Recent psychological research into the "uncanny valley" phenomenon, whereby very humanlike entities can trigger feelings of unease, provides insight into the cancellation of the proposed KONA BLUE program which sought to exploit alleged extraterrestrial technology.

Wang, Lilienfeld & Rochat (2015) argue that the uncanny valley arises from a two-stage process of anthropomorphism followed by dehumanization. Very humanlike entities are initially perceived as human, engaging face-specific brain regions. However, upon detecting their artificial nature, an error-correction mechanism dehumanizes them, resulting in the uncanny feeling. This mirrors AARO's assessment that KONA BLUE proponents initially anthropomorphized anomalous phenomena as extraterrestrial, but lacked empirical evidence to maintain this belief under scrutiny.

From an evolutionary perspective, humanity's acute sensitivity to the uncanny likely provided a survival advantage. Being able to detect subtle cues that a humanlike entity lacked true sentience would have been vital in an ancestral environment containing potential threats masquerading as conspecifics. Even a fleeting sense that something was "off" about an entity could protect against deception by rivals, predators or parasites.

This hypersensitivity persists today and may help explain aspects of the UFO/UAP phenomenon. Unfamiliar sights in the sky that bear superficial resemblance to artificial objects could trigger an anthropomorphic response; when the stimulus fails to conform to human expectations, an uncanny feeling of wrongness ensues. The evolutionary value of this response is to put the observer on guard and instigate further scrutiny of the anomaly.

However, the uncanny valley response is not infallible and may produce false positives, such as interpreting advanced human technology as alien. When such misinterpretations interact with cultural narratives about extraterrestrial visitation, erroneous yet sincere beliefs in a government coverup can coalesce, as seen with KONA BLUE proponents. Without an evolutionary frame, such beliefs can seem more plausible than they are.

In sum, while humanity's uncanny valley response often serves us well in flagging potential deception and danger, it is not a reliable guide to reality in all cases. A more rigorous approach, such as that employed by AARO, is needed to distinguish true anomalies from misperceived cues evoking an evolved response. KONA BLUE proponents were right to scrutinize uncanny UAP, but erred in anthropomorphizing them as extraterrestrial without sufficient evidence. Appreciating the evolutionary origins of the uncanny valley can help us responsibly investigate anomalies going forward.