Mitt Romney, Robotics, and the Uncanny Valley

Hugh Pickens writes "Brian Fung writes in the Atlantic that one of Romney's electoral problems is that he occupies a kind of uncanny valley for politicians, inexplicably turning voters off despite looking like the textbook image of an American president. Just as people who interact with lifelike robots often develop a strange feeling due to something they can't quite name, something about Romney leaves voters unsettled. As with the robotic version of the uncanny valley, the closer Romney gets to becoming real to a voter, the more his likeability declines. 'The effect is almost involuntary, considering the substantial advantages Romney enjoys from appearance alone,' writes Fung. 'But in person, his polished persona gives way to what appears a surprisingly forced and inauthentic character.' Political commentator Dana Milbanks adds that although Romney is confident and competent, in casual moments his weirdness comes through — equal parts 'Leave It to Beaver' corniness and social awkwardness. 'Romney's task now is to work his way out of the uncanny valley toward a more compelling style of humanity,' concludes Fung. 'But every day he lingers in it, the hill grows steeper.'"

Comments

You're quoting Dana Milbanks (sic)???

[Cornwallis]

Geez, one of the worst of the Washington Post shill-meisters. And it is Milbank, not Milbanks who has said "that the whole campaign-trail reporting gig is a complete waste of time and borderline fraudulent". How is this /. material?

Re:You're quoting Dana Milbanks (sic)???

[Svippy]

How is this /. material?

Because it has 'robotics' and 'Uncanny Valley' in its word cloud. Now you know how to get to front page of Slashdot.

Re:You're quoting Dana Milbanks (sic)???

[ideonexus]

I did find the article interesting when it appeared in The Atlantic, but after some thoughtfulness I realize it's very unfair to argue that a human being falls into the Uncanny Valley, and that this article is really just a stretch to find some shred of fresh insight in a Presidential Primary that has dragged on forever through too many debates with a mainstream media that can't look away while viewers are completely over it (sorry for the run-on sentence). Things that fall into the UV are supposed to be "creepy," and Romney isn't creepy, he's just out of touch and it's fair to compare him to the Al Gore of the 2000 election in that respect.

That being said, Republicans seem to be split into the "angry" and "policy" factions. Newt Gingrich is in many ways more liberal than Romney, but Red-Meat-Limbaugh-Coulter conservatives love him because of his in-your-face debate style. He appeals to that anger Fox News and 24-hour conservative AM radio has firmly rooted in so many Americans. That's why I find it hilarious that Limbaugh and Coulter are arguing against him, as it was their rhetorical style that has made his candidacy possible.

I hope Romney wins this so America can have a constructive debate over economic equality. He'll bring attention to the fact that capital gains are only taxed at 15% compared to labor-income being taxed at 30%, and that the reason it's so low is because he personally lobbied against making it more equitable in the 1980s. Evangelical Christians will have to rethink their tax-deductible church donations in the context of Romney's $3 million yearly donations to the Mormon Church. He'll bring attention to the fact that companies like his keep their money in tax shelters overseas and that his consulting firm bankrupted many of the companies they claim to have saved when they had to pay the consulting feeds. He's not creepy, but he is out of touch with what life is like for 99% of voters ("I'll bet you $10,000."), and he'll put a face on the faceless economic issues we need to address in these United States.

Re:You're quoting Dana Milbanks (sic)???

[mcgrew]

The creepiness factor is huge

IMO every one of the Republican nominees are pretty damned creepy, especially Gingrinch (apologies to Tom Tomorrow).

I think the "uncanny valley" characteristic here is pretty damned far fetched. If Romney looks creepy, what makes Obama look any less creepy? Or any holywood movie star, for that matter?

I just saw today that Romney's superpac is mostly made up of Wall Street investors. Maybe someone should Occupy him?

At any rate, we have no good choices. I'll probably vote Green or Libbie anyway, just because I find it incredibly stupid to vote for anyone who wants to put you, some of your friends, or members of your family in prison. You may not smoke pot, but someone you love does. And we're spending billions we can't afford arresting, trying, and imprisoning THOSE YOU LOVE. How rational is that?

Re:You're quoting Dana Milbanks (sic)???

[tbannist]

Sorry, but that's ignorant. If Ron Paul becomes president, he won't make pot legal, he won't put the country on the gold standard, and I'm not even sure if he will end the U.S. occupation of other countries. Why? Because just like Obama his hands will tied by the political reality that those options are not popular. He might try to do them, but he'd end up crucified and his legacy would as the most ineffectual president in U.S. history.

