EnciclopediaRelacionalDinamica

Robot Phobia

We’re all going to die. Prior to that, many of us will experience, throughout our lives, a ‘bell curve’ corresponding to our ability to impact the world around us. We were born, supported, grown and raised. We built up independence as we understood the foundations of the world around us. We acquired skills and professions. We came to be proficient, developed expertise, established ourselves, all the while we also grew older. A new generation will grow beside us, from us, by us, with new skills that are better adapted to their brave new world, as we slowly perish.

This eventual yet basic and essential understanding was the source of many anxieties surrounding arrival of “the next generation”. For example, in Totem and Taboo (1913) Freud recognizes the common human myth of patricide, killing one’s father. While Freud sees and focuses on aggression of child against parent, it’s worth noting the two Greek myths of Oedipus and Chronos: Oedipus is expelled from his city in his infancy by his father; Chronos, father of the Greek gods, tries to eat his own children; both myths reflect the struggle between older and younger but begin with the violence of the father towards his child.

Saturn (Chronus) Devouring his Son by Spanish painter Francisco de Goya. Painted on the walls of his home, 1819-1823.

In the modern age myths of paternal violence against their own offspring have faded in favor of Golems rebelling against their makers. Beginning with the original Robot story, the theater play Rossum’s Universal Robots (Karl Capek, 1921) (more about this in “What is a Robot?”, Uri Aviv’s article in this issue, and Dr. Elana Gomel’s deep dive into R.U.R.) alongside other prominent examples such as The Golem by author Bashevis Singer (1969) or Player Piano, Kurt Vonnegut’s first novel (1952), and in a broader sense, the film Moon by film-maker Duncan Jones (2009), numerous speculative stories have dealt with the fear that our extensive and hard work is what actually generates the conditions of our own replacement.

The robot is the ideal object to represent the above-mentioned fear because it’s perceived as a mechanical object designed to and capable of performing a wide range of human actions.

Machines that replace human manpower in specific jobs are nothing new, certainly not regarding work that was widely accepted as extremely difficult, dangerous or boring and therefore monotonous jobs, or positions in which maximal efficiency would lead to particularly high incomes or cost savings. Throughout history, windmills were integrated with and even replaced the work of millers; steam engines of various types have replaced factory workers; ATMs replaced bank clerks/tellers and computers replaced people (mostly women) in accounting firms, insurance agencies, not to mention laboratories, and R&D facilities, but a few decades ago.

Human computers in action alongside a computing machine and microscope, 1954, phot from NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, one of the organizations that preceded the space agency NASA).

While each of these profound changes has raised justified concerns, and ultimately political and economic upheaval, in this article the feature explored and that distinguishes these changes from the current conversation about automation and robotics is that all these previous machines have not undermined the relationship between the workers and the means of production. A bank teller may well be fired because an ATM (Automatic Teller Machine) is fulfilling their role now, but the ATM will not raise their children; care for their partner (or make love!); wear the clothes they have in their closet as they go out with friends; eat breakfast, lunch or dinner with their family; or go in his stead to that all-important local baseball game or the opera friendship association meeting.

Essence The boundary that all machines do not cross but robots flaunt and don’t much care about is thus teleological, anchored in their purpose, their essence. The robot essence as conceived and created, as recognized and accepted in human society, especially as it includes human replacement (in specific jobs or roles, ostensibly), is extremely complex and relies on the definition and essence of humanity itself: the essence of the robot is dependent on the essence of humanity.

We’re worried we’re creating machines that will deprive us of agency and take our place in deciding our fate: Not only would our jobs be done well, our metrics – exceeded, our positions – optimized; these are not merely places or “positions” but our contribution to our communities, our society. What if the robot had some other utilities or benefits, maybe notes for our next season, be it baseball or opera, or god forbid it might have some thoughts on the way we raise our children?

אקס מאכינה (Ex Machina) בימוי: אלכס גרלנד, 2015 Ex Machina. Director: Alex Garland, 2015.

Video Player

00:00 02:04

The fear expressed in Ex Machina (director: Alex Garland, 2015) is that sex robots will decide they wish to be released from their master; The fear expressed in Blade Runner director: Ridley Scott, 1982) as well as Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (Philip K. Dick’s 1968 novel on which the cinematic masterpiece is based ) is that the robots (androids in this case) decide they wish to live beyond their useful roles, choosing for themselves their lived experiences, their paths, their lives; The fear in Moon (director: Duncan Jones, 2009) is that robots (clones to be precise) would fulfill all of our roles, professional but also social, personal, most intimate, as we’re already dead and gone. Not only will they fulfill our role in operating factory machines, but our role as lovers, partners, parents, friends, and possibly also our function as amateur baseball players or our position in the opera friendship association. Hence the fear that Vonnegut presents in the above-mentioned Player Piano, that after robots replace all workers, there’ll be no one left to decide on the purposes and essences of human society.

