The Stepford scale of hardcore

[dale coba]

The Stepford scale of hardcore is dedicated to the proposition that all fembots are not created equal; that some are endowed with all of their qualities by their creator, while others are constructed using the personality and/or the body of a human woman.

The Stepford point of view has always been absolutely unapologetic about taking, as the vampire takes what he wants. In this mind, the more extreme the conquest and control, the greater the erotic triumph. The men of Stepford could have divorced their wives, and then put robots in to replace them - but they didn't do that. Like vampires, the Stepford men were too hardcore to settle for anything less than the maximum domination their technology could provide.

In 1971, Ira Levin and the state of technology were backwards enough that the animatronic hall of the Presidents was the closest real example he could offer his readers. Star Trek had aired "What are Little Girls Made Of?" five years earlier, but being set in the future and using ancient tech from a long dead civilization gives you the advantage of science as powerful as magic. I have never doubted that Stepford was devoted to the pursuit of engineering innovations seeking ever more total control over their women. Dale Coba would have thrown away all his patents for the machine Dr. Korby used, capable of converting an actual human woman into the ultimate Stepford Wife.

In my classification of fembot types, I'm trying these descriptors:

built
- duplicated human personality
volunteer
non-volunteer

free will %

personality mod%

Most compactly, four kinds of origins; and a scale of free will and one of personality modification:

(b/d/v/nv) fw% pm%

b fw%
- d fw% pm%
v fw% pm%
nv fw% pm%

Another classification, not using percentages, but rather:

free will = all, some or none
personality modification = unmodified, slight, extreme

0) human person
1) built fembot with free will, without a human-sourced personality.
2) built fembot with free will, with a human-sourced personality.
3) built fembot with limited free will, without a human-sourced personality.
4) built fembot with limited free will, with a human-sourced personality.
-
5) built fembot with limited free will, with a human-sourced, slightly modified personality
6) built fembot with no free will, without a human-sourced personality.
7) built fembot with no free will, with a human-sourced and strongly modified personality.
-
8 ) willingly upgraded human, with free will and her original personality, unmodified
9) willingly upgraded human, with limited free will and her original personality, slightly modified
10) willingly upgraded human, with limited free will and her original personality, heavily modified.
11) willingly upgraded human - absolute automation.
-
12) unwittingly upgraded human, with free will and her original, intact personality
13) unwittingly upgraded human, with limited free will and her original, slightly modified personality.
14) unwittingly upgraded human - absolute automation.

Examples:

0) humans
1) Condor; Eve Edison (Mann & Machine (1992)); Cash (Cyborg2)
2) Dr. Juliana Tainer (Data's 'mother', TNG "Inheritance" (1993));
3) Cylons; Cameron
4) Stargate SG1 duplicates
-
5) Andrea (might have been a #7, breaking down)
6) Cherry 2000; Westworld; Fembots
7) Stepford (1975); Maria (Metropolis)
-
8 )
9)
10)
11) FC's Stephanie
-
12) Creation Of The Humanoids; Kristy Swanson (Deadly Friend, very poor tech))
13)
14) Borg; Stepford (2004) (partial, temporary upgrade); Ilia (Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979))

(Constructive) thoughts, corrections, and inputs would be appreciated.

- Dale Coba

[WilloWisp]

Usually, in a numbered scale such as this, similar values are adjacent - that is, adjacent values have a small difference between them, and non-adjacent values have a greater difference between them. If the scale is strictly linear, than the distinction between any two adjacent values should be roughly the same amount: Going from 7 to 8 should be roughly the same amount of change as going from 8 to 9.

That said, it seems odd to have the scale start with full human at the zero point, and a completely artificial body and mind as 1.

But even then, you've got a single numerical progression which is simultaneously tracking the level of artificiality of the mind, the level of artificiality of the body, the amount of free will, and the willingness of the human component (if there is one). This is not a single axis of values.

I would suggest a system which allows full communication of each of these variables in more easily read format.

Starting with artificiality: Since both of these are tracking the same quality, merely on different components, they can use the same scale. Because this scale includes unaltered humans, that means the body and mind could be completely organic. If completely organic is one end of the spectrum, completely synthetic would seem to be the other end. In between values would include varying degrees of cybernetic augmentation. As a more readable format, I suggest an alphanumeric code to represent easily recalled values:

N - Natural.
A## - Augmented with a number ranging from 01 to 99 - representing, roughly, the percentage level of augmentation.
C## - Converted, with the same type of number as augmented. The distinction between augmented and converted is mostly a matter of semantics, but the fundamental difference is whether pre-built cybernetic components were added (augmentation), or if cybernetic components were gradually constructed as part of the body, usually at the nanoscopic level (conversion). Strictly speaking, augmentation and conversion are not mutually exclusive values - A unit could have an augmented arm which then injected nanites to convert the rest of the body.
D - Duplicate. This is a synthetic body or mind which is patterned off of an existing human's likeness or mind.
S - A completely synthetic body/mind, not copied from anyone's likeness or mind.

