====== Anthropomorphisation ======
Refers to the attribution of //human// characteristics, motives, feelings or intentions to //non-human entities// such as animals, objects, natural phenomena or abstract concepts.
Examples:
* “//Mother Nature// looks after her children.”
* “//The universe// doesn’t care about us.”
Both “nature” and “the universe” are //abstract concepts// that are incapable of feeling //emotions// such as //maternal care// -- even “indifference” is a concept that only makes sense on a human scale.
===== Other names =====
It should be noted, that it can be difficult to distinguish this from other //fallacies of abstraction//, particularly [[abstraction:hypostatization|Hypostatisation]]. The latter involves interpreting //abstract concepts// to be something that actually exists. From there, it is only a short step to attributing //human characteristics//, or even //personifying// them (see below) (see also: [[glossary:reification|Reification]]).
===== Description =====
The //anthropomorphisation// of objects, phenomena and abstract concepts is a result of a [[psychology:cognitive_bias:index|cognitive bias]] known as [[psychology:cognitive_bias:anthropomorphism|anthropomorphism]], which everyone is subject to (albeit to varying degrees).
//Anthropomorphic// depictions of objects, animals or even phenomena are an integral part of most human cultures, whether in children’s stories, poems, tales or within the context of various religious practices. In fairy tales, for example, animals are regularly attributed human characteristics; they are then described as “brave”, “clever” or “treacherous”, and many Gods, including those in the Western tradition, are quite clearly personifications of natural phenomena (e.g. //lightning and thunder//: [[wp>Thor|Thor]], [[wp>Zeus|Zeus]]/[[wp>Jupiter (god)|Jupiter]], etc.) or //abstract concepts// (e.g. //war//, represented by [[wp>Odin|Odin]], [[wp>Ares|Ares]]/[[wp>Mars (mythology)|Mars]], etc.).
==== Problem case ====
While there is no reason not to use such //anthropomorphism// as a literary device – particularly in contexts where a little more artistic licence is appropriate, such as in //poetry// or, of course, in //fables// – it can become a problem when we forget that it does not reflect reality. This can then lead to the behaviour of these entities being misinterpreted or to incorrect conclusions being drawn.
For example, children will have to learn – often during a visit to the zoo – that many of the animals they have come to know from children’s books as friendly creatures with human characteristics actually pose a serious danger even to their keepers. Bears and tigers, for instance, see humans – especially the smaller ones – primarily as //potential food//.
Fortunately, zoos today are designed in such a way that one would have to be extremely reckless to actually come into conflict with dangerous animals. However, such safety measures are not in place everywhere; for example, when it comes to other things or concepts that may be anthropomorphised. In such cases, one must rely on one’s own judgement and recognise for oneself the difference between the //anthropomorphised// idea on the one hand and //reality// on the other.
===== Examples =====
==== Anthropomorphisation of animals ====
It is particularly tempting to judge animals and their behaviour by human standards, since their behaviour and ability often show, at least outwardly, clear similarities to human behaviour.
Certainly, most pet owners will at least occasionally interpret the behaviour of their dogs or cats in terms of human standards and attribute human-like thoughts or intentions to thir actions – and there is little to be said against it, as long as one does not make subsequent decisions based on such anthropomorphisation.
It is not difficult to find an example of how such misinterpretations can lead to negative consequences (in this case for the animals):
> This dolphin shows a smile similar to that of people who are happy.
> Consequently, this dolphin is happy.
In fact, dolphins simply cannot help but “smile”, as this is part of the physiognomy of a dolphin’s head. If we apply human standards to their facial expressions, we might conclude that the animals are – in human terms – “happy”.
However, it is difficult for us to judge whether the dolphins in dolphin shows, with their “happy” smiles, are truly content with their situation, and this should under no circumstances be determined on the basis of superficial similarities with human behaviour.
The same applies to negative emotions. Most people would certainly not feel comfortable if, like the dolphins mentioned, they were forced to perform tricks in front of an audience. On the other hand, the alternative for humans would not be to have to chase food in the wild every day and constantly live with the risk of dying an agonising death in a fishing net.
