5 ms·

Interesting article, can definitely see the potential for learning/empathy here. Ethically (in the US), I wonder how VR modules like this will be received. I se

Interesting article, can definitely see the potential for learning/empathy here. Ethically (in the US), I wonder how VR modules like this will be received. I see a case for and against a VR module that allows next gen students to 'experience' 9/11 or any other historic catastrophe.

monocasa 8y ago
What's the moral argument against?
- mipmap04 8y ago
  If it's not handled appropriately, you're potentially making a really poor-taste virtual roller coaster. It could easily be seen as making a spectacle of a national tragedy.
- DanAndersen 8y ago
  There's an argument that putting children through traumatizing simulated events has unclear psychological consequences. Western education at young ages goes surprisingly graphic when talking about certain historical atrocities (think seeing Schindler's List in grade schools). While this sort of shock-and-awe storytelling can be impactful, its consequences may not be all positive. Another issue is that a stronger reliance on "empathetic/emotional" learning experiences can delve too far from education and too much into propaganda. Group A can produce material that hits deep at our psyches and highlights the evils of Group B, and vice versa. Whose side wins the popular debate isn't from the facts on the ground, but from which group has the tech/production skills to make their story grip the heartstrings. In that way it's like any other over-produced documentary, but VR can have the seductive appeal that it's "more real" and thus more objective. The issue of "experiential VR learning" becomes harder and harder to do right the further back in time you go, because of the mistake we moderns make when trying to "relate" to the past. We often imagine time-traveling and dropping ourselves in a past environment, thinking that's what it would be to be, say, a medieval peasant. We too easily forget that our own mindsets and approaches would be fundamentally different in some ways.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    If watching Schindler's List is traumatizing, then what is going to happen to your kid when they actually meet someone trying to take advantage of them in one way or another?
    - hrktb 8y ago
      At a point it’s a matter of norm and probability. If the chances that a kid goes through that kind of experience are astronomically low, prepping them for that kind of traumatic event while encuring PTSD risks might not be worth it.
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        Are you sure it's that unlikely?
        heavenlyblue 8y ago
        I would even dare to say that the moment you allow a majority of your children to grow up this way; you allow a minority of psychopaths to do whatever they want to them (the children). It’s a simple game-theoretic question.
    - komali2 8y ago
      I'm thinking a lot about your OP. I'm still developing these thoughts, but I think the critical difference lays in the difference between "VR experience of Hiroshima bombing" and "watching Schindler's List." A movie is a narrative. Otherwise it wouldn't be entertaining and nobody would watch it. Even documentaries have narratives. Narratives require good guys, bad guys, etc. A VR "experience" is just that - one little slice of experience. I really don't think that can be biased (maybe, depending on the experience). It's just "putting yourself in someone's shoes." I don't see how anybody could be biased about how terrible a city being nuked was. It was terrible. Someone might argue that "it was for the greater good," but it was still terrible. Maybe it'll make it harder for a future (now child) president to make the decision to drop the bomb, good! Is that a biased viewpoint, to not want suffering of anybody? I guess maybe it is.
kqr2 8y ago
Actually I think there is already a 9/11 VR experience: https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/30/9642790/virtual-reality-9-11-experience-empathy https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/30/9642790/virtual-reality-...
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  That's a very interesting article!
cortesoft 8y ago
I mean, we have video games that depict both world wars, with very realistic recreations of major battles. Does being in war make it fundamentally different?
- sandworm101 8y ago
  Yes. Most people who experiance modern war never see a battle. Soldiers battle. For the other 90% of the population, war is suffering, deprivation and fear.
- admiralEyebrows 8y ago
  At the moment, no. VR is still in its infancy, and the experiences are distinguishable from reality in a way that they are closer to video games than real life. However if VR and haptics are able to perfectly recreate war in the next few decades, let's hope that psychology develops in pace. A generation of teenagers who have been exposed to perfect recreations of trench warfare and 9/11 is a generation that will have more PTSD than any other generation before it.
  - oliveshell 8y ago
    I think there would be an important psychological difference in knowing that your life isn't really in danger, or your friend didn't really just get killed, and so on. There's also the issue that such a realistic sim probably wouldn't be fun for a lot of people, and wouldn't get played that much.
- komali2 8y ago
  >Does being in war make it fundamentally different Do you mean, like, is there an experience difference between "being there" and experiencing a highly realistic VR simulation? Apologies if I'm misunderstanding because the questions seems to answer itself... "yes, of course!" Besides the obvious fact wherein if you get shot you die for good, and if you don't die you'll feel tremendous pain and be potentially maimed for life, you've got other factors such as -Friends you've developed closed bonds with being killed next to you -A campaign lasting months or years that consumes your existence -Terrible food -No sleep -Extraordinary boredom in downtime (which doesn't exist in videogames or nobody would buy them) -The endless question of "why are we here" (which doesn't exist in videogames - we are here to have fun)

monocasa 8y ago

What's the moral argument against?