Willingness: This value is really only relevant for augmented and converted subjects, but we can have a value for synthetics and full humans:

D - Donated, willingly
C - Captured, unwillingly
U - Unchanged

Personality: It seems useful to measure this as a separate value. This would be the degree of dynamic, social responses the unit is capable of producing. A simple number (00-99) would work here, with 00 indicating completely zombie-like behavior, and 99 being a fully converse personality.

Free will: This would seem to be a strictly linear scale, so a simple number (00-99) should suffice. Zero indicates no free will, 99 indicates full free will.

Awareness: I feel it's necessary to add this, since your scale is noticeably lacking it, and it is a consistently recurring theme in much of our fiction (especially my own). This would measure how aware the unit is of their own nature. For now, I think a numerical scale should suffice, but it might be worth adding a modifier describing how free will and awareness interact (subconsciously incorporating instructions, or directly acknowledging them, for instance). Then again, since that represents an interaction between two values, it might need to be a separate variable.

With a numeric scale, it would work the same as free will, 00-99, with 00 indicating the deepest sleeper, and 99 indicating full lucidity.

Putting it all together, it makes sense to have some sort of separator character to delineate fields. I'd recommend a period or full stop, with the sequence being:

Body.Mind.Willingness.Personality.Free Will.Awareness

So, a completely human woman with a bubbling personality and no compulsion to obey orders would be:

N.N.U.99.99.99

Whereas a completely synthetic fembot with a copied mind, a somewhat stiff personality, completely obedient, and completely oblivious to her own nature, filtering out any evidence to the contrary would be:

S.D.U.75.00.00

Motoko Kusanagi from Ghost in the Shell would be:

A99.A??.D.99.99.99 (We don't know how much of her brain is upgraded, so there isn't a number to put there.)

[ministrations]

I tend to agree with using a percentage or decimal score. Because a lot of us disagree about what is or isn't a gynoid in the first place, classifying them into all-inclusive categories wouldn't really work. A numerical score of various qualities would be a lesser evil... you say her self-awareness is 90, I say it's 73, so we can both reach a consensus that it isn't 0 or 100, and we can recognize our disagreements without invalidating the rubric.

For example, I would probably disagree with several of the examples on your short list, Dale. For one, we don't know how many robot personalities do or don't have human sources, simply because we haven't seen them. I'm sure that if Mann & Machine had lasted more than nine episodes, we would have seen Eve's human template. The opposite is true of Cameron, who except in one episode is very different from the woman from whom she stole an appearance, so her personality wouldn't exactly be human-donated in my opinion.

Juliana Tainer had limited free will, because she didn't even know she was artificial. There were programs she was running that she didn't know about. That also knocks Cash down a few pegs in my opinion. On the other hand, the Stepford Wives and Ilia didn't completely lack free will; all of them had limited strategic skills and could act at least for a time without the approval of a command authority. My free-will ratings for them would be:

Cash -- 85
Dr. Tainer -- 75
Ilia -- 15
Stepford Wives -- maybe 10

That means more to me than an ill-fitting category.

Also, I'll add that organic and synthetic are not mutually exclusive. Transformers are a good (but not sexy) example of artificial, but organic. The T-1001 could also fit that definition, much in the same way quantum computers could all one day be organic. And we have too many examples, sadly, of the other way around.

[--NightBattery--]

This.is. awesome! and should be archived and promoted.
It identifies fembots and it is useful for knowing what people want to see or read about.

the scale is amazing while it seems its not completely a progresive scale in robotization, and it could be even split into two for that purpose:
one for build (1-7) and one for transform (7-14).
And altough the scale can not be reconciliated as a progresive scale for robotization, that is not what is pursuing, it is about harcoreness and actually is quite progresive for hardcoreness (can it be called also...evilness?) of the process behind the fembot


this is a 14

[IMAGE REMOVED]

Regards.

[dale coba]

Battery, your words and understanding of the Stepford scale are right on the money.

I wouldn't want to use letters A-N for the classes, like the Star Trek system for planets.
I'd be thinking the letter was an initial.

The numbers belong to a older approach: the manner of 18th & 19th century natural historians.


If I had a fine, hand-illustrated graphic showing all 14 types, each would have a number to match against the description.

Fembots are not all created equal. This scale is absolutely meant NOT to describe a unitary axis.
My compact format is 3 variables: one to reflect origin, one free will, one personality modification.

Percentages would be hard to agree on.
All, a lot, little, none - that's the advantage of the second approach.

Ministrations, you are right about Cameron. I'll move her to #3.

Mann & Machine did not last for more than nine episodes.

Juliana Tainer thought she had free will, which is all I can claim for myself. A filter to block out her awareness of her nature is not a big subtraction from free will, in my book. What does an awareness of my spleen have to do with my free will?

The Stepford Wives possessed a small measure of autonomy, so they could carry out their orders.
They were automatons, devoid of free will of any kind.
I might want a more precise term - personhood, sentience - but these are unwieldy.

