Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by mrpg on Saturday July 21 2018, @10:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the obviously dept.

Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd

The majority of robots are white. Do a Google image search for "robot" and see for yourself: The whiteness is overwhelming. There are some understandable reasons for this; for example, when we asked several different companies why their social home robots were white, the answer was simply because white most conveniently fits in with other home decor.

But a new study suggests that the color white can also be a social cue that results in a perception of race, especially if it's presented in an anthropomorphic context, such as being the color of the outer shell of a humanoid robot. In addition, the same issue applies to robots that are black in color, according to the study. The findings suggest that people perceive robots with anthropomorphic features to have race, and as a result, the same race-related prejudices that humans experience extend to robots.

Source: Humans Show Racial Bias Towards Robots of Different Colors: Study


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 21 2018, @11:23AM (16 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday July 21 2018, @11:23AM (#710359) Journal

    Race. Right. Because everything associated with color comes down to race.

    By far the most popular color of car in Japan is white. They must be racist, right? It couldn't have anything to do with Shinto's use of white as the color of purity, and Japanese car owners' desire for a lucky color. Nope. It's because they're racist.

    Likewise the Western tradition. White is associated with good, cleanliness. So if you're raised with that color association for countless generations, then preferring robots that are white instead (while people still aren't so sure about having robots around at all) means they're racist?

    The study didn't even try to do anything clever to parse any of that out. They assumed it was racist, and saw everything through that lens.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 21 2018, @11:35AM (1 child)

    It's also bloody silly because white shows dirt way worse than anything else. I'm currently considering bright yellow with blue overalls and naming mine Kevin.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by crafoo on Saturday July 21 2018, @12:59PM (9 children)

    by crafoo (6639) on Saturday July 21 2018, @12:59PM (#710395)

    To be fair, all Japanese are racist and xenophobic. Our mistake is not realizing that's not an entirely bad thing (from their collective point of view).

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 21 2018, @01:33PM

      It's a good thing from a purely evolutionary standpoint, so long as your tribe is large enough and you allow at least a small amount of diversity to creep in over time.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by Nerdfest on Saturday July 21 2018, @02:46PM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Saturday July 21 2018, @02:46PM (#710431)

      They're fairly nice about it though, and typically don't hold your race against you. They understand that it's not your fault :)

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Saturday July 21 2018, @05:37PM (3 children)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 21 2018, @05:37PM (#710496) Journal

      All is an rather extreme term. There is a lot of evidence that many to most of them are racist, but not in the US sense. They seem especially intolerant of Koreans.

      I suspect this is due to the "exotic foreigner" effect, where a rare foreigner is considered attractive, but once a critical proportion is reached, they are instead seen as a threat.

      FWIW, there is some evidence that more racially homogeneous countries are more willing to expend money on social services. This seems to me quite plausible on evolutionary grounds, so I haven't gone looking for more evidence. And it also seems to correspond to casual observation of the international scene. But "some evidence" is hardly proof. When it fits my theories, I convince easily. (And there are also lots of other things going on at the same time that confuse the picture.)

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 21 2018, @06:58PM

        Hadn't considered that aspect. +1 for you.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by Pav on Sunday July 22 2018, @12:00AM (1 child)

        by Pav (114) on Sunday July 22 2018, @12:00AM (#710609)

        WTF are you talking about? In the east the Rashidun Caliphate (the first welfare state) was extremely multi-ethnic, and communism took hold in the similarly ethnically diverse Russia... probably the most ethnically diverse state in Europe. The relatively homogenous western european nations only embraced the welfare state as a bulwark against communism - high taxes on the wealthy and a strong welfare state placated the unions and other workers who leaned towards socialism. It also stabilised capitalism which was very welcome after the worsening boom-bust cycles eg. the Great Depression and before the roaring 1900-20's the Long Depression... Keynesianism was a thing for a reason.

        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday July 22 2018, @05:12AM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 22 2018, @05:12AM (#710670) Journal

          I'd have to check into the Rashidun Caliphate, but I hardly think the Russian Communists (upper case "c") count as supporting those in need. You could ask the Georgians. Now the USSR did fair often support ethnic Russians in need, but that's not "ethnically diverse".

          That said, economics was an important reason. And so was maintaining a police state without modern electronics. So it's not all down to racial mix. But the USSR did not have a good reputation for supporting those in need, unless they were Russian (and I'm not sure about then...but some reports say they did, if you didn't have any political problems). China has actually been much better, despite it also being a mix of races, but most of them have been mixed in for centuries so that may be the reason. Or there might be some other reason. This is, after all, only one factor in a complex system. (India still has Brahmins and Untouchables, though the prejudices have weakened over the last century or so. But the Aryan conquest was a *long* time ago, so it takes more than just time.)

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 21 2018, @08:56PM (2 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday July 21 2018, @08:56PM (#710563) Journal

      I would never have concluded that from the scads of attractive young Japanese women throwing themselves at every black or white foreigner they encountered. Then, we were in the sticks, not Tokyo. Perhaps it's different there.

      I never said it at the time, but I did think that getting their butt nuked into surrender must have put rather a sizeable dent into their self-image as the Yamato race [wikipedia.org].