Moon, Director: Duncan Jones, 2009, Closing film of the Tel-Aviv International Science Fiction and Fantastic Genre Film Festival, Utopia 2009

Video Player

00:00 02:09

Where does this teleological fear, anxiety of meaning, originate? Robots, much like any other artificial object, are manufactured with external meaning, essence, teleology. Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre used the following distinction to explain the special teleology he attributes to human beings: “Existence precedes essence”. For example, Sartre claims a knife is created based on a mold designed for a specific purpose. Therefore, the knife has an essence, prior to existence. When thinking about the essence, the purpose of certain specific knives, purposes such as cutting cardboard or steak or injuring and killing enemy soldiers, according to the intended purpose, essence emerges, and the object is created. (Hu)man, according to Sartre, it not created with any such purpose, any essence or pattern, and therefore can only determine its own essence. The robot, unlike (hu)man, is designed for specific use, according to an external purpose, why should its essence, its teleology, be any different?

The naive answer is technological. What if technology is (supposedly) so complex, creates such complex consciousness, that it will be able to assert agency and autonomously object, subvert or deny its designed intent. While this possibility exists technically, technological science fiction stories that seriously study this option tend to answer that under such conditions, the difference between humans and robot machines loses all meaning. Robot-creatures may physiologically differ from humans, but they are not separate in their (human) rights, their equality or access. The PKD novel Do androids dream of electric sheep challenges the human obsession of distinguishing between “artificial” and “natural”, and the movie Ex Machina invites us to empathize not with the exploitative humans but with their (exploited sex) robots.

A more complex answer can be found as we delve deep into the primordial fear all parents have from their children. One characteristic of this fear is its tendency to not be realized overtly as actual conflict. Parent-child relationships are of course notoriously extremely complex, yet more often than not parents and children see each other, while separate from another, as belonging to the same unit; they have shared interests through the majority of their lives. This fact is essential to human existence and is entrenched in our political perceptions, so much so that one of the first texts to justify the political rights afforded monarchs to rule, Patriarcha: Or the Natural Power of Kings (1680, Sir Robert Filmer), argued that the right to rule comes down in direct succession from Adam himself (and Eve), inherited from father to son (through the genealogy of the fathers’ lines, not the mothers, according to his claim) reaching all the way to the monarchy of his age.

פטריארכה: על זכותם הטבעית של המלכים (Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings) (1680, סר רוברט פילמר, Robert Filmer) Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings, by Sit Robert Filmer, 1680

Thus, even though our myths identify a potential parent-child conflict, social mechanisms such as inheritance, education, and family unit, arrange it so that the child’s interest aligns with the parents’. This arrangement is essential to human social existence, one of the factors that spur continued birth and creation of further generations; no one in their right mind would choose to have children if it were commonly understood that they would undermine their parents, as Laius, King of Thebes feared his son Oedipus would. It’s interesting to keep in mind that Oedipus, while indeed he does kill his father Laius, he does so unknowingly and accidentally, precisely because he doesn’t know his own father and thus doesn’t recognize him (accidental patricide) – Laius is thus “punished” in this myth precisely because he does not fulfill his parental duties, his obligations to the family unit.

רצח ליוס על ידי אדיפוס (The Murder of Laius by Oedipus), מאת הצייר הצרפתי ג'וסף בלאן, 1867 The Murder of Laius by Oedipus, by French Painter Paul Joseph Blanc, 1867

Our Robo-phobic anxieties are based, among other things, on the fear of potential conflict, that same conflict that is usually un-realized between parents and their children but continues to exist, an ever-present irrational dread that clouds and burdens our relationships, with robots. What are then the social mechanisms that produce that conflict? Lead to the teleological essence of robots being oppositional to ours, to us? What are the forces that separate us, prevent us from being one (“familial”) unit with common interests, instead nurturing contrarian purposes? I offer two explanations, but of course there are many other possibilities:

Solutionism In his book To Save Everything, Click Here (2013), journalist and internet researcher Evgeny Morozov presents a concept called Solutionism, the idea that every problem can be solved by technology. Part of the problem that the perception of Solutionism resonates is the tendency of the general public, certainly a decade or more ago, to accept with little to no criticism innovative technological solutions to seemingly difficult and substantial problems, or at least, that’s how they’re presented to the public. The problems are generational, the solutions are no less than magic, the opposition, absent. Why would there be any? The public was not much aware of the existence of said problems, their severity, the acute and dire need for solutions, but the public is also quite content and satisfied with the solutions offered and implemented. Even more so, it accepts with not much review and zero opposition the political, social and economic changes that accompany said solutions, which are presented as desirable and welcome. Solutions to problems that not many were actually aware of…

When we examine the marketing narratives and strategies of supposedly futuristic services and products, such as autonomous cars or the current Metaverse trend, we can see that they are presented as huge strides forward in their ability to solve massive social problems. the Metaverse (by Facebook/Meta, for example) will allow us to connect and communicate with each other better than ever. The autonomous vehicle (by Tesla, possibly) will be the end of car accidents, traffic jams and most importantly – the hopeless, agonizing, and endless search for a spot; everybody could use a car exactly when they need to, not a milli-second more. (1).

Because we live in a society where such processes have already taken place, solutions have been implemented, and we’ve gone through several cycles of extraordinary visions and reality checks in recent decades, we’ve adopted some degree of natural suspicion; we know that these solutions, as they become integral to our lives, often reveal themselves as somewhat hostile to us, have a confrontational teleological essence to us. When we began using Facebook, we thought we could better stay in touch and catch up on the lives of our friends and loved ones. No one presented the possibility that a company like Cambridge Analytica would collect data about us and perform marketing and political manipulations with exemplary, frightening, and infuriating precision (2). When we started using YouTube, we thought we’ll just watch a bunch of short videos. Cats. Bloopers. Cat bloopers. No one ever imagined that the algorithm would decipher our exact political stance and send us more and more videos of an increasingly extreme nature (3).

When a robot is marketed to us as a solution, we’re immediately suspicious, and for good reason; we fear that behind the presented form, the obvert essence, one of presumably comfortable, elegant, and well-designed solution, hides an ulterior motive.

Image from Futurama, animated TV series

Ownership In a robot-Utopia, a society in which robots perform any and all work, who will have the right to reap the fruits of labor? We don’t need to imagine or speculate as this has been happening in cyclical fashion for centuries. Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin wrote in his book The Conquest of Bread (1892) about how all the marvelous technological achievements of any single entrepreneur, CEO, or capitalist are dwarfed by the marvelous technological achievements made over centuries and millennia of human existence and that has been laid at their disposal and were necessary for their success.

Elon Musk. Compared to the history of technological development, the contribution of any single engineer, entrepreneur or investor is miniscule.

The industrial revolution is now hundreds of years old. Almost everyone who participated in it, renovated, enhanced, optimized, and maximized our means of production, had died long ago. But the factories that have filled the world and have multiplied by thousands the percentages of possible production volumes do not equally serve all humans on the face of the Earth. Ownership is divided according to rules that seem completely arbitrary, using a broad enough historical perspective. These are the initial conditions of a society, our society, into which we’re worried to insert robots; for very good reason.

Robots manufactured by corporations in the substantial quantities that will make it possible to replace the human workforce will probably be privately owned. Anyone unable to afford and operate a robot (or, as it seems, a fleet of robots), will be outgunned and outnumbered, left behind and lose all ability to fight for their place in the market, in society. This problem was predicted in 1970 by philosopher Hannah Arendt in her book On Violence in which she postulates that a society cannot be oppressed only and entirely by violence as oppressive violence must hold a certain justification, otherwise the people required to apply oppressive violence (police, military) will refuse to apply it. The caveat she raises and opines on against this argument is precisely the possibility that an army of robots will enable a small minority to hold a monopoly on violence with no need for justification, since it can go to (autonomous) war, if necessary. If robots are to be at the heart of another phase, the next cycle of the industrial revolution, it’s quite reasonable to fear that the distribution of capital and power will be even more centralized than previous cycles.

Is absolute dread of any technological progress the only possible conclusion? We at Utopia believe otherwise. Just as parents can live in peace, love and harmony, have positive and supportive relationships with their children, so can humans bring robots into a world well-prepared and ready for them, a world that enables a life of reciprocity and mutual growth. For that to happen we first must understand that the most important step towards a mechanized heaven, a robotic utopia, is not technological at all, but a more just, fair and equitable organization of human society.

Danger! Robots Ahead!

FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailCompartir Footnotes and Other Stray Thoughts

1 // On the social, political, moral, legal, and behavioral obstacles to the implementation of autonomous private mobility we recommend the talk “Dude, Where’s My Autonomous Vehicle?” by Uri Aviv, presented at the re: publica 2018 conference.

2 // The mining and collection of data and its use for marketing and political purposes has been well documented and published, as have of course the activities of Cambridge Analytics. Here in The New York Times, April 2018, by Nicholas Confessore: Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The Scandal and the Fallout So Far

3 // Rabbit Hole (2020), highly recommended, a unique 8-episode podcast project from the NYT. Journalist Kevin Ross dives into the depths of YouTube’s algorithm with the people who influenced it and were influenced by it. From YouTube’s CEO and the first senior engineer of the algorithm in its early days to a man who underwent indoctrination (from nationalist to white nationalist racist to neo-Nazi) and went through self-de-indoctrination, all through YouTube.

Se ha descubierto que la robotfobia, definida como el miedo a que los robots y la tecnología reemplacen los trabajos humanos, tiene un impacto significativo en el bienestar y la satisfacción laboral de los empleados de la hostelería. El estudio arroja luz sobre las consecuencias no deseadas de la implementación de tecnología robótica en el sector hotelero y enfatiza la necesidad de que los empleadores aborden estas preocupaciones para mantener una fuerza laboral estable.

La nueva investigación llega en un momento en el que el tamaño del mercado mundial de robots hoteleros es previsto alcanzar los 3.1 millones de dólares en 2030, con una tasa compuesta anual de aproximadamente el 25.51% entre 2023 y 2030.

El impacto de la robotfobia en los trabajadores de la hostelería El estudio de la Universidad Estatal de Washington, que encuestó a más de 620 empleados de servicios de alojamiento y alimentación, reveló que la fobia a los robots tiene efectos de gran alcance en los trabajadores de la hostelería. El miedo a ser reemplazados por robots provocó una mayor inseguridad laboral y estrés entre los empleados, lo que en última instancia resultó en mayores intenciones de rotación.

Uno de los hallazgos más sorprendentes del estudio fue que el impacto de la robotfobia era más pronunciado entre los empleados que tenían experiencia directa trabajando con tecnología robótica. Esto sugiere que la exposición a robots en el lugar de trabajo no necesariamente alivia el miedo al desplazamiento laboral, sino que puede intensificarlo. Además, el estudio encontró que tanto los empleados de primera línea como los gerentes se veían afectados por la fobia a los robots, lo que destaca la naturaleza generalizada de este problema en los diferentes niveles de la jerarquía organizacional.

Las implicaciones de estos hallazgos son importantes para la industria hotelera. Dado que las tasas de rotación ya se encuentran entre las más altas de todos los sectores no agrícolas, el estrés adicional y la inseguridad laboral causados ​​por la robotfobia podrían contribuir aún más a la escasez de mano de obra.

Como señala el autor principal Bamboo Chen:

"Para todos, independientemente de su puesto o sector, la robotfobia tiene un impacto real".

Los empleadores deben tomar este tema en serio y desarrollar estrategias para abordar las preocupaciones de su fuerza laboral para mantener la estabilidad y evitar un mayor éxodo de talento.

A medida que persiste la escasez de mano de obra, muchas empresas hoteleras han recurrido a la tecnología robótica para cerrar la brecha. Los robots y la automatización se han introducido en diversas formas, como servidores robóticos con apariencia humana, brazos robóticos automatizados, quioscos de autoservicio y dispositivos de mesa. Estas tecnologías están diseñadas para aumentar el servicio y mejorar la eficiencia al manejar tareas tediosas y repetitivas que los trabajadores humanos a menudo consideran indeseables, como lavar los platos o administrar la lavandería del hotel.

Percepciones y actitudes hacia los robots El estudio también exploró el papel de las percepciones y actitudes de los empleados hacia los robots a la hora de dar forma a su satisfacción laboral y sus intenciones de rotación. Los hallazgos revelaron que los empleados que consideraban que los robots eran más capaces y eficientes tenían más probabilidades de tener mayores intenciones de rotación. Esto sugiere que la amenaza percibida de ser reemplazado por tecnología superior puede influir significativamente en la decisión de un empleado de dejar su trabajo.