mipmap04 8y ago
If it's not handled appropriately, you're potentially making a really poor-taste virtual roller coaster. It could easily be seen as making a spectacle of a national tragedy.
DanAndersen 8y ago
There's an argument that putting children through traumatizing simulated events has unclear psychological consequences. Western education at young ages goes surprisingly graphic when talking about certain historical atrocities (think seeing Schindler's List in grade schools). While this sort of shock-and-awe storytelling can be impactful, its consequences may not be all positive. Another issue is that a stronger reliance on "empathetic/emotional" learning experiences can delve too far from education and too much into propaganda. Group A can produce material that hits deep at our psyches and highlights the evils of Group B, and vice versa. Whose side wins the popular debate isn't from the facts on the ground, but from which group has the tech/production skills to make their story grip the heartstrings. In that way it's like any other over-produced documentary, but VR can have the seductive appeal that it's "more real" and thus more objective. The issue of "experiential VR learning" becomes harder and harder to do right the further back in time you go, because of the mistake we moderns make when trying to "relate" to the past. We often imagine time-traveling and dropping ourselves in a past environment, thinking that's what it would be to be, say, a medieval peasant. We too easily forget that our own mindsets and approaches would be fundamentally different in some ways.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  If watching Schindler's List is traumatizing, then what is going to happen to your kid when they actually meet someone trying to take advantage of them in one way or another?
  - hrktb 8y ago
    At a point it’s a matter of norm and probability. If the chances that a kid goes through that kind of experience are astronomically low, prepping them for that kind of traumatic event while encuring PTSD risks might not be worth it.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      Are you sure it's that unlikely?
      - heavenlyblue 8y ago
        I would even dare to say that the moment you allow a majority of your children to grow up this way; you allow a minority of psychopaths to do whatever they want to them (the children). It’s a simple game-theoretic question.
  - komali2 8y ago
    I'm thinking a lot about your OP. I'm still developing these thoughts, but I think the critical difference lays in the difference between "VR experience of Hiroshima bombing" and "watching Schindler's List." A movie is a narrative. Otherwise it wouldn't be entertaining and nobody would watch it. Even documentaries have narratives. Narratives require good guys, bad guys, etc. A VR "experience" is just that - one little slice of experience. I really don't think that can be biased (maybe, depending on the experience). It's just "putting yourself in someone's shoes." I don't see how anybody could be biased about how terrible a city being nuked was. It was terrible. Someone might argue that "it was for the greater good," but it was still terrible. Maybe it'll make it harder for a future (now child) president to make the decision to drop the bomb, good! Is that a biased viewpoint, to not want suffering of anybody? I guess maybe it is.

kqr2 8y ago

Actually I think there is already a 9/11 VR experience: https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/30/9642790/virtual-reality-9-11-experience-empathy https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/30/9642790/virtual-reality-...

creaghpatr 8y ago
That's a very interesting article!

cortesoft 8y ago

I mean, we have video games that depict both world wars, with very realistic recreations of major battles. Does being in war make it fundamentally different?

sandworm101 8y ago
Yes. Most people who experiance modern war never see a battle. Soldiers battle. For the other 90% of the population, war is suffering, deprivation and fear.
admiralEyebrows 8y ago
At the moment, no. VR is still in its infancy, and the experiences are distinguishable from reality in a way that they are closer to video games than real life. However if VR and haptics are able to perfectly recreate war in the next few decades, let's hope that psychology develops in pace. A generation of teenagers who have been exposed to perfect recreations of trench warfare and 9/11 is a generation that will have more PTSD than any other generation before it.
- oliveshell 8y ago
  I think there would be an important psychological difference in knowing that your life isn't really in danger, or your friend didn't really just get killed, and so on. There's also the issue that such a realistic sim probably wouldn't be fun for a lot of people, and wouldn't get played that much.
komali2 8y ago
>Does being in war make it fundamentally different Do you mean, like, is there an experience difference between "being there" and experiencing a highly realistic VR simulation? Apologies if I'm misunderstanding because the questions seems to answer itself... "yes, of course!" Besides the obvious fact wherein if you get shot you die for good, and if you don't die you'll feel tremendous pain and be potentially maimed for life, you've got other factors such as -Friends you've developed closed bonds with being killed next to you -A campaign lasting months or years that consumes your existence -Terrible food -No sleep -Extraordinary boredom in downtime (which doesn't exist in videogames or nobody would buy them) -The endless question of "why are we here" (which doesn't exist in videogames - we are here to have fun)