Oh come on... stop believing this crud, she is faker than a fake thing inside a fake other thing that is also quite fake.

It is a woman pretending to be a robot.

Why?
* Look at/in her mouth when she talks, that's a real mouth working right there
* Her movements are what a bad actress would think a robot would move like but not how humanoid robots actually move (like, robots have no reason to have stupidly slow blinks anymore, they can do that perfectly quickly now)
* The 'inventor' is doing his bit really badly as well, he's no inventor of a robot.
* Also, isn't it interesting that they don't actually SHOW anything of the 'expo' they are obviously supposed to be in due to the sound they've added...
* And yeah, they really have a robot that cooks dinner and converses... yeeeeeah.
* Oh, and they show themselves on a google map on their contact page, but that address don't exist on no google map page.

But don't worry pprt, I'm sure they're not trying to actually get any money out of this other than a marketing gimick thing, they won't be actually trying to raise money for robot purchases/builds. In fact it may purely be a social experiment to see how many people they can dupe, or some kind of art project. I don't mind these kinds of things, they're quite fun, what I DO mind is how many people just accept them as true, no critical eye whatsoever... it's maddening.

Let me put it in here that I think we'll find it's by a marketing company called 'Rocket Science'

>> ^rychan:

Would you say this is "How Muslims Are Treated In The USA"?
Imagine if a naive Muslim chances upon this page. Do you think the title may be misleading?

The title is a bit misleading, because it doesn't indicate that this is a contrived situation. More of a social experiment. But anyway, that's not a criticism of the video segment, that's a criticism of who-ever posted it to sift.


Very fair. The chosen title is in bad taste.

See comments about this video by Muslims, they've been as misled as most of you.

I also discovered that Dateline also employs provocateur tactics. link to another questionable "investigation"

Would you say this is "How Muslims Are Treated In The USA"?
Imagine if a naive Muslim chances upon this page. Do you think the title may be misleading?


The title is a bit misleading, because it doesn't indicate that this is a contrived situation. More of a social experiment. But anyway, that's not a criticism of the video segment, that's a criticism of who-ever posted it to sift.

>> ^laura:
>> ^Pprt:
To clarify, the individuals subject to scrutiny were placed into an completely artificial environment where the desired outcome of their behaviour was decidedly engineered. I have no doubt that the clerk actively incited participation from bystanders.
^ of course he did, however...I would point out that the customers' reactions were not necessarily engineered. For example, I don't care how artificial of an environment I am in, I will still act like myself.

Compare this to an Asch paradigm where the control doesn't exist and the ratio matches up perfectly.

To claim that this is "How Muslims Are Treated In [sic] USA" is patently ludicrous. The only fair assessment would be a hidden camera tracking a hijab-clad woman going about daily tasks.
^ I don't think anyone here claimed this was an awesome scientific/social experiment. Entertaining demonstration/exhibition of various reactions to the "elephant in the room" is what is inherent.
It seems that the fact that all we saw was a well-rehearsed performance by professional actors went over everyone's head. If there's one thing people can't get enough of it's righteous indignation.

^again, I will say that the customers do not appear to be actors, and I don't think that anyone here missed the fact that the woman and the clerk WERE actors. Your suggestion that a fair assesment would be a hidden camera tracking a hijab-clad woman going about daily tasks is excellent should anyone wish to follow through with a scientific experiment. I believe for some reason that this was never meant to be passed off as such, and rather more of what I stated above.


The customers were indeed subjects, and social behaviour is indeed defined by one's company.

My offense is that this is certainly not an accurate depiction of "How Muslims Are Treated In The USA" (by the way, thank you for editing the title Farhad2000).

Muslims are free to practicce their faith, minarets dot the landscapes of Washington and many American cities, laws were enacted prohibiting discriminatory practices and Muslims currently enjoy a priviledged status regarding their religion in the public space.

Farhad2000, that debate is entirely unrelated to the video posting and its reticulum is far too wide for superficial rebuttal... I'm not sure it's proper to broach such complex matter considering the raison d'etre of this video posting. Suffice to say that if you are suggesting Islam is devoid of militarism you either ill-informed, oblivious or a seasoned Taqqiya expert.