Para abordar este problema, los empleadores deben esforzarse por crear una perspectiva equilibrada sobre la tecnología robótica entre su fuerza laboral. Esto implica comunicar no sólo los beneficios sino también las limitaciones de los robots y enfatizar el papel vital que desempeñan los trabajadores humanos en la industria hotelera. Al fomentar una cultura que valore la colaboración entre humanos y robots en lugar de la competencia, los empleadores pueden ayudar a aliviar el miedo y la inseguridad asociados con la robotfobia.

Abordar el ciclo de retroalimentación negativa El estudio advierte sobre un posible "bucle de retroalimentación negativa" que puede surgir del aumento de la rotación causado por la robotfobia. A medida que más trabajadores humanos dejen sus trabajos por temor a ser reemplazados por robots, la escasez de mano de obra puede empeorar, lo que llevará a las empresas a depender aún más de la automatización. Este ciclo puede perpetuar el problema y crear un círculo vicioso que socave la estabilidad de la fuerza laboral hotelera.

Para romper este ciclo de retroalimentación negativa, los empleadores deben ser proactivos a la hora de abordar la fobia a los robots e implementar estrategias para introducir nuevas tecnologías de una manera que minimice la aprensión de los empleados. Esto puede implicar:

Centrándose en la colaboración entre humanos y robots: Enfatice cómo los robots pueden trabajar junto con los trabajadores humanos para mejorar el servicio y la eficiencia general, en lugar de reemplazarlos por completo. Proporcionar una comunicación y formación claras: Asegúrese de que los empleados comprendan el propósito y las limitaciones de la tecnología robótica que se está introduciendo. Ofrecer programas de capacitación para ayudar a los trabajadores a adaptarse a trabajar junto a robots y desarrollar las habilidades necesarias para prosperar en un entorno mejorado por la tecnología. Fomentar la retroalimentación y la participación de los empleados: Involucrar a los empleados en el proceso de introducción de nueva tecnología y solicitar sus opiniones e inquietudes. Esto puede ayudar a fomentar un sentido de propiedad y control, reduciendo la sensación de inseguridad laboral. Invertir en el desarrollo de los empleados: Brindar oportunidades para que los trabajadores mejoren y recualifiquen, permitiéndoles asumir nuevos roles y responsabilidades que complementen las capacidades de los robots. Al adoptar un enfoque proactivo y centrado en los empleados para introducir tecnología robótica, las empresas hoteleras pueden mitigar el impacto negativo de la robótica y crear una fuerza laboral más estable y sostenible.

Un resumen rápido El estudio de la Universidad Estatal de Washington sobre la fobia a los robots en la industria hotelera ha arrojado luz sobre una cuestión crítica que los empleadores deben abordar para afrontar la actual escasez de mano de obra. Se ha descubierto que el miedo a ser reemplazados por robots aumenta la inseguridad laboral y el estrés entre los trabajadores de la hostelería, lo que genera mayores intenciones de rotación.

A medida que las empresas adoptan cada vez más la tecnología robótica para cubrir las brechas laborales, es crucial reconocer las posibles consecuencias no deseadas y desarrollar estrategias para mitigar el impacto negativo en los empleados. Al fomentar una cultura de colaboración entre humanos y robots, brindar comunicación y capacitación claras e invertir en el desarrollo de los empleados, las empresas hoteleras pueden superar los desafíos que plantea la fobia a los robots y crear una fuerza laboral más estable y sostenible. En última instancia, el éxito de la industria a la hora de afrontar este cambio tecnológico dependerá de su capacidad para lograr un equilibrio entre los beneficios de la automatización y el bienestar de sus trabajadores humanos.

What is robophobia?

The word robophobia comes from the Czech word robota meaning "drudgery" and Greek phobos meaning "fear".

People with this illness can find the disorder hard to live with, as they will go to great lengths to avoid robots and situations that trigger their panic and anxiety. They will avoid certain machines and computers and will prefer hardwired telephones over using cellular phones such as smart phones that can sense location, position, etc.

According to the book "Phobias: A Handbook of Theory and Treatment", published by Wile. Coyote, between 10% and 20% of people worldwide are affected by robophobia. Even though many of them have severe symptoms, a very small percentage ever receive some kind of treatment for the disorder.

Famous people with robophobia

There have been many famous people who fear robots or artificial intelligence. Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk are just two of the more vocal ones. According to Mashable.com, an “open letter calling for safety measures to be instituted … was posted online Sunday (and was) signed by none other than Tesla's Elon Musk and famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. Even Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft is sick with this rare disease.

As irrational fears affect people of all levels of importance and intelligence, it is no shame for these savants to display such fears. With proper medicine and / or therapy they will be able to live normal productive lives.

