Talk:Uncanny valley

message: I was tickled by the idea of an actual place called Uncanny Valley, but I'm not sure it exists.  A quick web search for Uncanny Valley, CA brings up an off beat travel guide and some speculation about Uncanny Valley being where the new Sunmaid raisins girl comes from.  Nothing on line points to a real place.  SamuellusSoccus 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm removing it. If someone can find a relaible mention of it then we can put it back.  -Will Beback · † · 20:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncanny Valley, CA?

message: Not that I think Roger Ebert is an expert on Uncanny Valley, but for what it's worth, here is what he says about this film :
:The characters in "The Polar Express" don't look real, but they don't look unreal, either; they have a kind of simplified and underlined reality that makes them visually magnetic.
Not that it proves or disproves anything, but I thought some of you may be interested. Paranoid 10:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ebert on The Polar Express

message: You may not agree with the arguments presented in the article or the references supporting them, but stripping sources from an article is fundamentally bad. PARTICULARLY the actual book about the subject! See Wikipedia:Cite sources - David Gerard 12:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stripping of references

message: I spotted a bit of POV in here, don't know if anyone wants to have a go at fixing it. Here's the end of one paragraph.
:Proponents of this view argue that nowhere between 1970s and 2000s have moviemakers actually faced the challenge of the Valley.
And here's the beginning of the next:
:It is hard to ignore the Uncanny Valley effect in the 2001 movie, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within by the ill-fated Square Pictures.
It goes straight from saying that some refute that filmmakers have dealt with it, to stating as fact that it appears in the Final Fantasy film. If I were to try fixing it, I'd probably end up hacking out most of the paragraph, so I'll give someone else a go. - Vague | Rant 11:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I added a counterpoint to the POV of not encountering it based on two of Pixar's films (one is a less known short one, which whilst on their site isn't made as apparent as you might expect).  Again, the content is based on opinion, but I hope I made clear it's simply a counterpoint in the debate, not something that's been empirically studied.  Feel free to move it around as you think necessary.Sir Brutus
I never had any problems with the Final Fantasy movie or The Flight of the Osiris. What a complete, steaming pile of horseshit. Final Fantasy just plain flopped, nothing more. Roger Ebert, who talks about the Uncanny Valley in his review of Team America: World Police said nothing about it in his (positive) review of Final Fantasy.
Ebert: "She has an eerie presence that is at once subtly unreal and yet convincing. Her movements (which mirror the actions of real actors) feel about right, and her hair blows convincingly in the wind. The first closeup of her face and eyes is startling because the filmmakers are not afraid to give us a good, long look--they dare us not to admire their craft."
Wow, he sounds truly disgusted there, doesn't he? Can anyone cite any sources that lead to any research on the uncanny valley and its relationship to this movie, or to the Polar Express? Any actual research, rather than speculation? Maybe--just a crazy guess here--The Incredibles did better because Pixar has a reputation for fun movies and the commercial showcasing a movie with a train that slides on ice and dancing waiters didn't generate the same kind of excitement.--SpacemanAfrica 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I'm not sure, but I have the feeling that the middle paragraph is the source article for the Uncanny Valley, printed in full. Is this true? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 11:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: I don't know, it seems to me that this section isn't needed.  It offers too little relevant information to be useful for someone trying to understand what the Uncanny Valley effect is, instead it just gives references that people have made to the effect.  Unless someone disagrees, I'll remove it. MrC 05:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analogies Outside AI 

message: The use of references is good, but we shouldn't just copy the original paper word-for-word, as this article appears to. The first person references, unusual style, and other anomalies ought to be fixed. --Explodicle 04:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I understand that the translation is GPL'd, but I imagine the original source text isn't; is this still ok?  Either way, the material needs to be edited for a more encyclopedic tone or perhaps moved to WikiSource or something. TomTheHand 18:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The translators released their translation under the GFDL, which as far as I know means that the document can be duplicated and modified in any way as long as the resulting document is GFDL'd as well.  However, I wouldn't think you could translate a copyrighted work and then GFDL it.  I listed this page on Wikipedia:Copyvio#December_28.2C_2005 but I really don't know enough about this stuff myself to make any kind of decision.  It is unacceptable as-is, though. TomTheHand 21:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of original article 

