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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (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.