- Dale Coba

[ministrations]

I agree free will is not the best term -- it's attractive because it seems so exegetic, but it doesn't really capture what we mean. Self-actualization doesn't cover it either.

My point about Eve Edison is that we don't know most of her details. (I also forgot she went to preschool until just now, which is a clue. derp.) And maybe that shouldn't matter. But put in a Stepford context: there were five ways I can think of that Stepford wives were created in the franchise to date. We can certainly differ on which way we prefer to see them made, as much as we could probably differ on which is the "canon way." And disagreements of this size can undermine a categorical assessment.

Same problem with Juliana Tainer. I think self-awareness is pretty much a prerequisite of proper free will, and that goes for all sleepers. Juliana's body was simply running a program. It existed without her knowledge, could be paused without her knowledge, and would end without her knowledge. She was programmed to violently fail if her true nature were exposed. There were other programs she had no control over, but certainly could have. So in my opinion, highly self-willed and autonomous, but not free-willed.

Ilia had to have some free will; she was designed that way. She was there to provide insight on humans using a limited but similar emotional profile. Very limited free will to be sure. But her love for Decker a) was real and b) was not the product of V'ger. So that rates a few points on a scale of 100.

And the Stepfords...again, you're probably right. But I personally think "absolutely no free will" means no autonomy. The simple ability to choose a path when faced with a situation that was not pre-programmed means something. And these robots were designed to be autonomous indefinitely, even willful depending on their personalities. Basically, I think simple powerlessness to an owner's direct command does not necessarily mean they have no free will at all.

So, I understand the premise of your chart and I like it, but I happen to prefer a scoring system. Even if it was a single score out of 100 (where 0 is unchanged human and 100 is walkie-talkie) with points deducted or added for being controlled or forced or transformed or self-aware etc. would allow for more useful arguments about the merits of each example and stop idiots like me from arguing that Juliana Tainer should be a #4.

PS Andrea would be a #3 for me...she's not based on any humans as far as I remember. I think it almost went past implication that she came right out of the sexual fantasies of Dr. Korby.

[dale coba]

Good thoughts, Ministrations. We need multiple approaches. I looked for a vampire classification system, with no luck.

Free will, true A.I., personhood, not being a toaster, sentience - when there's none of those, there can be no oppression and only staged cruelty. That's why, in my Stepford, we get done with all the evil quickly, before the new wife in town discovers our work, and before the candles are out on a resident's 18th birthday cake. The men know what's best for their women. It's like Texas government, only the oppression is fictional and erotic.

You are right about Andrea.

Andrea was a female android built sometime between 2261 and 2266, by Roger Korby.

I'm going to say Ruk was the one that couldn't remember whether he was built as or converted into a machine, but I couldn't find the script to confirm.

- Dale Coba

[Svengli]

An interesting discussion.

When you say "human sourced", do you mean "simulated"? A machine with a simulated personality be a built, would know facts about the original's life, would have ostensible memories but could not have all the "real" memories of the real person, would tend to have big hole in it's understanding, etc.

Obviously we're talking dimensions of fantasy domination and control and while I would find the "Stepford Dimension" perhaps the most pleasing, I can understand others being attracted to slightly different dimensions here.

[dale coba]

"human sourced" is my stab at a term for a perfect or good enough copy,
for a photocopy of a black ink drawing of new Joanna at her mirror.

At some point, a woman had her brain scanned, and the connections and function were evaluated well enough to produce a personality suitable for uploading into a freshly-built fembot. This fembot has as much conviction and memory data as any human seems to. When she's set to sleeper, waking from her illusion of humanity will be full of detail and lovely to watch.

"human sourced" (I think) was me lumping the duplication method together with those cases where the original is used up or was dying, so now we're (maybe) supposed to claim the original woman has been rescued and now continues her modified existence as that same singular "soul" (a bunch of old, old school assumptions in there, not at all coherent).

Duplication or transformation, a semi-intact, human-female originating personality.

- Dale Coba

[Svengli]

Hmm,

This gives me an idea. It would be nice to have an index of stories in the archive by their Stepford numbers.

Perhaps I will make effort in that direction.

[dale coba]

I like the index, because it would be used by people within the community who will understand the terms and the objective. The language of an index would have to be better fine-tuned for outsiders to use without confusion.

Being on the extreme end of the scale, Stepford can look at the range of technosexualities without being creeped out. I don't know if it would be right to name a different scale or classification system after Dr. Dyson, Dr. Franklin, or some other character or show.

Westworld, or anything-world, could work.

- Dale Coba

[--NightBattery--]

i bring this back because i really believe it should be turned into an article.
and because im going to use the scale for something else, eventually. good day.

[dale coba]

My compact format is 3 variables: one to reflect origin, one free will, one personality modification.

How about an X-axis of personality modification,
free will on the Y-axis,
and an icon to place on the XY spot, reflecting origin & willingness?

A face for the icon, representing either:
- the built robot,
- the human-to-robot transitional, happy face
- the human-to-robot transitional, a bit worried-looking face

Here's a related, a political ideology whatcha-call-it-graph:


- Dale Coba