The Uncanny Valley and why some Cd's get clocked

[celeste26]

There is a You tube video by the name of "The Uncanny Valley" look it up since we are not allowed to offer links for such things. (Ask me via IM if you cant find it)

While it is mainly applied to video games it does in fact apply to any of us who desire to go unnoticed while we explore the real world. It explains things in mathematical terms for the geeks here.

[Lorileah]

you can link to youtube look under advanced. Now maybe you can explain a little deeper why this applies to CDs? It talks about animation.

[Zylia]

The 'uncanny valley' theory ties into a few things. One of these things is how we (can) relate to non-human things, e.g. inanimate objects and animals, for example by projecting our own emotions onto them. It suggests (and I personally find this to be true) that the more something look like us (both in terms of appearance and behavior) the easier it is for us to relate to it, right up to the point where it looks almost human, where it actually starts to creep us out. Animated characters are good examples: I don't think that anyone has ever seriously complained about Disney's Snow White or Mickey Mouse looking creepily real, but people did en masse about the characters in 'Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within' or 'The Polar Express'.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Mori_Uncanny_Valley.svg/461px-Mori_Uncanny_Valley.svg.png

Some scientists suggest that it's actually an evolutionary mechanism, e.g. feeling uneasy in the presence of a corpse (who are close to human, but not exactly human because they're dead) because it means 'danger' or 'disease'. So when you start to feel uneasy while watching The Polar Express, it's because your 'lizard brain' tells you you're actually watching a few corpses talking to each other.

It also suggests that us human beings are actually really good at spotting flaws when things look almost real. It may be hard to pinpoint it, but young Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy (beware: spoilers) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD8v-goYl0E&feature=youtu.be&t=36s) looks artificial no matter how much money they've spent on him.

So how does this relate to cross-dressers or anyone else trying to present (realistically) like something he or she is not? Does it mean that no matter how good you look, you'll eventually fall into the uncanny valley? Does it mean that people will read you because you can never look 100% right? Does it explain why people find cross-dressers a bit icky or even appalling (or fascinating)? I definitely think that there's a connection somewhere.

Bonus content:
Watch this commercial (http://youtu.be/gx9eDoS76LM) from a few months agowith a young Audrey Hepburn. Something seems a bit off about it. Is it my lizard brain telling me it's fake or did Audrey look unreal to begin with (as in beautiful)? Either way, it's one of the more impressive examples of CG trickery I know of.

[iGenny]

I think it's a fascinating application of the concept. When we see something human-like, we evaluate it as a whole. When we see someone female-like, we do the same. The same math/sociological theories should apply to both, or other similar imitations.

[MysticLady]

Are we overthinking this? Just saying.

[Zylia]

'Overthinking' is making things more complicated than they actually are, but what we're doing is oversimplifying complex mechanisms, so no.

[Laurie A]

i found a little more humorous take on this, i love Keith Richard, Joan River, Mickey Rourke being just a step above zombies

Zylia yes, the cg trickery in that commercial is pretty awesome, but Audrey Hepburn was really that beautiful

[Beverley Sims]

Mmmm! I will stick with Silicon Valley.
I am not into overthinking, too many valleys and hills for me.
Do I understand it?
No!

[ReineD]

Beverly, it's simple. A robot with some human characteristics (like Disney's WALL-E (http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6400000/Wall-E-Wallpaper-wall-e-6412244-1280-1024.jpg)) is cute and endearing, in other words not threatening. But if robots look almost realistic but not quite (http://images.smh.com.au/ftsmh/ffximage/2009/03/11/470robot,0.jpg), their differences (or imperfections) stand out to the point where we think they are eerily disquieting.

You can contrast this to genetic men with a physical feminine appearance by saying that if the presentation is flawless in terms of looking like a GG, people won't notice any differences and so they won't obviously stand out and there will be no issues. Or if people know then they will marvel at the perfection. ... But, if a CDer is not perfect in her presentation or a TS is not stealth-looking, then people will focus on the differences between the CD or TS and a genetic woman, and they will judge the CD or TS relatively harshly. This has nothing to do with beauty and has everything to do with realism.