Another example, from an article about the pioneering days of space exploration:
> On 19 August 1960, two courageous dogs, Strelka and Belka flew into space aboard Sputnik 5.
To attribute “courage” to the dogs, one has to assume that they were actually able to //understand//, and agreed to face, the dangers of their mission. However, this is rather unlikely. It is probable that they did not even have a choice as to whether or not to take part in the experiment.
==== Anthropomorphisation of machines ====
It is not only animals, also //machines// are often perceived as having human-like traits.
Generally speaking, this phenomenon seems to occur most frequently when the behaviour or functioning of a machine is more //complex// (and therefore harder to comprehend) and when the device has a greater impact on our lives. Whilst hardly anyone would think of talking to their //garlic press//, for example, this very behaviour can often be observed when dealing with a car or other more complex machines.
> The engine of my car won’t start.
> I encourage the car by calling: “You can do it!”
> The engine starts.
> Consequently, the engine started //because// I gave it a good encouragement.
If in such a situation the engine starts up after you called out to it, this can lead to a [[psychologie:cognitive_bias:causal_illusion|causal illusion]] in which you (unconsciously) link the two events together – even if you are //consciously// aware that they have nothing to do with each other.
However, even if persuasion does not //really// make the engine start faster, it is equally unlikely to cause any damage.
This becomes more problematic when such a mindset distracts from the //real// problem, as in the following expressions which surely everyone has heard before:
> The car has parked on the cycle path.
> The pedestrian was hit by the car.
In reality, whilst the car is indeed capable of “self-moving” (hence the name “automobile”), it cannot //decide// for itself where to park or at what speed to drive: it is, of course, the //driver// who makes these decisions. It would therefore be more accurate to say:
> The //driver// parked the car on the cycle path.
> The [careless] //driver// has hit pedestrian with the car.
==== “Artificial intelligence” ====
The term “artificial intelligence” (AI) is used today to describe various types of computer systems that attempt to replicate “intelligent” behaviour using the tools of modern information technology.
Given the truly impressive achievements made in this field in recent years – but also because of the way AI is portrayed in films and video games, where its capabilities are often dramatised far beyond reality – there is a tendency to attribute human characteristics such as “sensitivity”, “reason” or even “compassion” to it.
This can easily lead to a whole range of potential fallacies, of which only a few particularly interesting examples will be highlighted here:
=== Projection of human emotions ===
One form of AI that has attracted a great deal of attention recently are so-called “large language models” (LLMs). These make it possible to communicate with a computer through dialogue in natural language.
These chats often resemble those between human conversational partners both in form and structure, so that the AI can easily be perceived to be at least ‘quasi-human’. Most people who chat with LLMs such as [[https://chatgpt.com/|ChatGPT]] or [[https://claude.ai/|Claude]] will therefore quickly spontaneously start using polite phrases such as “please” or “thank you” in the conversation.
Sometimes, people might even get the impression that their conversation partner is either “helpful”, or that he is “difficult”. And even the use of the pronoun “he” in the previous sentence is a form of //anthropomorphism// which earlier, command-based IT systems would probably have rarely experienced.
Even current //state of the art//, “artificial intelligences” are, in fact, still nothing more than algorithmic programmes (albeit highly complex ones) that differ from traditional software primarily in the way they have been programmed: this is achieved not so much through program code as through feeding them //sample data// and via certain //feedback mechanisms//. That approach has opened up entirely new possibilities for application that would have been impossible or at least very difficult to achieve with other programming methods – the natural language communication mentioned above is only one such example. However, it would be a mistake to assume that, because AI exhibits //certain// aspects of human behaviour, it must also be capable of others – particularly the experience of emotions (see also: [[relevancy:false_analogy|False analogy]]).
Of course, there is certainly nothing wrong with always communicating in a polite and respectful manner – even if the conversation partner does not feel any joy at hearing a “please” or “thank you”. However, it can become a problem when the emotional aspect of such communication ceases to be a mere side issue and instead becomes the core of the relationship.