In my esteem, any religion that encompasses a penal code (jurisprudence), financial regulations, actively censures opposition, legiferates all spheres of life (public and private) must be judged in toto as a political entity as well as a faith. As such, the drive of maintaining a parallel political system for a certain strata of society is indeed indicative of a "threat" to many Western nations.

>> ^Pprt:
To clarify, the individuals subject to scrutiny were placed into an completely artificial environment where the desired outcome of their behaviour was decidedly engineered. I have no doubt that the clerk actively incited participation from bystanders.

^ of course he did, however...I would point out that the customers' reactions were not necessarily engineered. For example, I don't care how artificial of an environment I am in, I will still act like myself.


Compare this to an Asch paradigm where the control doesn't exist and the ratio matches up perfectly.


To claim that this is "How Muslims Are Treated In [sic] USA" is patently ludicrous. The only fair assessment would be a hidden camera tracking a hijab-clad woman going about daily tasks.

^ I don't think anyone here claimed this was an awesome scientific/social experiment. Entertaining demonstration/exhibition of various reactions to the "elephant in the room" is what is inherent.

It seems that the fact that all we saw was a well-rehearsed performance by professional actors went over everyone's head. If there's one thing people can't get enough of it's righteous indignation.

^again, I will say that the customers do not appear to be actors, and I don't think that anyone here missed the fact that the woman and the clerk WERE actors. Your suggestion that a fair assesment would be a hidden camera tracking a hijab-clad woman going about daily tasks is excellent should anyone wish to follow through with a scientific experiment. I believe for some reason that this was never meant to be passed off as such, and rather more of what I stated above.

I usually dislike the contrived 'social experiments' the new magazine programs are always showing, this one was an exception. There was something positive to take from this, thanks for sharing it Farhad.

What a ridiculous and meaningless social experiment.

In reply to this comment by Fjnbk:
Hey, you're Chairman Yang of the Hive!

And you are the Stinky Cheese Man of "The Stinky Cheese Man and Other Fairly Stupid Tales." Your stench related initiatives and my social experiment compliment eachother well.

Walk with planet Fjnbk... downwind from me.

I've had BillO's number for a while. He's still my favorite conductor of social experiments on VS.

He's Jane Goodall and we're all...

...well you get the picture.

No need to apologize. I thought it was interesting to see the reaction. It's OK to use the sift for social experiments. The sift is a social experiment in and of itself.

er...I am so conflicted on what I should do with this vid. On one side, I love what you're trying to do with this video, and I applaud this social experiment. On the other, come on...I couldn't sleep at night if I were to upvote this.

I exercise my power of the neutral NOVOTE, usually reserved for music I don't personally like (other than your nickel back submission, MGR, I downvoted that) and things that I have no opinion on, like the invention of trail mix. Just know it was thought about long and hard <--that's what she said

A man is choked-up, therefore laws must be rewritten and society turned upside-down to accommodate his special feelings? Rubbish.

"Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

Marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet 'gay marriage' advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled."

Not that anyone deserves a disclaimer, but I have nothing against gay folks. Nor do I think there are spiritual penalties for being homosexual.

That said, I don't think legitimizing gay marriage is a good idea.

Gay marriage will probably become legalized in the US in the next 20 or 30 years. Like other failed social experiments, e.g. "wars" on poverty and drugs, its true costs to society will be hidden and its "benefits" trumped up.

I believe going the movies has now become ingrained in our society as a social experience. Thus you will always have people there. I tend to go to the movies rarely and usually with a bunch of friends. Much later after initial runs, when the theatre is usually empty. If there is a movie I would like to watch in solitude in the theater, e.g. Hero or such i.e. movies you got to watch on the largest screen possible, I go on off days and just jump from movie to movie. The other alternative is a art house theater, but all you will find there is snooty film students and uncomfortable chairs.

So about 90% of my viewing is home-based.