3 ms·

>You can't develop PTSD from VR because VR isn't real. Even if you get scared it's not the same kind of fear as being in a situation where you can actually get

>You can't develop PTSD from VR because VR isn't real. Even if you get scared it's not the same kind of fear as being in a situation where you can actually get hurt, or die, or you actually kill another human being. Weird, this study shows the exact opposite with regards to regular video games. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6370668/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6370668/ Conclusion from above study: >Accumulating evidence led to a clear consensus that a high frequency of exposure to violent video games significantly alters important interpersonal behaviors in negative ways (Bender et al., 2018). Atypical disadvantageous defensive reactions and higher vulnerability to PTSD symptoms, revealed in the present study, add to other shortcomings for the heavy players themselves. I would assume the same in VR, if not more significant as it is more immersive than regular video games. I do not have a study for VR video games however as I do not know of any that have been done off the top of my head. I would like to add, I by no means want to make light of the impact PTSD due to real life trauma. I personally know a few people who suffer from being in active combat and would never wish that upon anyone. I personally feel that PTSD developed due to real life trauma will always be far more severe than any sort of PTSD developed through video games or other virtual means.

matheusmoreira 7y ago
That's a very deceptive study. The actual results were: non-players froze when faced with a gun while players reacted more actively (increased body sway): From the discussion: > Non-players exhibited an immobility-like reaction. > Heavy players behaved as if “jumping the gun”, increasing mobilization, instead of immobilizing and waiting for the best chance to get rid from danger. > Indeed, “... the simple sight of a weapon increases the likelihood of aggression if the person has mentally paired a weapon such as a gun with killing or hurting people...” [Anderson and Warburton (2012), p. 72]. > This is the case for heavy players of violent video games who are frequently exposed to weapon use for the purpose of killing and hurting others. The authors are trying to say video games provoked more violent reactions. Well, to me it sounds like video games have educational value: players immediately recognized the danger represented by the weapon and reacted more aggressively. Did the non-players freeze because they did not know how to react to the danger? Their arguments don't seem to be specific to video games. It seems to be about exposure to weapons in general. It's not clear what this result means. Games trained players to respond differently but is that good or bad? Does this mean players are less likely to survive violent encounters? Does this mean players will defend themselves more effectively? How do people who went through real firearms training respond in the same conditions? I don't know. The PTSD stuff is also deceptive: > Scores on the PCL-C hyperarousal cluster were also significantly higher for heavy players (Z = -2.08, p = 0.04). That's the only significant difference. Emotional numbing, avoidance and recollections were not present. Hyperarousal includes symptoms like imsomnia, irritability, anxiety... The potential for confusion here is significant. There's no way this particular study establishes any causal relationships.

matheusmoreira 7y ago

That's a very deceptive study. The actual results were: non-players froze when faced with a gun while players reacted more actively (increased body sway): From the discussion: > Non-players exhibited an immobility-like reaction. > Heavy players behaved as if “jumping the gun”, increasing mobilization, instead of immobilizing and waiting for the best chance to get rid from danger. > Indeed, “... the simple sight of a weapon increases the likelihood of aggression if the person has mentally paired a weapon such as a gun with killing or hurting people...” [Anderson and Warburton (2012), p. 72]. > This is the case for heavy players of violent video games who are frequently exposed to weapon use for the purpose of killing and hurting others. The authors are trying to say video games provoked more violent reactions. Well, to me it sounds like video games have educational value: players immediately recognized the danger represented by the weapon and reacted more aggressively. Did the non-players freeze because they did not know how to react to the danger? Their arguments don't seem to be specific to video games. It seems to be about exposure to weapons in general. It's not clear what this result means. Games trained players to respond differently but is that good or bad? Does this mean players are less likely to survive violent encounters? Does this mean players will defend themselves more effectively? How do people who went through real firearms training respond in the same conditions? I don't know. The PTSD stuff is also deceptive: > Scores on the PCL-C hyperarousal cluster were also significantly higher for heavy players (Z = -2.08, p = 0.04). That's the only significant difference. Emotional numbing, avoidance and recollections were not present. Hyperarousal includes symptoms like imsomnia, irritability, anxiety... The potential for confusion here is significant. There's no way this particular study establishes any causal relationships.