message: Feel free to add and re-write this section, someone tried to remove it. I feel it should stay seeing as computer and consoles are getting more and more powerful. We'll be seeing a lot of Uncanny Valley in games in the near future. Havok (T/C/c) 22:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In games 

message: The uncanny valley is specifically about meeting robots in the real-world, not about the representation of humans in art, movies, or video games. I think many people are simply excusing 'bad animation' with the 'uncanny valley', and forgetting that reality and it's representation are two quite different phenomenon, and evoke very different responces.--Davémon 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Errors 

message: Okay Robotman, while you're clearly on some kind of subversive mission from the government of the uncanny valley (dude totally kidding please don't freak out) the link to an explanation of the concept is totally acceptable. What are the fast majority of such links and external reading if not that? So what if this is a somewhat humorous version of the concept: Did you even read it? it explains the concept more concisely than the article? Thechosenone021 19:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Thechosenone021.  Yes, I read the cartoon.  I do think it's funny and I do think it makes a decent explanation of the topic.  However, this Wikipedia article makes a far better explanation.  I also think there are quite enough external links, and I'll state again that I don't believe that humourous explanations have a place in an encyclopedia.  Humour is very subjective - possibly one of the most subjective forms of communication there is - and can easily be misunderstood, and to me one of the main reasons for the existence of an encyclopedia is to lessen misunderstanding. Thanks for choosing to discuss this, BTW. Robotman1974 19:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ergh. This is my least favorite part of wikipedia. You have a solid point about the wealth of other links, but I think we can trust people to deal with that. I mean, it just eats me up every day that so many  things are not considered encyclopedic and yet there are just friggin' terabytes of data on the pokemon (not only that but they don't use modifiers that make the fictional nature of those things clear). I guess I should just be glad that I never make fiscal contributions. Whatever man. Take victory i'll drop it.Thechosenone021 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to say, I wish the link was there.  At the same time, it isn't what is traditionally called encylopedic.  The best & easiest compromise I can come up with is to create an "Uncanny Valley in Pop Culture" section?  Though there might be trouble populating it.  Lets not look at victory or loss here, folks.  We're all editors trying to get to the best possible result.  As a reader of Dinosaur Comics, I certainly found the comic entertaining, but is it notable?  Does it contribute to the over-all article other than as a point of trivia?  I think not.  Would a trivia section be of merit?  That depends on whether or not there is enough of value to merit it.  --mordicai. 02:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well dude like, I mean, its not trivia (or trivial), its not an example of the U.V. in pop culture (Static image dinos are not really horrfying, even when pixalated). Really it is an alternative explanation. There are only one or two other explanations on the external links. 
Actually another suggestion I have regards the chart at the top, which should get some examples of positive valued stills like photography or, alternatively a painting. I don't know if the chart is CC. Thechosenone021 18:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well first I'll just say that my voice is just one among many.  If enough people make reasonable arguments  to have that image included among the external links, I'll abide by the consensus.  I still stand by the points I made above though.  Also, the other external links in this article may need to be pruned somewhat.  I haven't looked through all of them yet as I haven't been watching this page for very long.  I do have to disagree about the chart though.  To me, that chart explains the concept better than any words can, and I agree with its inclusion and placement within the article.  Finally, I'll say that I agree with what you said about Pokemon et al.  But that's a topic for other discussion pages. Robotman1974 19:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh don't get me wrong. I think the chart is great. I was just thinking of adding some data points onto it.Thechosenone021 14:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I misunderstood you on that point; I thought you were talking about the top of the article.  Sorry about that. Robotman1974 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Issue but lets hash it out. 

message: There are five sources?  And about five hundred weasel words.  This article is in a sorry state, indeed.  Kasreyn 02:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also WP:OR. You're on Warren Ellis' e-mail list, aren't you? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't find any weasel words in skimming over it.  Can you provide some examples? --PsyphicsΨΦ 21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't either. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 01:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhh... 

