The Uncanny Valley

Credit: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/style/the-polar-express-hero-girl-tiktok.html

Look at her again. The girl from The Polar Express, Holly, is smiling at someone off-camera. Her cheeks are flushed. Her hair catches the light. Every freckle is in place. And yet your stomach has already done the thing it does, that small involuntary pull-back, the sense that you are looking at something that should not be looking back. You can’t quite name what's wrong. The eyes, maybe, or the way the smile sits a half-second too long. Something. That something has a name; the Uncanny Valley was originally developed in 1970 by Japanese robotics engineer Masahiro Mori.¹  At face value, this phenomenon might just seem like an instinct you have and nothing more, but there is a lot more going on beneath the surface. 

The process of analyzing human faces and emotions is complex, involving a network of brain regions like the fusiform face area (FFA) and the amygdala, working together to interpret facial expressions and extract meaning for social interaction.²  The specific patterns of facial muscle activity that create emotional expressions have been shaped over millions of years of evolution, and three main ideas attempt to explain why slight deviations from them set off such a strong internal alarm.³

The first is the evolutionary theory, which suggests there was a point in our history where survival depended on detecting subtle deviations from healthy human features. A face that looked almost right, but not quite, could signal disease, genetic abnormalities, or even a corpse. Discomfort, in other words, was useful. The same instinct that makes Holly unsettling once helped our ancestors avoid people and things that might kill them. ⁴

The second is cognitive dissonance, defined as the mental discomfort felt when people hold attitudes or beliefs that conflict with one another; or, in this case, when perception conflicts with expectation.⁵  When something looks human, we subconsciously expect it to behave humanely. So when that expectation isn’t met, either through a blink that comes a second too late or a smile that holds a second too long, the mismatch creates a low, persistent unease. Our brain rings the alarm before we recognize it.⁶

The third is impaired empathy, the inability to fully understand or share the feelings of another. Small cues like micro-expressions, eye contact, and body language form the foundation of human connection.⁷  When those boxes are left unchecked, our capacity to empathize short circuits. The figure in front of us looks like a person, but we can’t connect with it as one. That gap is where the feeling of eeriness comes from.⁸

The more we interact with “almost-humans,” the more we might have to ask what, exactly, we were responding to all along–the face or the individual behind it.

The Uncanny Valley is not just a feeling you get in your gut when you look at something off, it’s the product of deeply rooted psychological and evolutionary mechanisms. Our brains have spent millions of years learning to recognize human faces and to ring an internal alarm when something looks human but doesn’t feel quite right. From unnatural movements to abnormal reactions, these glitches disrupt our set of expectations, and discomfort quickly follows. As AI and hyper-realistic technology become a growing part of our daily lives, this valley matters more than ever. With growing exposure to these almost-human entities (CGI characters, deepfakes, social robots), the line between human and machine starts to blur.⁹ The more we interact with “almost-humans,” the more we might have to ask what, exactly, we were responding to all along–the face or the individual behind it.

---

1. Masahiro Mori, "The Uncanny Valley," IEEE Spectrum 49, no. 6 (2012): 98–100. Originally published 1970.

2. Nancy Kanwisher et al., “The Fusiform Face Area,” Journal of Neuroscience, 1997; Ralph Adolphs, “Recognizing Emotion from Facial Expressions,” Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 2002.

3.  Paul Ekman, "Facial Expression and Emotion," American Psychologist 48, no. 4 (1993): 384–392. 

4.  Mahdi M. Moosa and S. M. Minhaz Ud-Dean, “Danger Avoidance,” Biological Theory, 2010.

5.  Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1957).

6. Ayse Pinar Saygin et al., “Predictive Coding and the Uncanny Valley,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2012. 

7. Paul Ekman and Wallace V. Friesen, "Constants Across Cultures in the Face and Emotion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17, no. 2 (1971): 124–129.

8.  Angela Tinwell et al., "Perception of Psychopathy and the Uncanny Valley in Virtual Characters," Computers in Human Behavior 29, no. 4 (2013): 1617–1625.

9. Karl F. MacDorman and Hiroshi Ishiguro, "The Uncanny Advantage of Using Androids in Cognitive and Social Science Research," Interaction Studies 7, no. 3 (2006): 297–337.

   
   

Discipline Dilemma: Understanding Corporal Punishment

Parents have a duty to discipline their children. When children do something wrong, their parents should discipline them to teach a lesson. 

