The Uncanny Valley

[Runespider]

There's a few theories but the more recent ones tend to lean more to what I posted here.

As to Neanderthals, they were a more violent and aggressive species compared to us from more recent theories and evidence...
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-neander...-000-years

 Except those ideas aren't taking in all the evidence, it's not just human depictions but animal and landscapes as well. Those statements are dependent on human depictions triggering the effect, but human depictions alone aren't the only trigger. If the conclusion they're making was correct, then we wouldn't see a similar affect with animals and environments. 
 I other words they're starting with a conclusion and trying to support it. 

 Nicholas Longrich's theory about Neanderthal warfare isn't really accepted. Humans of all types were fairly rare. When it comes to our relatives, the chief drivers of conflict are resources. And we didn't really compete with each other. Which is why we have examples of modern humans and Neanderthals successfully coexisting. Even some examples of cultural exchange. Neanderthals were better adapted to colder climates than our ancestors, and as the climate warmed the later Neanderthals began to adopt similar adaption as modern humans did. However we were already there. 

  Neanderthals lived in smaller groups than humans, many of the remains we have point to inbreeding. They were simply not plentiful enough to hold some sort of border war against modern humans. Even with us living in larger groups still the amount of area we inhabited would make any interactions rare. 
 It is true that there's evidence of violence, and that's not surprising. But the evidence supports inter group violence, and is much more prevalent from modern humans. 
 
It's notable that Longrich hasn't presented this argument via a paper where it would be criticized by fellow experts, but rather an article for the popular press.

[Kurokage]

 Except those ideas aren't taking in all the evidence, it's not just human depictions but animal and landscapes as well. Those statements are dependent on human depictions triggering the effect, but human depictions alone aren't the only trigger. If the conclusion they're making was correct, then we wouldn't see a similar affect with animals and environments. 
 I other words they're starting with a conclusion and trying to support it. 

 Nicholas Longrich's theory about Neanderthal warfare isn't really accepted. Humans of all types were fairly rare. When it comes to our relatives, the chief drivers of conflict are resources. And we didn't really compete with each other. Which is why we have examples of modern humans and Neanderthals successfully coexisting. Even some examples of cultural exchange. Neanderthals were better adapted to colder climates than our ancestors, and as the climate warmed the later Neanderthals began to adopt similar adaption as modern humans did. However we were already there. 

  Neanderthals lived in smaller groups than humans, many of the remains we have point to inbreeding. They were simply not plentiful enough to hold some sort of border war against modern humans. Even with us living in larger groups still the amount of area we inhabited would make any interactions rare. 
 It is true that there's evidence of violence, and that's not surprising. But the evidence supports inter group violence, and is much more prevalent from modern humans. 
 
It's notable that Longrich hasn't presented this argument via a paper where it would be criticized by fellow experts, but rather an article for the popular press.

 The graph attempts to show what makes us accept or reject human looking 'things'. We're not really eliciting eerie feelings by animals and landscapes that share a slight resemblance, just things that look slightly off compared to us, so your argument doesn't seem to fit here.
Also this could be a cognitive response that goes further back than when we lived along side neanderthal.

[Runespider]

 The graph attempts to show what makes us accept or reject human looking 'things'. We're not really eliciting eerie feelings by animals and landscapes that share a slight resemblance, just things that look slightly off compared to us, so your argument doesn't seem to fit here.
Also this could be a cognitive response that goes further back than when we lived along side neanderthal.

I genuinely linked to a study showing that animals do. 

Our results indicate that depicting virtual animal-like characters at realism levels used in current video games causes negative reactions just as the uncanny valley predicts for humanlike characters.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...1917301593

 Likewise we find a similar effect with environments. 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...4422000895

Taken together, the evidence indicates that deviations from familiar configural patterns drive uncanniness of built physical places.

 The issue with what you're using is they are only studying the effect with human depictions. Then trying to explain it. However we know the uncanny valley isn't limited to human depictions, that's just the extent of their approach. 
 They're asking why do we get triggered by human depictions. This is assuming that it's the only trigger. But it's demonstrably not.
 Instead we have a common denominator across these attempts to study the effect. The triggers are artificial, not natural. Robots, construction, digital creations.

[Kurokage]

I genuinely linked to a study showing that animals do. 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...1917301593

 Likewise we find a similar effect with environments. 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...4422000895

Your links weren't on your first response, so thanks for adding them. 

Edit to add...

The difficulty here is, was this emotion developed from a cognitive effect in early hominids as some suggest and then later added to other constructs?? From what I've read, the jury is still out??

[rickymouse]

Our Subaru has slanted eyes.  Seems like car designs from the past didn't have such Asian faces on them.  The subaru also has a dorsal fin on top for some reason.  Must be related to godzilla.

[Runespider]

Your links weren't on your first response, so thanks for adding them. 

Edit to add...

The difficulty here is, was this emotion developed from a cognitive effect in early hominids as some suggest and then later added to other constructs?? From what I've read, the jury is still out??

 My first post in this thread:

The issue with the human evolution idea is that the effect goes beyond just depictions of human, but triggers with animals and landscapes and so on as well. 
 For example this research from 2018:
Is there an uncanny valley of virtual animals? A quantitative and qualitative investigation

 That link is the first link in my last post. 

 The best argument proposed so far that accounts for all the information gleaned from studying the effect instead of only looking at it from human figures makes the case that: 

Considered individually, folkbiological categories, biological anomalies and monsters, as well as human categories represent individual cultural products of human categorization. Instead, we suggest that the uncanny valley might reflect a primary response to unfamiliar or covert categories.

Uncanny sociocultural categories 
 In this case, it's not any particular thing that's triggering the effect. It's something unfamiliar, or presented in an unfamiliar way. Which fits the available evidence. The extent of it fitting into evolution would be a basic "This is unfamiliar, be cautious." response.