message: I've removed the weasel tag, the OR, and the no references tag.  I see no evidence of these, and there's no sign of discussion here to resolve any issues.  If anyone wants to put them back, I'd like to see some discussion here about specifics. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think it is appropriate to remove tags like this? A discussion was begun just above this one just within the past day. Additionally, it may help to read the links in the templates so that you can better understand what we are talking about. If you would like examples or guidance, I am sure we can help you with those. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 09:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also a wikipedia administrator, and I'm very aware of the relevant policies, so no 'guidance' is required.  These tags are not 'fire and forget'.  The assertion that there are no references is an error, there's a reference section at the bottom.  The assertion that there are weasel words needs examples, I skimmed through it and failed to find any systemic weasel problem.  Likewise the NOR claim.  I'm not willing to engage in a revert war, but if there is no supporting evidence for those tags very soon, then the appropriate action is to remove them out again. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, it wasn't "fire and forget". There is a discussion on the talk page. Anyone could simply ask for examples, and they would have been given. The references section is kind of useless, isn't it? The majority of the article seems to be uncited assertions. Not all of it, but quite a bit. I'm too busy right now to deal with this, but I will have to come back later and add individual fact tags. You handled this very poorly, however. I don't know why you thought it was better to remove the tags than ask for clarification, but that was rather poor behavior. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entitled to your opinion, but removing tags that were entered without any substantive explanation is hardly poor behavior, and your message seems to quite heatedly assume poor faith.  You're a new admin, I know, but your behavior here is out of line.  I'd be willing to coach you if you'd like because something needs to change.  Let's focus on the article.  If the tags are to remain, we really need something substantive here about _why_ they're there.  Drive-by tagging doesn't solve anything, it just clutters the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need coaching from you. I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about here. I'm sure your very good at some things, but this conversation does not appear to be one of them. As I said, when I have more time, I will come back and show you how your article should be changed. Finally, what we're talking about has nothing to do with being an administrator, so you can drop the status games.--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 18:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Responded on user talk, this is no longer directly related to this article. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag cleanup

message: In the introduction of the article, it reads:
"The name captures the idea that a robot which is "almost human" will seem overly "strange" to a human being and thus will fail to evoke the requisite empathetic response required for productive human-robot interaction."
Why "productive"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serialized (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording... productive? 

message: I propose we add (back) a section identifying the Polar Express movie as the best example yet of this phenomenon.
Googling "polar express hanks creepy" you get 41000(!) hits. Previous discussion have identified lots of critics using words suggesting they're experiencing the revulsion of Uncanny Valley. 
Please don't demand that these critics should identify their revulsion as Uncanny Valley before we can include them. They might not even be aware of the phenomenon.
We should not have to wait until this movie becomes the subject of a scientific article.
Have a look at the "reaction" section of the movie's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Polar_Express_%28film%29#Reaction for a good text we could include.
85.227.226.243 09:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Polar Express cost $170mil and has made over $300mil.  You'd think fewer people would go and see such a creepy movie ;) 24.16.138.112 (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I propose to include a link to/discussion of Polar Express 

message: Masahiro Mori wrote in Japanese. The title of his work was "Bukimi no tani." Translators chose to translate "bukimi" as "uncanny," but they could have just as well translated it as "eerie." There is no evidence that Mori ever read or was influenced by Ernst Jentsch or Sigmund Freud.
Karl MacDorman (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no evidence Mori read Freud or Jansch 

message: This section, with its reference to a 30 Rock episode that mentioned the uncanny valley, was removed. I think it belongs in the article, (a) because it's interesting and (b) because it's evidence of the term's entrance into mainstream consciousness. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "In popular culture" section 

message: I'm removing this section for the following reasons:
- It describes Red Dwarf as a Robotic UK sitcom.  This seems to give a misleading idea of the series in general.
- In Red Dwarf, Kryten states that earlier models of his line were identical in appearance to human beings, leading to massive unpopularity because people couldn't stand the idea of robots that looked just like people.  This is not the Uncanny Valley in action, and therefore I believe this is an inappropriate reference.
Kurosau (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture - Red Dwarf Trivia 

message: The page linked to shows nothing uncanny and "Details about the story and gameplay of Heavy Rain itself remain scarce", so why is it referred to here. Remove it?
78.147.48.148 (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy Rain reference - spam? 