One of the most common manifestations of discipline is physical punishment, otherwise known as corporal punishment. Corporal punishment can refer to a variety of actions, from slapping, spanking, and even prolonged periods in a fixed position. However, this form of punishment has raised questions regarding effectiveness and ethics. How effective is corporal punishment? What are its effects? Is it morally just to administer such punishment on a child? 

In schools across the United States, corporal punishment is still considered a valid form of punishment in 19 states. Corporal punishment is more prevalent in states in the South, such as Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi (National Institute of Health). In a second study published by the National Institute of Health, researchers surveyed a group of parents bringing in their children to a clinic, asking about their position on corporal punishment. Based on this survey, 51% of these parents showed support for forms of corporal punishment, 37% disagreed, and the rest took no clear position. Dovetailing this finding, Columbia University’s Demographic and Health Surveys show that in 2015, nearly 40% of children under the age of five were exposed to some form of physical punishment in their lives. Surveys from the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) show that hundreds of millions of 2-to-4 year olds still experience corporal punishment globally. Corporal punishment remains a common choice for parents as a form of discipline in homes, with almost one third of U.S parents reporting spanking their children weekly. 

Clearly, corporal punishment is common—but is it also effective? Psychologist Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff of the National Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia University conducted a meta-analysis in which over the course of 62 years, she attempted to unveil the consequences of corporal punishment. In her study, Gershoff discovered that for most cases, corporal punishment was linked to continuous negative behavior in kids and did not seem to have an overwhelmingly positive result. However, it was also highlighted in her study that there did seem to be an immediate, temporary obedience from the children after they received the punishment, though this did not last. Gershoff finds that the severity and how often a child is punished plays a significant factor in determining its outcome, where the more often and harder the punishment, the more likely an aggressive behavior begins to show. This underscores how subjective corporal punishment can be, with many different variables being at play to determine the outcome of punishment inflicted on children. Ultimately, however, Gershoff’s studies have found that there is a correlation between corporal punishment and negative behaviors among children and advises parents to avoid administering such discipline.

Children need to understand boundaries and I think that children need to understand that there should be punishments… in direct proportion to the improper behavior that they might demonstrate.

Conversely, many parents still argue that corporal punishment is necessary and an effective way to discipline children. For instance, an article published by Britannica argued that corporal punishment is a valid form of punishment when used in moderation. The article explained how more moderate punishments, such as a time-out, would not be effective on more severe behavior. A sharper form of punishment, such as corporal punishment, would overall yield better results in teaching children a lesson when considering certain forms of behavior. Moreover, the same article argued that the physical consequence better establishes boundaries and forces children to continue to behave in the future. President and Dean of the Charles H. Mason Theological Seminary Harold Bennet mentions that “children need to understand boundaries and I think that children need to understand that there should be punishments… in direct proportion to the improper behavior that they might demonstrate.” Overall, the debate surrounding corporal punishment has still remained complex and polarizing. It is crucial for parents, educators, and policymakers to weigh both sides of the debate and strive to create an environment for children to learn, grow, and develop. 

Cognitive Processes

You wake up in the morning and start to get ready, going through your daily morning. Brushing your teeth, taking a shower, eating breakfast, getting dressed. You then get ready to leave the house, putting shoes on and deciding on how to make your commute. All of these rudimentary actions involve critical cognitive skills. From deciding on what to eat and what to wear, to remembering what commute is the fastest, to simple things such as knowing to brush your teeth involve cognitive skills. Such skills such as thinking, judging, and remembering play a major role in human life. Cognitive processes, also known as cognitive functions or skills, are the psychological functions the brain performs in order to take in and process information received. Information is received through the five basic senses.  This information is then analyzed, stored, and then used in making relevant decisions in everyday life. 

Cognitive processes, also known as cognitive functions or skills, are the psychological functions the brain performs in order to take in and process information received.

BAISC COGNITION

---

There are two types of cognitive processes: basic and higher. Basic cognition refers to capacities, such as attention, perception,  information, and memory. Attention is the action of selecting and focusing on stimuli in order to retain the information. The five senses are focused and used to interact with the environment around a person. One may use their eyesight and hearing  to learn during a psychology class, or smell and taste to pick up distinctive characteristics of a food. Perception is the processing of the information given by the five senses and through attention. The brain captures sensations and gives them meaning, associating something picked up to an item, idea, or a concept. This information is then compiled together  to create an organized space to access this information. This leads to the final type of basic cognitive process, memory. Stored information is retained within the system for later access. This varies from both short-term and long-term memory, depending on how the brain sorts the information. 

