Talk:Anthropomorphism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Issue with sections of this article...

I have an issue with some of the content in the article; namely the references to characters like Mickey Mouse and so forth. I might be wrong - and please correct me if I am - but anthropomorphism is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object", so assigning guilt to my dog when he eats something he shouldn't is anthropomorphism - because I'm assigning to him a human emotion which he doesn't actually have - whereas the character of Mickey Mouse is not anthropomorphic because he actually CAN speak English, and CAN feel guilt, and DOES have actual human characteristics; they aren't just assigned to him, he actually HAS them. If that makes sense? Thoughts? FillsHerTease (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse is generally considered an example of conscious anthrophomorphism because human characteristics are attributed to a mouse. That said, maybe we should move about half the current article into a separate "anthropomorphism in culture" article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You are completely right that "Mickey Mouse is generally considered an example of conscious anthropomorphism...", but I am questioning whether people are correct when they do that. What I'm trying to say - and I realise that I might be wrong - is that if a real mouse squeaks and I say that it's talking, then that is anthropomorphism because a mouse can't actually speak and I am attributing a human characteristic to it. Specifically I am attributing to it a characteristic which it doesn't really have. However Mickey Mouse can actually speak, so I don't believe that is anthropomorphism because we're not attributing to him a human characteristic that he doesn't have; he actually possesses the power of speech. Do you see what I mean? FillsHerTease (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I get your point, but I think if I read your "which it doesn't really have" to mean "which it doesn't really have, not even in the fictional world of the thing being anthropomorphized", then it's too narrow a definition. If you said instead, "which it doesn't really have in reality", then that would match up better with common usage. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I get what FillsHerTease suggests here. The current definition we give in this article for anthropomorphism is "the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities", and the examples given are "nations, emotions and natural forces like seasons and the weather", and later various deities. Things which do not have them, or in the case of the deities, may not have them.

While the term "anthropomorphic character" is used in sources for a wide variety of fictional characters who do not look human, in practice these characters have a full range of human emotions, human traits (and often human anatomical aspects), human or human-like culture and technology, and human intentions and motivations. These are not things attributed to them while they do not have them, they were created and designed to have them. To borrow a phrase from TV Tropes, which has several pages discussing the differences between varying types of anthropomorphic characters, "They display all the mannerisms of a human individual, such as speaking human language (unless they're The Speechless) and wearing a full set of clothes that a human would be expected to, according to the type of the setting: modern-day attire, tribal loincloths or spacesuits." The human traits outweigh the animal ones in several cases. In a sense, these characters become humans in disguise.

Using another Disney character as an example, lets take Scrooge McDuck. He has a beak, tail, feathers, and webbed feet, but these are pretty much his only animal traits. He does not quack, he speaks English and several stories depict him as being multilingual or even omnilingual. He does not fly, he walks. He wears human clothes, which partly define his image. It is rare to see a story where he does not have his trademark top hat, sideburns, pince-nez glasses, frock coat, and spats. While created in the 1940s, his creator added these details to suggest that Scrooge adheres to the fashion-style of a previous generation and that he is a bit of a 19th-century relic. He has human intellect and emotions (such as wrath, grief, loneliness, empathy). His motivations are entirely human (depending on the story, greed, protection of his property, status seeking, revenge, seeking to prolong his life or gain immortality, reconnecting with estranged loved ones, etc). And the background the character has acquired does not particularly suggest "animal". Member of a Scottish Clan, born in an impoverished-patrician family in Glasgow, left his family and country when 13-years-old and lived the life of a wandering immigrant, gained his fortune in the Klondike Gold Rush, and serves as the owner and CEO of a business empire.

To quote Carl Barks, Scrooge's creator, see the following source: "humans"&source=bl&ots=knd5zKEJVi&sig=DFtN2nzkrV7N49FxzwZz-ORDK3U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjttICzjMzNAhUDOBQKHaUvCO8Q6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=Carl%20Barks%20%22humans%22&f=false Carl Barks: Conversations. "I never thought of them [his Duck characters] as ducks that lived in a world of animal people and dog-faces. I just thought of them as being humans. They just happened to be humans who looked like ducks.". Dimadick (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Mention is made of "Family Guy" where Brian is an anthro dog, but the series has also shown non-anthro characters such as his mother, Biscuit; dogs who do not walk upright, talk, and so on. This is similar to cartoons such as the Arthur series--where Arthur has a pet dog, but he also has anthro dog classmates who talk, dress, and so on. Mickey Mouse has a non-anthro dog, Pluto, while he also has an anthro dog friend, Goofy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C381:1A5D:F060:1809:173C:A554 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Personification and Anthropomorphism

Hi! I do not understand why the subject Personification should be treated in the article dedicated to Anthropomorphism. Why not to have two indipendent articles? Personification is mainly a figure of speech: certainly related to Anthropomorphism, but an indipendent subject, IMHO. See also [1] and [2]. Thanks. --Pequod (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism#Animals under the "In Science" heading, the last sentence reads:

Writing of cats in 1992, veterinarian Bruce Fogle points to the fact that "both humans and cats have identical neurochemicals and regions in the brain responsible for emotion" as proof that "it is not anthropomorphic to credit cats with emotions such as jealousy".

Please replace the word "proof" with "evidence" since it's not part of the quote, and no scientist would ever use the word proof. Proof is for maths or television court dramas, not science! Thank you. Kimyeoman (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism in computing

in reality, while an artificial intelligence could perhaps be deliberately programmed with human emotions, or could develop something similar to an emotion as a means to an ultimate goal if it is useful to do so, it would not spontaneously develop human emotions for no purpose whatsoever, as portrayed in fiction.[56]

I disagree with the strong wording of this statement. Artificial intelligence at this level does not exist, so how can we make such definitive statements about what it would or would not do? It begins with "in reality" except it's referring to something that is not real. It's entirely possible that intelligence and emotion are inseparable. We don't know enough about neuroscience, consciousness, emotion, or "AI" to be sure. Moreover, who's to say emotions would be developed "for no purpose whatsoever"? Is there an example of that happening in fiction, or rather many examples, which would be needed to justify that statement? ---- 2601:240:8200:31b5:d513:1b1f:b871:4824

If you have a strong source with a different viewpoint, we can certainly add it to the article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticism edit

I have updated the criticism section with info covering modern secular thought. If you have questions about the edit or the sources used, please let me know. Feel free to edit or modify it for further improvement. Thanks. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2019

In the 'In Religion and Mythology' section, change

"This often was based on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them"."
to
"This often was based on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them"." SomeKindOfGnome (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done kind of. Since I didn't find the exact quote you provided in any common translations (the existing archaically-worded quote was KJV), I used the NRSV rendering of the verse, since it is the academic standard as far as one exists. A2soup (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Disingenuous Depiction of Judaism

All anyone has to do is read Genesis and Exodus to see that yes, in fact, the Jewish god was explicitly anthropomorphic. Some prophets may have argued about it later, but there's no question about what the Tanakh depicts.