message: I have very often heard video game reviewers talk about the uncanny valley, check for example the Zero Punctuation on Oblivion or Gametrailer's review on Riddick: assault on Dark Athena. Is that at least worth a mention?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.139.28 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Video Games 

message: "Human suspicion of realistic robots and avatars may have earlier origins than previously thought." See this BBC article. Copana2002 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New research

message: In this story, the author notes the fact that the theory does not appear to be rooted in empirical observation. An interesting read, in any case. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Link has changed to:  Jimw338 (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Mechanics investigation

message: "Like Humans, Monkeys Fall Into The 'Uncanny Valley' " covers research mentioned on All Things Considered today. The ATC story also reports the idea that one of the Final Fantasy films  -- i guess Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within -- lost money due to the UcV effect and killed the studio.--Jerzy•t 01:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not up to date 

message: While my mention of the following is, on my part, not only OR but very casual and unqualified OR, the facile use of a "valley" metaphor should set off alarms that i am surprised not to hear addressed beyond the "heterogene[ity]" comment that 
: The uncanny valley is a heterogeneous group of phenomena. Phenomena labeled as being in the uncanny valley can be diverse, involve different sense modalities, and have multiple, possibly overlapping causes, which can range from evolved or learned circuits for early face perceptionMacDorman & Ishiguro, 2006MacDorman, Green, Ho, & Koch, 2009. to culturally-shared psychological constructs.MacDorman, Vasudevan & Ho, 2008. People's cultural backgrounds may have a considerable influence on how androids are perceived with respect to the uncanny valley.Bartneck Kanda, Ishiguro, & Hagita, 2007. 
The "valley" is a 2-dimensional construct (despite the evocation of 3-D valleys), really amounting to a minimum that is implicit in the curve Mori drew, following unstated logic, thru the sparse data points. The graph depends on an incoherent (one suspects subjective) concept of a one-dimensional variable "lifelikeness", when in fact "positivity of human reaction" is bound to be a function of too many dimensions to really identify. Falling into a "valley" along one route as "lifelikeness" increases does not imply that there are no routes along which "human reaction" monotonically increases toward indiscernable difference from human. In fact, the David Hanson critique suggests to me that Mori's curve reflects nothing more or less than Mori inventing prematurely a scale that amounts to position in a series of approaches (reflecting perhaps only the order in which Mori or the studio  chose to try adding new dimensions to the mix), as opposed to achieving objectively higher values of any more relevant single variable. I'm anxious to hear what conclusions qualified researchers have been led to addressing the issues i have hinted at here. --Jerzy•t 01:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What valley? 

message: Ah, this is why Wikipedia is mocked the world 'round. When it isn't rife with Simpsons, South Park, and Family Guy references, we have prejudicial editing to support the hippest, coolest, most chic buzzwords as legitimate scientific ideas, when they're really junk science
Look at the first reference link in the article. The Popular Mechanics article. You only used it for the highly limited purpose of affirming "yes, this hypothesis exists". But did you actually read it? Did you notice where an MIT Director of Robotics said that it is mere conjecture? Where is that reflected in the article? Where in the article is the analysis that this is not legitimate science, and not even a legitimate hypothesis to scientifically examine, that it's just a fashionable, everyday intuition that people like to have bull sessions about?
Here, I'll copy the quotes and force you to actually read them. Then, perhaps we can have some intellectual integrity around here and elevate this would-be "encyclopedia" out of its squalor. Maybe it can one day be a featured article; an article of the highest caliber, among the elite ranks of Wii Sports and 4Chan
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/robotics/4343054.html
:"Unless, of course, it doesn't really exist. Despite its fame, or because of it, the uncanny valley is one of the most misunderstood and untested theories in robotics"
:"The uncanny valley is both surprisingly complex and, as a shorthand for anything related to robots, nearly useless."
: "It's not a theory, it's not a fact, it's conjecture," says Cynthia Breazeal, director of the Personal Robots Group at MIT. "There's no detailed scientific evidence," she says. "It's an intuitive thing."
(all emphasis mine) 76.105.10.80 (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective editing to support junk science 

message: Hi
I just came to give the article a once over and assess it for the Robotics project and the first thing I see is:-
"The uncanny valley is a hypothesis regarding the field of robotics.http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/robotics/4343054.html"
When you clock on the link it appears that the first ref actually says that the uncanny valley is a myth ??!?!?! Serious work needed lol !
Chaosdruid (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Under "films and Television" some mention could be made about the part the "uncanny valley" plays in the discrimination against "Andrew" in the film Bicentennial Man. The same tenseness is felt against the robots, (and even the deity-like computer program), by Will Smith's character in I Robot, but the discussion about it and even rebellion against it are stated mre clearly in Bicentennial Man.  Of course, both of the original novels which pre-dated the movies are even better examples.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.205.162 (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bicentennial Man