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday July 22 2018, @02:02AM (1 child)

        by edIII (791) on Sunday July 22 2018, @02:02AM (#710634)

        Well, now that you mention it, I was told about 20 years ago that I could make a killing in Japan as a role playing waiter. Apparently, Japanese men don't treat women that well, or equally. If you could dress yourself up as an attractive white butler, and basically be really nice and kiss their asses like they were your supreme master, the Japanese women would pay you well for this. Among other things.

        All things considered, I'd wish I'd gone to Japan and became a waiter in one of those cosplay restaurants instead of grinding away middle age in a datacenter :)

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday July 22 2018, @11:57AM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday July 22 2018, @11:57AM (#710721) Journal

          They would have eaten you up with a spoon, ed.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Saturday July 21 2018, @01:05PM (2 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Saturday July 21 2018, @01:05PM (#710398) Homepage Journal

    "Race. Right. Because everything associated with color comes down to race."

    SJW's always project. Because they, themselves are inherently racist, they assume that everything and everyone around them is as well.

    What's funny is are the inherent contradictions. Light-skinned people think that a tan (i.e., darker skin) makes them more attractive [cosmopolitan.com]. Meanwhile, dark skinned people want lighter skin [afritorial.com] and prefer lighter skinned mates [huffingtonpost.com].

    And practically everybody finds something to get offended about...

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 21 2018, @03:49PM (1 child)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday July 21 2018, @03:49PM (#710458) Journal

      Racial bias is real. It's also not exclusive to any one group. Most communities across America are predominantly white, so they accept the fiction peddled to them by the Masters that only white people are racist; that is, they don't have enough contact with minorities to learn any different, and the minorities they do have contact with are such extreme minorities that those don't dare say what they really think. Others who live in large urban areas with significant numbers of minorities learn otherwise, but perform double-think so as not to buck the Narrative that "only white people have racial biases."

      Racial bias is not a fiction, and there are white people who are biases against other races.

      But projecting that onto a study like this, without doing anything to parse out exactly why people might prefer white robots to other colors, weakens the discipline and mocks the serious subject of racial bias.

      Their sloppy study offends me.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday July 22 2018, @07:58AM

        by Arik (4543) on Sunday July 22 2018, @07:58AM (#710690) Journal
        "Racial bias is real. It's also not exclusive to any one group."

        It's not really racial, it's communitarian and pseudo-racial, but otherwise yes, that's very true.

        "Most communities across America are predominantly white, so they accept the fiction peddled to them by the Masters that only white people are racist; that is, they don't have enough contact with minorities to learn any different, and the minorities they do have contact with are such extreme minorities that those don't dare say what they really think."

        This seems a bit too pat in my experience. I've never been very shy about saying what I thought, even when I was actively getting my face kicked in by the majority at the time. I know, I know, I'm not normal, but I've known many people over the years in the same sort of position, and it just doesn't ring true to me at all. I'm sure some people are afraid to speak their mind yes, but no more than among the majority population. Probably less. You learn in that position to stick up for yourself a bit from necessity.

        But here's the thing. Not all black/brown/asian/whatever people think the same. And it's (mostly) a free country, people to some degree do live where they want to live. Someone that's comfortable living as a visible minority is going to be someone with different thoughts to someone that feels it's awfully important to live in an area where everyone looks like they do.

        To put it another way, it's extremely unlikely that the one black family in your nice suburb really hate whitey and are just afraid to say it. That's not impossible but it's so unlikely as to border on paranoid fantasy. Black racists typically prefer to live in mostly black areas, and even if they might like the idea of moving to the suburbs just to mess with their new neighbors, in reality that's an awful lot of money for a lark.

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday July 22 2018, @07:22AM

    by Arik (4543) on Sunday July 22 2018, @07:22AM (#710686) Journal
    If anyone is actually 'white' then it's albinos, and even they I would be tempted to characterize as more 'pink' thank 'white.' "White" is a mostly US-centric "racial" code that typically means something like 'caucasian' yet more subjective with cultural connotations added. At any rate, people coded as "white" in this sense are NOT "white" in the sense of color, they range from pink to tan or dark olive perhaps, but the one color people don't actually come in is white.

    Which takes the whole thesis to the edge of absurdity. Both things are said to be "white" but the word is being used in two entirely different meanings. "Strong" can mean able to move a relatively large amount of mass around, or it can mean durable, or it can even mean stinky; and it could even be used cleverly to imply more than one of those things is true at the same time. And using one sense at the beginning then switching to a different sense of the same word midway through is a common and powerful technique for creating humor.

    But doing the same thing in an ostensibly serious, logical argument is not a great technique. It's actually a fallacy, called equivocation.

    In a syllogism with alternate meanings indicated in parenthesis this might be a little easier to spot.

    Since only man (kind) is rational,
    and no woman is a man (male,)
    Therefore no woman is rational.

    Classic equivocation, "man" in the first line is used in its primary meaning; mankind, the human race; but in the second line it's used in a much more restrictive double-derived sense (man vs woman, a modern delusion, woman itself being wyf-man, a type of man.)

    So what we're seeing here is not a logical syllogism, it's a weaker form of logic, but the same trick is being played with the key word. One moment it means one thing, one moment something entirely different, but the authors pretend they are the same thing.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?