This is why Drag Queens on stage are generally better accepted. Their look is so over the top that people know the aim is not to look like a realistic woman, and so the experience is entertaining. Drag Queens are not threatening.


Edit - This is according to the Uncanny Valley Theory. I personally do not find the members of this community disquieting or threatening.

[LilSissyStevie]

This is useful information. It explains why I prefer the outlandish representations of drag over attempts of "passing." The more I try to pass the more male I actually look.

[Ressie]

This explains why I feel most comfortable around other CDs :)

[KellyJameson]

This has been an enjoyable thread to read.

If you are able to pass or go stealth you are accepted as you "appear" so your appearance is you and you are your appearance and the person looking at you does not experience dissonance between what they see and what they feel.

When dissonance is experienced say between how you appear and how you act the dissonance is uncomfortable so becomes a problem to be solved to eliminate the dissonance.

The person experiencing you experiences you as being slightly "off" such as when someone says they are telling you the truth but you experience what they are saying as a lie.

This than requires them to solve the riddle or avoid the person for safety.

If they come to the conclusion that you are a man in their own mind regardless of what you claim to be and you are presenting as a woman than they will ask the question of themselves "why would a man present as a woman"

Because most men want women sexually the likely reason they will assign will be sexual in nature so they may see this as a sexual fetish as a man turning his sexuality inward toward himself by possessing a woman through his creation by the manipulation of his appearance and possibly his physical body.

The person as the audience viewing the crossdresser may find him ridiculous if he clearly is a man in female clothing so the dissonance is not experienced or easily resolved but the person who passes is actually the one in greater danger upon discovery because the tension created by what is "known" and what is "discovered" is more violently experienced.

Small lies are annoying but big lies create rage as that feeling of being exposed to an injustice and the fear of being deceived that attacks ones confidence to be able to discern reality.

The drag performer does not create dissonance so is usually experienced as entertainment but could cause dissonance sexually in a man with homosexual desires who is repressing them if he experiences sexual attraction to the performer who he knows as a man.

[rocketscientist]

You can contrast this to genetic men with a physical feminine appearance by saying that if the presentation is flawless in terms of looking like a GG, people won't notice any differences and so they won't obviously stand out and there will be no issues. Or if people know then they will marvel at the perfection. ... But, if a CDer is not perfect in her presentation or a TS is not stealth-looking, then people will focus on the differences between the CD or TS and a genetic woman, and they will judge the CD or TS relatively harshly. This has nothing to do with beauty and has everything to do with realism.

While my presentation is far from flawless, I strive to blend as best I can. I believe I do a fair job at that. Most of the time when out and about I am only clocked upon close inspection. Usually, at that point I want the person(s) who clocked me to appreciate the effort and admire my outfit and accessories and respect my confidence and cojones.

[Maria in heels]

Celeste....I watched both videos and your correlation between the two is amazing!

[Sonya]

Thank you for this thread, you learn something new and interesting everyday. I also can see how this theory could be adopted to gender expression and it explains why the human likeness to Cd'ing would be low. I think maybe the theory relates to not so much to being clocked but the reactions and feelings of the humans when you get clocked. Unfortunately, I think that most of us fall into the Uncanny Valley :(

[ReineD]

Yes Sarah, I wonder the same thing. My SO and I go out together a lot and I always wonder what people are thinking when they do read us. No one ever says anything, of course.

[celeste26]

So the solution to "being clocked/getting a bad reaction" is to ignore it completely and go with style over photo realism. It is why being and looking confident while out en femme is far more important than being precisely perfect.

For those who try hard and actually achieve photo realism that's great and I applaud your efforts, but those who are like me and who just cant make it, go for the style with confidence and relax.