message: Those who have had lots of plastic surgery should fit somewhere in Uncanny Valley.  That slight revulsion of "who that used to be."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.4.77 (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plastic Surgery 

message: The ABC television show Hungry Beast had a segment about the uncanny valley, and Bruce Carter, Creative Director of Animal Logic (a digital visual effects company), made an appearance. He said "The uncanny valley, at the end of the day, is the gap between seeing and believing.", which could be shortened to "The uncanny valley... is the gap between seeing and believing." I think it's an excellent description, but am unsure of where to place it in the article.
Also, I agree that the scientific validity of the uncanny valley must be addressed. The article is valuable either way, though, because it is a significant idea in popular culture, if nothing else.
Jimothylad (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: If there is an award for "Wikipedia article with the highest bullshit density per square inch", I'd like to nominate this one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.46.73 (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition 

message: A fictional syndrome referred to in a fictional TV programme requires a real life citation to verify its existence?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.176.132 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in the Media/Doctor Who/The Robots of Death/"Citation Needed" 

message: The “Hypothetical basis” section is too - I don't know, academic? Look at it, "Automatic, stimulus-driven appraisals of uncanny stimuli elicit aversion by activating an evolved cognitive mechanism for the avoidance of selecting mates with low fertility, poor hormonal health, or ineffective immune systems based on visible features of the face and body that are predictive of those traits." It's like it was stripped directly from an academic paper. Can someone rewrite the section in more reader-friendly English?
The "Design principles" section, aren't the first two design principles basically the same thing?:
* "If an animated character looks more human than its movement, this gives a negative impression. Human neuroimaging studies also indicate matching appearance and motion kinematics are important."
* "A highly human-like appearance leads to an expectation that certain behaviors will be present, such as humanlike motion dynamics. "  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty (talk • contribs) 08:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Hypothetical basis” section and "Design principles" section 

message: I removed a sentence in this section referring to the Cheetham et al. article which said: "The effect of this mechanism on the perception of faces used to represent the hypothesis' dimension of human likeness has been clearly demonstrated." It seemed overall to be quite vague, and based on the article's abstract it also seemed irrelevant to this section of the article. 
Maybe the original author or someone else can figure out how to better integrate it into this section, or into another area of the article?
PostScarcity (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheetham et al. in "conflicting perceptual cues" 

message: This article seems pretty well developed. I added few cite needed tags, but once they are addressed this could be considered for a GA, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving towards GA 

message: The second bullet point paragraph under the "Criticism" heading appears to be quite a lot of novel synthesis of several unrelated sources.  It begins with a proposition, veers into discussion of Capgras syndrome, which isn't related to the uncanny valley in any demonstrable way, then makes claims which don't make sense about the applicability of Capgras syndrome to the claim made in the first sentence, and suggests that this material somehow proves the original assertion, which it doesn't.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism bullet point #2 appears to be novel synthesis 

message: BBC: Is the uncanny valley real? --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a source to improve the article with 

message: It seems to me these sections are redundant, and the article would be improved by merging them.
There are different ways of doing this, and I am not sure which is best. For example,
# the research in the "Research" section could be moved into the "Theoretical basis" section, where appropriate
# the theories described in the "Theoretical basis" section could be moved into a sub-section of the "Research" section, and the research that's currently in the Research section could be moved into these sub-sections where appropriate.
I'm sure there are other possibilities as well. Thoughts?
PostScarcity (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Merge "Research" and "Theoretical basis" 

message: I haven't waded through the entire article (or this page) completely, so this may already be somewhere in there already.  Has there been an research on whether this phenomenon exists in non-human species?  I don't know exactly how one could measure it - or even if you could measure it - short of a mind-meld.  But I wonder about this when giving my cat the purported "kitty kiss" slow eye-blink. Jimw338 (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-human species? 

