Virtual reality shocker
Torturing even a lifeless computer character makes volunteers upset.
Researchers have recreated in a virtual world one of the most extreme social experiments ever performed in the real world. The results suggest that virtual environments could provide a way to explore human nature in ways that ethical concerns could make impossible to do for real.
Read the story here.
Comments
I don't know exact informations about this project but it seams to be absurd. Just look at games nowadays such as America's army etc. which giving many informations about social behaviors. Why don't you rather focus on them?
Posted by: o----o | December 24, 2006 09:29 AM
Everybody is apparently confronted with a faceless unknown. The actual face of nature, sometimes very unkind, is unknown and unpredictable. I read this article with two thoughts in mind-1) of the ethicality as addressed in the article of experiments with virtual people 2) arising curiosity with respect to a persons feelings to wish to do harm in this respect, and whether this phenomenon has one face or two to it-i.e two (faceless) threats, an additional one or more beyond the naturally associated fears of the world, related to rapid technicalization of the world.(A virtual computer model is certainly very technical), or predicted climate changes-greenhouse effects, threats of basically unknown causation’s....The existence of separate unknowns related to change and new achievable profundities: a healthier fear/lack-of- fear profile. the virtual woman in this model inherently has no way to cause mutual harm. Do we harbor a plurality of natural problems that have no faces one of natural occurrence(constant) ,the other of (slow?) transient environmental causes(changing)? Can such experiments distinguish the two in a way better than the real experiment described and what are the ethical issues?
I think in the absence of answers to this question, civilization proceeds in a very blind alley like an engine that changes its efficiency (either squanders or stalls) depending on the available fuel it perceives and not on an actual total.
Posted by: Marvin E. Kirsh | December 26, 2006 06:48 AM
William Dutton's comment that researchers need to think about how the participants react strikes me as shortsighted. Dutton says, "People may still be affected by the fact that they did these things — it's just as much an ethical issue in a virtual environment."
Certainly the participants will be affected by the memory and implications of their actions, but they will be fortunate in being able to examine how they reacted in these difficult situations without having to actually be responsible for harm to another person.
All of us like to think that we will do the ethical thing; that we would not harm another simply because we were told to, that we would intervene if someone was being attacked, at least by calling 911. But do any of us know what our actions will be when we are faced with these situations?
Participants in such experiments would be in the enviable position of discovering, without physical peril to themselves or others, if they have the courage of their convictions. And, if they found themselves lacking, the soul-searching that would follow on their personal disappointment could well lead to a more conscious, ethical behavior when they find themselves in situations which require action.
Posted by: Elliot Nesterman | December 27, 2006 11:30 PM
The ethical concerns in both the real and virutal experiments appear quite close, as the goal, whether the "victim" is an animated charicature, or a human actor screaming as if in pain (or not, as if dead), is to manipulate the emotions of the test volunteer while seeing how far he or she will go in hurting others "in the name of science."
Outside of scientific tests, emotional manipulation of course has a long history. Interesting ones are in several of the stories in the book "The Mind's I" by Dennett and Hoftsadter, and there's a controversial example in the UN anti-landmine video at stoplandmines.org.
Posted by: Ben Bradley | December 28, 2006 12:45 AM
The movie “Grizzly Man” comes to mind.
The focus there was a man who was sentimentally besotted with creatures which I surmise looked upon him with about the same degree of reflection and empathy we would give a carrot in the crisper tray: Is it alive? Is it dead? Such questions are unlikely to enter our thoughts as we decide whether to use a particular one in a salad.
But of course, as a general science teacher, I have demonstrated to myself and others repeatedly over the years that the carrot is alive and can be eaten alive. I don’t expect many people attribute an awareness of death to carrots and I do not credit grizzlies with any such sense. In the case of Grizzlies, I have no basis for my opinion; likewise, I have no evidence to support my assumption that they are unaware of death as we know it
For me, The Milgram experiment, the Kitty Genovese phenomenon, the Stanford Prison Experiment fall into this landscape. We are not just exploring empathy, social responsibility and social order, individual psychology and physiology. These virtual experiments offer a means of exploring our consciousness as well as our conscience.
Posted by: Megistocera | December 28, 2006 09:37 PM
The Milgram experiment, the Kitty Genovese phenomenon, the Stanford Prison Experiment fall into this landscape. We are not just exploring empathy, social responsibility and social order, individual psychology and physiology. These virtual experiments offer a means of exploring our consciousness as well as our conscience.
Posted by: Sohbet | May 7, 2007 04:02 PM
The focus there was a man who was sentimentally besotted with creatures which I surmise looked upon him with about the same degree of reflection and empathy we would give a carrot in the crisper tray: Is it alive? Is it dead? Such questions are unlikely to enter our thoughts as we decide whether to use a particular one in a salad.
Posted by: bilim | June 30, 2007 03:02 PM
William Dutton's comment that researchers need to think about how the participants react strikes me as shortsighted. Dutton says, "People may still be affected by the fact that they did these things — it's just as much an ethical issue in a virtual environment."
thankss
Posted by: muhabbet | August 29, 2007 01:09 PM
William Dutton's comment that researchers need to think about how the participants react strikes me as shortsighted. Dutton says, "People may still be affected by the fact that they did these things — it's just as much an ethical issue in a virtual environment."
thankss
Posted by: nefret sozleri | September 27, 2007 09:50 AM
William Dutton's comment that researchers need to think about how the participants react strikes me as shortsighted. Dutton says, "People may still be affected by the fact that they did these things — it's just as much an ethical issue in a virtual environment."
thankss
Posted by: sohbet | November 21, 2007 11:19 PM