As these LLMs become more prevalent in our lives, we are hearing more and more about people forming “emotional bonds” with AI systems, sometimes even perceiving these as a kind of friendship or even a romantic relationship. Possibly even one that, free from the baggage of complex human relationships, is preferable to a real one.
The risk of ultimately being disappointed is not even the biggest problem here. What is far more serious is that this can lead to a loss of the ability to form meaningful relationships with human partners, or perhaps prevent one from ever learning how to do so in the first place.
=== Accountability ===
A similar example of a //false analogy// between AI and humans can be found in the following gem, which, although it simplifies it a bit, is actually based on a real-life example of a take on artificial intelligence:
> The AI in an autonomous driving car behaves similarly to a human driver.
> Human drivers are legally responsible for any accidents they cause.
> Consequently, an AI should also bear its own legal responsibility for accidents.
Indeed, AI systems in self-driving cars have been programmed to replicate the (idealised) behaviour of human drivers as closely as possible (and they are often even surpassing them, due to better sensor technology and faster reaction times). However, the ability to react to traffic situations in accordance with human ideals does not imply that, like humans, they are also capable of making moral decisions ([[relevancy:false_analogy|False analogy]])
So if such an AI-controlled car – to return once more to the examples given above – parks on a cycle path, or perhaps hits a pedestrian, it is hardly possible to “hold the vehicle itself to account“ (as to what that would look like is, in any case, another question altogether). Instead, responsibility must lie with someone who is actually capable of making moral decisions – in other words, a human being. Specifically, either the software manufacturer or a driver who monitors the software and would have to intervene if necessary.
The question of who can be held liable for the behaviour of such autonomous vehicles is of interest from both a [[wp>Jurisprudence|legal]] and [[wp>Ethics|ethical]] perspective. However, simply shifting the blame onto the machine itself does not do justice to the complexity of the issue and, in particular, leaves manufacturers open to the suspicion that they themselves are unwilling to take responsibility for their products.
=== “National psyche” ===
The examples given so far might give the impression that anthropomorphism as a fallacy is primarily a problem when the underlying entities are not fully understood. Yet even experts tend to anthropomorphise the subjects within their own fields of specialisation.
This can happen, for example, when biologists give human names to the animals they are observing. This is actually frowned upon in this discipline in order to avoid the resulting misinterpretations. Nevertheless, it is probably still practised frequently.
Even car mechanics speak encouragingly to their cars. And also AI professionals sometimes lose their emotional distance from the models they have “trained” themselves.
However, some particularly striking examples of this anthropomorphism can be found in the field of history: according to some, Russia “craves” revenge, America has an “[[wp>Oedipus complex|Oedipus complex]]” towards Europe, whilst Germany, by contrast, an “[[wp>Inferiority complex|inferiority complex]]”. Such claims, and many similar ones, consistently attempt to ascribe to a country or a nation – that is, an abstract entity – attributes that are characteristic of human beings and are not really applicable to nations or states.
This applies in particular to psychoanalytic terms (such as “Oedipus” or “inferiority complex” in the examples above). Such terms, when used as here, far beyond their intended scope, actually lose all meaning in such contexts.
==== Pathetic fallacy ====
Finally, it is also worth mentioning the so-called “pathetic fallacy”. This involves attributing human emotions to natural phenomena or inanimate objects in particular.
A common translation of the term is “anthropomorphisation of nature”, but it primarily refers to a “false emotionality” that is intended to be conveyed through depictions of nature, particularly in literature.
For more information on this, please see: [[abstraction:pathetic_fallacy|Pathetic fallacy]].
===== See also =====
* [[abstraction:pathetic_fallacy|Pathetic fallacy]]
* [[abstraction:reification|Reification]]
* [[psychology:cognitive_bias:anthropomorphism|Anthropomorphism (cognitive bias)]]
* [[causality:teleological_fallacy|Teleological fallacy]]
===== More information =====
* [[wp>Anthropomorphism|Anthropomorphism]] on //Wikipedia//