message: This was documented in 2009. 
Monkeys Fall Into ‘Uncanny Valley,’ Just Like Humans https://www.wired.com/2009/10/uncanny-monkey/
Gorkelobb (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  All theories are anthropocentric, and can't account for why other primates experience the uncanny valley effect 

message: As the heading says. This bit about "good design" isn't a criticism of the concept like the other bullets are. It acknowledges the existence of the valley but offers a way to reduce or eliminate the effects—most tellingly, it suggests adding "cartoonish" and non-human elements, which is exactly what the "uncanny valley" suggests would make for a less unsettling object. It belongs in the previous section, "Design Principles". WP Ludicer (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First bullet point of criticism isn't criticism of the concept—it's a proposed solution to it 

message: I have removed this example from the "In Visual Effects" section:
:In the 2010 live-action film The Last Airbender, the character Appa, the flying bison, has been called "uncanny". Geekosystem's Susana Polo found the character "really quite creepy", noting "that prey animals (like bison) have eyes on the sides of their heads, and so moving them to the front without changing rest of the facial structure tips us right into the uncanny valley".
Susana Polo uses the term "uncanny valley" in reference to a non-human character. However, the term only refers to human characters, not animals, so Polo used it incorrectly. Though the bison may have appeared creepy for having a human-like face, it is not an example of the uncanny valley and so doesn't belong in the article. --Atkinson (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Airbender" example 

message: Why was the previously featured diagram removed? I find it illustrates the issue pretty good:
Arny (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, agreed, this looks better. The current lead image probably works better in the research section. Edit: I've done exactly that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The old diagram...? 

message: I know that there is a hypothesis that states that aliens are the reason why the Uncanny Valley exists in the first place, but most of the sources one could find are merely just pseudoscientific ufology journals. Regardless, it is still a theory of note. What do you folks think? Mebigrouxboy (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like speculative nonsense. –jacobolus (t) 02:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but the Uncanny Valley, despite how provable, is still nonsense in the sense that the graph is impossible to prove and nothing beyond the idea is even known 100%.Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien hypothesis? 

message: This article has a focus or AI, robots, animation and CGI, all artificial things, but doesn't really speak to the elephant in the room, real life humans that fit into the Uncanny Valley and how to deal with that phenomenon. Deep down we all know it exists but no-one ever talks about it, eg burn victims, genetic abnormalities, war/accident causalities, men dressed a women and women who dress as men etc. All of these things exist in real life yet it's as if we all have to just bite our tongue and not talk about it or ever mention it as if that will somehow magically make it go away.
These are real things and not talking about them doesn't make them go away, so I'm raising it here. 101.184.62.229 (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Deformity is a very difficult topic to discuss, but think the article here is about a different thing. But do appreciate you bringing this up and its one to think over. Your point is perfectly valid and welcome, by the way, thanks for posting. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncanny Humans in Real Life? 

message: Now that I come to realize my rephrasing of the abstract (intro/summary) paragraph is still a bit hard to comprehend, I welcome anyone to critique or even rewrite it entirely. I appreciate a previous editor admitting the concept of verisimilitude to illustrate theoretical strength. :) Zyploc (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rephrasing of the Abstract 

message: Silent movie film stock was poor at capturing features so face makeup was used to enhance features. This had the effect of making faces more symmetrical. Usually symmetry is perceived as beauty. But faces already very symmetrical made more symmetrical by makeup were perceived as uncanny. Adding an asymmetrical feature like a visible mole, AKA beauty mark, reduced the uncanny effect.
The reduction of detail in early films allowed the visual system to process the image faster than full detail reality. This resulted in the perception that the figures in the film were moving in an uncannily slow motion. So every third frame was removed resulting in unnaturally faster motion but in the perception of a more natural speed motion. A side effect was the motion was jerky, and flickering. One reason silent films were called "flickers". The same thing happens with animated cartoons, and posterized live action film. Cartoon action is speeded up with fewer than normal frames, and posturized or rotoscoped live action is often left unspeeded resulting in a slow motion appearance of such films. 2600:8807:5400:28F0:DC35:5AA8:77A1:4161 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Face makeup and early motion picture recognition of the phenomenon. 

message: The section, citation included, was added in 2009 , but was removed in 2021  as the user who added the citation is a co-author of the source cited.
This is a niche enough topic that I'm not sure there is a different source. Should original citation be added again, or should the entire bullet point just be scrapped? miranda :3 20:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mortality salience citation 

message: was it toy story 1 or 2 that everyone complained abt the almost-lifelike kids being so creepy?  this and polar express remain the two primary examples of the concept for some of us oldtimers.  2601:19C:527F:7890:385E:D8E2:747F:2765 (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toy Story!