If you want those things come to pass, you have to do more than vote for a name. You need to convince a lot of other Americans that they're good ideas. It takes a lot more than a leader to have a revolution.

Re:Religion

[Moryath]

Except that Romney is doing it wrong.

Being a "vulture capitalist" who makes millions of dollars by ruining the lives of others, destroying viable companies as part of a firm whose mantra was "strip and sell", is not wholesome.
Dodging taxes and exploiting loopholes is not wholesome.
Supporting a party with racism as a key platform plank is not wholesome.
Supporting a party that wants to go to war with the world and waste lives is not wholesome.

Whether you are pro-choice or not, the LDS Church is not pro-choice, and yet Romney was pro-choice as governor, vehemently so. So that would not make him a "wholesome Mormon modeling good Mormon behavior."

The problem with Romney is he's not wholesome at all. He's a stellar example of what's wrong with the Republican Party today - an amoral, evil asshole who's wearing a Fred Rogers suit.

What bothers me

[Cro Magnon]

Even before Iowa, people were claiming Romney was "electable". WTF? Why is a guy who couldn't beat a 100 year old loser in 2008 "electable"? More important, when has the "electable" candidate actually WON?? McCain was electable, and so was Bob Dole. On the other side, John Kerry was electable, and I'm pretty sure Hilary was more electable than an unknown 2 year Senator with a foriegn name.

Re:Religion

[Hatta]

No, standard Christianity is every bit as weird as Mormonism. People have just grown up around it, so it gets a pass.

Re:Religion

[Reality Master 101]

Of course, many Catholics claim that Protestants are "not really Christianity", either (and vice-versa).

I will say one thing about Mormons... of all the people I've met of different religions, Mormons were by far the nicest and most genuine people. They actually try and live the tenants of their religion. I'm an atheist, but if I had to pick a religion to follow because I wanted the culture, I'd pick being a Mormon. I hate alcohol anyway. :)

They're not perfect of course (their support of California's Prop 8 is particularly troubling), but overall having Romney be a Mormon is a positive in my book, compared to, say, Santorum who is a full-blown religious wack job.

Re:The US is f*cked, presidentially

[jbeaupre]

No. Every election cycle, I take a look at the candidates and think "Are these the best of the best? Can't we do better?" The answer to both is a big NO.

These guys are the survivors of a weird winnowing process. Egotistical enough to believe they should be president, connected enough to get support, organized enough to run, stubborn enough to stick with it, and with not too many skeletons in the closet. Can speak well and doesn't appear overtly crazy or hideously ugly.

A couple of those talents are useful as president, but there isn't a 1:1 correlation.

Makes you sort of wonder if the way candidates were chosen in a smoke filled back room wasn't an improvement. I almost wish we could elect a couple committees to go and recruit a presidential candidate each for the whole population to then vote on. Call them the hypothetical R and D committees.

Re:Romney Most Qualified

[khipu]

Yes Romneys qualified. He's had years of experience plundering companies for his own personal profit.Now he can bring that experience to the whole country!

I sure hope so, because "plundering" failing companies is far preferable to bailing them out with taxpayer money, which is what Bush and Obama have been doing.

"unintended" consequences?

[Sloppy]

Not conspiracy, just unintended consequences.

Consequences can only be "unintended" for so long. We've known for decades, arguably centuries, that creating a large/popular black market will divert economic strength away from the general populace toward criminals. When you see it as it's happening, and maintain (rather than repeal) the laws that make that market remain black, it's no longer an unintended consequence. At the very best, it's a regretfully accepted/planned consequence.

You can't say "you have to break some eggs to make an omelet" and then call the breaking of eggs unintended. Oh you intended it, you just weren't completely happy about it.

Similarly, we shouldn't allow politicians a free pass on the known and anticipated consequences of the drug war. They can still support the drug war with honor, but only if they own those consequences. The authoritarian parties need to come out and say

We know better than doctors and your local governments, believe there is a limit to the dignity humans should be allowed to have, and also we believe that it is better that Americans send their drug money to Mexico than spend it on domestic farms. Drug production is that unwanted in our country that we're willing to make these sacrifices, and here is why...

and then finish that sentence with whatever amazing fact or political theory it is, that has been so preciously held from the public for so long. But don't fucking say, "We didn't intend to usurp your local government, overrule your doctor, disrepect people, and send money to Mexico.. we had no idea prohibition would necesitate all that," because that is just insultingly unbelievable.