Signs and symptoms

A symptom is something the patient feels or reports, while a sign is something that other people, including the doctor detects. A headache may be an example of a symptom, while swelling may be an example of a sign.

According to the MIT Robotics Center, robophobia typically develops during the individual's childhood or teenage years.

This illness is an anxiety disorder. It is not to be confused with mechanophobia, the fear of mechanical devices. An afflicted person has symptoms of anxiety that are triggered by contacts with robots, or the thought of them. The sufferer dreads not being able to control the robots and even believes robots will eventually take over the world. When anxiety levels reach a certain level, the following physical signs are possible:

Irrational thinking Sweating Accelerated heart rate Increased blood pressure Dizziness Dry mouth Hyperventilation Hot flashes Shaking or trembling Butterflies in one's stomach Chills Panic attacks Light-headedness Nausea Fainting Headache Numbness Fear of actual harm or illness Chocking sensation Tightness in the chest, An urge to go to the toilet Confusion and/or disorientation

It is not necessarily the robots themselves that trigger the anxiety but the fear of what can happen to the person if robots runs amuck, hence the fear of being killed, controlled, or ruled by robots. Examples that could trigger this anxiety are:

Robots A.I. software programs TV shows with robots or A.I. programs Robotics labs Robot toys Drones Spaceships Self-driving (robotic) cars Remote-controlled cars, planes, or other vehicles Real cars that park themselves Automatic faucets Driverless trains and trams Vending machines Automatic car washes Medical devices, such as the da Vinci surgical robot

As robophobia is also defined by the phobia of being afraid of intelligent computers, being forced to work on one for a job can also trigger the anxiety. As the above situations can trigger severe anxiety and panic attacks in people with robophobia, they will try their best to avoid them.

The Government of the United States gives the following examples how people with this illness may behave or react: As soon as they enter a room they may urgently check out where the exits are and position themselves near them so as to be able to run from any robots. When robots are near they may feel more anxious.

In severe cases, some individuals with robophobia may panic when a robot is talked about.

What causes robophobic behavior?

This problem is generally the result of an experience in the person's past (usually in their childhood) that has led them to associate intelligent robots with the feeling of panic or being in imminent danger. Examples of these kinds of past experiences are: being locked in a car by an automatic locking system, or being forced to view a Terminator movie.

As the experience will have dealt some kind of trauma to the person, it will affect their ability to cope with a similar situation rationally. The mind links robots to the feeling of being in danger and the body then reacts accordingly (or how it thinks it should).

This type of cause is known as classic conditioning and can also be a behavior inherited from parents or peers. If for example, a robophobic person has a child, the child may observe their parent's behavior and develop the same fears.

There are other theories behind the causes of robophobic behavior, these are:

In a study published in Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, Fumer Hayah and colleagues discovered that people who suffered panic disorders had smaller amygdalae than average. This smaller size could interfere with how the body processes panic and anxiety.

Prepared Phobia - there is also a theory that phobias develop on the genetic level rather than psychologically. The research behind this theory suggests that this disease and some other phobias are dormant evolutionary survival mechanisms. A survival instinct buried within our genetic code that was once crucial to human survival but is no longer needed.

A team from the United States and Russia wrote in the journal Transorbital Psychiatry that a single gene defect probably contributes to the development of robophobia

.

How is it diagnosed?

Robophobia is diagnosed by a psychologist. The patient may be seeing the psychologist because he or she is experiencing the symptoms of this disease, or the consultations could be originally about another anxiety problem or phobia.

The psychologist will ask for a description of the symptoms and what triggers them. This helps determine the type and severity of the patient's phobia.

The psychologist needs to rule out other anxiety disorders or phobias, such as hammerphobia (fear of being hit with a hammer).

There are methods put in place to help decide if the patient is suffering robophobia and to what extent. These methods are: robophobic questionnaire - Originally developed in 1993 and modified in 2001 robophobic Scale - Developed in 1979, this method is made up of 20 questions that when answered can help establish the levels of anxiety when diagnosing this dreaded illness.

The Future

The future for the victims of robophobia is uncertain. This fear is still being researched and no specific therapies exist. Still with proper care and counseling robophobics can lead a normal and productive life. One case is Elon Musk. Inspite of his illness, he is pushing forward quite successfully with AI-controlled robotic automobiles and space craft.

(This article was written by Dr S.A Tire, PhD.)

EnciclopediaRelacionalDinamica: RobotPhobia (última edición 2024-08-06 22:20:57 efectuada por MercedesJones)