don't understand the appeal of something like that is something of an explanation.

[smigenboger]

I find realism adds to attractiveness, and perfect symmetry is uncanny. Of course you don't have to go overboard on it, but maybe that's just me.

[mendonca]

What's this about The Hills?

In all honesty, I don't know really. I have been in the room when it is on the TV, but never for very long.

[Renault]

I can't say I find female actors attractive. They're all just too perfect, in a way that makes me think a second uncanny vally exists after how normal humans look, for people who look too much like an ideal human. It reminds me of the G-Man in that they're trying to act like a normal person, and it freaks me the fuck out.

If someone said I reminded them of the G-Man, I'd take that as the highest honor. Just sayin'.

Also, perhaps the reason they say actors are ugly is because there really aren't many insults you can make about them. Say you can't stand Tom Hanks (If thats possible.)(It isn't.) What do you say? You don't know Tom Hanks; you can say you hate his characters, but thats not him--its people he's pretending to be. You can say he's a bad actor, but obviously nobody believes you. All thats left are low, personal attacks on what little he has to attack: physical appearance.
And since women are far more often used not on the merits of their abilities but on their looks, the attack is far more potent when used on them. Ugly men often get roles--look at Danny De Vito or even ones who people treat like they're attractive despite looking like the weird old guy who sits behind me in classes and always smiles that weird smile without saying anything.*coughgeorceclooneycough*
But ugly women? It's sort of a career-killer, far worse than lack of talent. So its one of the few attacks with any teeth to it.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

Hm... before I just sort of viewed reality TV with mild contempt but after I started watching Veronica Mars on Netflix recently and then found out it was canceled in order to put on a Reality show about some over populated spice girls rip off group I've never heard of...  The fact that "Pussycat Dolls" got canceled even faster isn't much consolation.

I know!  Let's talk about why an intelligently written show about a beautiful woman who is a badass private detective (who incidentally can sing and dance very well) get's canceled in order to put on some scripted reality tripe about a pop girl group who apparently wasn't even popular enough for people outside their target audience to have heard of them.

I mean seriously, from a purely superficial perspective, Kristen Bell is hot.  Right?  But still they have to replace Veronica Mars with the show about a bunch of skanky, bitchy, idiots competing to become the best skanky, bitchy, idiot.  It's like quality is actually a detriment to a show's success these days.

Ok, I think I'm actually done editing this post now.

[Astramancer]

In some ways, quality is a detriment.  This is because quality requires money. 

Throwing random numbers out here...

Say that you have a quality, well-written and popular show.  It has a market share of 20%, and advertisers will pay, say, $100,000 per % of market share.  So this quality show brings in $2,000,000 in advertising!  Yay!  But it costs $1,500,000 to make.

Now you have a trashy reality TV show that gets 10% of the market share.  So it gets $1,000,000 in advertising, but it only costs $300,000 to make.

Quality show:  Gets the studio a net of $500,000.
Trashy show: Gets the studio a net of $700,000.

Guess which one is going to be made?

Reality TV has the huge advantage of "it's cheap."  They don't have to be nearly as popular as other shows in order to make money.  Plus it's easy, and humans are, by and large, lazy.  So when confronted with the formula of "cheap and easy but still profitable," it's no surprise that the execs choose to keep reality TV at the forefront.  It's popular enough to be worth it.

[Agdune]

To answer the hills question: As said, it's a reality show, however its target audience is actually people who find the people pathetically hilarious. I refuse to dignify them with my attention and all (like anyone notices or cares), but my girlfriend sorta likes them. Watching their semi-scripted social dramas makes any real-life problems you have seem tiny and insignificant compared to their complete and unstoppable lifelong problems of retardedness and their meaningless, hollow lives of nothing. It's enough to make even the lowliest, most under-paid and under appreciated janitor feel like they're on the cusp of become nobel prize winners by contrast.

ps. Also the guy who gets the most screentime has the last name Pratt. It's pretty much proof that god exists, it's so appropriate for him.

pps. and according to tv tropes they had an episode where that heidi woman showed off her latest plastic surgery to everyone. Her mother cried at how freaky she looked after having had her 10 billionth surgery. Hillarity! (or rather, in a moment I will regret: "Hill-larity." mmm, yes.)