HIGHER-LEVEL CONGNITION

---

The second type of cognitive process is higher-level cognition. This involves actions, such as critical thinking, creativity, language, and learning. Thinking is the bringing together of information, leading to meaningful judgments and deductions. People can plan for their futures, make important decisions, and manage their behavior by using the previously stored information in new ways. Creativity is the development of new ideas based upon what is already in one’s system. When using previously accessible information, sometimes people begin to create their own path and use that information to develop more advanced  ideas or concepts. Language is the fundamental method for communication, and knowing how to speak a language is important for living life. In general, humans communicate with one another using speech, reading, and writing, though there are also gesture-based languages, such as sign language. Finally, learning is the process in which humans do everything in life. The taking in of information and using it in everyday life is something that we cannot live without and is an important cognitive process. 

However, there exists a number of biases that affect how people utilize cognitive processes, due to systematic errors that occur when shortcuts, or quick rules, are used when using cognitive processes.

When executing these actions, however, there exists a number of biases that affect how people utilize cognitive processes, due to systematic errors that occur when shortcuts, or quick rules, are used when using cognitive processes. These are known as cognitive biases. The most common five biases are anchoring bias, confirmation bias, negativity bias, actor-observer bias, and the halo effect.

Anchoring bias involves relying excessively on the initial information received when making decisions, even if it’s irrelevant or incorrect. People tend to go with their natural instinct and what is first presented to them. For instance, in shopping. If you see a shirt first retailing for $1,200 then see another shirt for $500, it is not uncommon for the second shirt to be viewed as cheap because in comparison to the first $1,200, it seems drastically cheaper. By first taking in the information of a shirt being $1,200 and internalizing that, and then seeing a $500 shirt, the expectations for the normal price of a shirt are shot up because you are anchored on the first price.

The second type of bias, confirmation bias, is the inclination to favor information that supports existing beliefs and values while disregarding contradictory information. Once again, humans can be considered very self-centered and assume that they are always correct. As a result, when looking into information on a topic with pre-existing knowledge, people tend to favor information and sources that agree with what they initially believed and fail to look at opposing arguments closely, if any at all. For example, when looking into new smartphones, there may be a pre-existing, strong bias for a certain brand of smartphone. When reading reviews, recommendations, and opinions, it is common to subconsciously pay more attention to positive information about that brand or product. This, in turn, clouds the true facts and leads to a stronger inclination to prefer an object or idea due to this pre-existing bias.

Negativity bias is the tendency to give more importance to negative information or experiences compared to positive ones. Negative events, emotions, or information is usually paid more attention to and often have a stronger impact on thoughts and behaviors. Memories, for instance, tend to be more vivid and clear with more negative experiences rather than positive ones. Humiliation, embarrassment, and anger are all recalled more vividly because of its negative qualities and stand out more as a result. News stations also use this to their advantage, opting to display more negative stories as it captures attention and keeps the audience engaged. Stories involving conflict, natural disasters, and bad news are focused on more as it keeps the audience watching and intrigued. 

The fourth type of bias, actor-observer bias, is the cognitive bias that refers to the tendency of people to attribute their own behavior to external factors that are out of their control. On the contrary, people often attribute others’ behaviors to their personality and other internal factors. For instance, in traffic, if you cut someone off, you might tell yourself that you were just in a hurry or you didn’t see the car. However, when someone else cuts you off, it is not uncommon for the reaction to be to blame the other person, to call them careless, reckless, and an aggressive driver. 

The horn and halo effect make up the fifth type of cognitive bias. The halo effect is where our overall positive impression of a person influences how we feel and think about other parts of their character. If we perceive someone positively in one aspect, we are more likely to have a positive impression of them as a whole, allowing the positive trait to "radiate" and create a favorable "halo" around the person. Conversely, the horn effect is the opposite, where an initial negative impression results in continuous negative views about that person. This bias can lead to judgments that are not entirely objective, as our perception is influenced by a single trait. The most common instance is with physical attractiveness. If we find a person especially appealing, we often presume other positive qualities, such as kindness and intelligence, but this may not always be the case. This bias is also the basis for the idea of “having a good first impression,” where the initial interaction with a person can either set up or ruin the way that the other person visualizes the rest of your character and you as a person.