So dumb. They stupidly cited studies about how the same therapy has applied to the real world, and other possible applications. They even had a section about testing embodiment in their VR scenario, talked about neurology, and used multiple metrics to compare the before and after for both groups.
I guess anything can be dumb if you don’t read it.
Talking about neurology doesn’t automatically validate their method though. I’m not an expert in this field but my impression is that the researchers make a lot of assumptions that I’d describe as shortcuts; gloss over the differences that they found between the experimental and control groups; and then reach a lot with their conclusion.
One thing that stands out to me is the identification of feelings of disgust and anger to support that the VR setting can be used to elicit social change. This implies that the participants would not have felt disgust or anger had their avatar been male; or if it was a normal videogame; or if this wasn’t a game at all but a film instead; or if this wasn’t audiovisual but a book instead…
I don’t think they did anything to substantiate that line of thinking, and I’m not convinced by the various psychological scales that they used to support the connection they made. As far as I’m concerned these same men could have responded with disgust just by hearing a retelling of a similar event by a random stranger. The study at least does nothing to lead me to assume otherwise.
The disgust, fear and anger responses are at the core of the argument to support their central thesis that “first-person virtual embodiment of a female target of catcalling is a useful method for eliciting morally salient negative emotions in male participants”. But my understanding of their methodology leaves me unimpressed and unconvinced.
One thing that stands out to me is the identification of feelings of disgust and anger to support that the VR setting can be used to elicit social change. This implies that the participants would not have felt disgust or anger had their avatar been male; or if it was a normal videogame; or if this wasn’t a game at all but a film instead; or if this wasn’t audiovisual but a book instead…
Genuinely, I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion from reading the paper, it’s very much not what the authors say. It never makes the claim that they wouldn’t have also felt that disgust and anger in an altered situation (male avatar etc.), only that there was a difference between the control group and the catcalled group, and that the difference was observable using their novel (and really cool) VR+AI methodology. That’s quite explicitly their entire thesis. They don’t investigate other scenarios, presumably because it was outside the scope of the research.
The conclusion from the paper:
Our study demonstrates that first-person virtual embodiment of a female target of catcalling is a useful method for eliciting morally salient negative emotions in male participants. Our findings indicate that this simulated experience goes beyond mere observation, inducing significant increases in disgust and anger – emotions intrinsically linked to moral evaluation and behavioral change. The study not only validates virtual reality as a tool for perspective-taking, but also introduces a novel computational approach to quantify the nuanced, implicit dimensions of this experience.
Our findings contribute to cognitive and methodological advancements as much as for promoting social safety. Employing virtual embodiment to enhance emotional sensitivity in men holds promise for both clinical and educational applications. In clinical settings, it may serve as an intervention to increase emotional awareness and empathy among individuals who have engaged in harassment, with the aim of modifying their behavior. In educational contexts, VR can be employed to simulate ecological environments that vividly illustrate the negative impact of street harassment, such as catcalling, by enabling participants to directly experience the emotional distress caused by such situations. Unlike real-world harassment, Virtual Reality simulation can be immediately terminated if distress becomes excessive, and it is able to offer embodiment experiences impossible through traditional methods.
They don’t say this can be used to fix catcalling or improve society on it’s own, just that the results seem to indicate there is a basis to believe that VR can elicit varying emotional responses between different scenarios and that we can measure the differences in reaction.
We hypothesize that this embodied experience will elicit morally salient emotions like disgust and anger. By inducing this moral discomfort, the intervention aims to foster self-awareness and encourage a reconsideration of the behavior’s impact, serving as a potential strategy to promote behavioral change.
It speaks to a truly fundemental lack of understanding of the scientific method, given you’re criticizing them for their hypothesis and presenting it like it’s their conclusion. That’s just not how science works.
So you’re talking about my reading on the paper, not the paper’s conclusion.
Yes, because your conclusion of what the paper is saying is absolutely not what the paper actually says.
Which is exactly what they in fact said in their hypothesis.
Yes, in their hypothesis. It seems evident that you don’t know what a hypothesis is in a scientific paper given you keep incorrectly presenting something taken from the hypothesis as a claim the authors are making.
This is so basic it’s literally taught in the first grade. You have absolutely no grounds from which to criticize this article if you do not even understand the basic structures of scientific inquiry, foremost in this particular discussion that the ideas in a hypothesis are by no means automatically going to be reflected in the conclusion.
Why don’t you trust their metrics? If you don’t think the tests were accurate measurements, what would work better?
They used neurolinguistics and neural pathway mapping, there’s a whole section on it.
Testing one thing by no means implies any other method wouldn’t have proven the same thing. That’s… that’s not how studies work. They’re testing the efficacy of their methods.
In clinical settings, it may serve as an intervention to increase emotional awareness and empathy among individuals who have engaged in harassment, with the aim of modifying their behavior.
then you need your metrics to control for, among other things, “individuals who have engaged in harassment”
But they’re not just testing efficacy either. They’re making a qualitative statement that VR has certain special characteristics when it comes to aiding empathy. That’s a claim that absolutely need to be contrasted against other media, and it’s absolutely “how studies work”.
So dumb. They stupidly cited studies about how the same therapy has applied to the real world, and other possible applications. They even had a section about testing embodiment in their VR scenario, talked about neurology, and used multiple metrics to compare the before and after for both groups.
I guess anything can be dumb if you don’t read it.
Talking about neurology doesn’t automatically validate their method though. I’m not an expert in this field but my impression is that the researchers make a lot of assumptions that I’d describe as shortcuts; gloss over the differences that they found between the experimental and control groups; and then reach a lot with their conclusion.
One thing that stands out to me is the identification of feelings of disgust and anger to support that the VR setting can be used to elicit social change. This implies that the participants would not have felt disgust or anger had their avatar been male; or if it was a normal videogame; or if this wasn’t a game at all but a film instead; or if this wasn’t audiovisual but a book instead…
I don’t think they did anything to substantiate that line of thinking, and I’m not convinced by the various psychological scales that they used to support the connection they made. As far as I’m concerned these same men could have responded with disgust just by hearing a retelling of a similar event by a random stranger. The study at least does nothing to lead me to assume otherwise.
The disgust, fear and anger responses are at the core of the argument to support their central thesis that “first-person virtual embodiment of a female target of catcalling is a useful method for eliciting morally salient negative emotions in male participants”. But my understanding of their methodology leaves me unimpressed and unconvinced.
Genuinely, I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion from reading the paper, it’s very much not what the authors say. It never makes the claim that they wouldn’t have also felt that disgust and anger in an altered situation (male avatar etc.), only that there was a difference between the control group and the catcalled group, and that the difference was observable using their novel (and really cool) VR+AI methodology. That’s quite explicitly their entire thesis. They don’t investigate other scenarios, presumably because it was outside the scope of the research.
The conclusion from the paper:
They don’t say this can be used to fix catcalling or improve society on it’s own, just that the results seem to indicate there is a basis to believe that VR can elicit varying emotional responses between different scenarios and that we can measure the differences in reaction.
Here’s how I came to that conclusion.
That’s… the hypothesis.
Ok lol not sure where this is going, but we’re done.
It speaks to a truly fundemental lack of understanding of the scientific method, given you’re criticizing them for their hypothesis and presenting it like it’s their conclusion. That’s just not how science works.
Removed by mod
Yes, because your conclusion of what the paper is saying is absolutely not what the paper actually says.
Yes, in their hypothesis. It seems evident that you don’t know what a hypothesis is in a scientific paper given you keep incorrectly presenting something taken from the hypothesis as a claim the authors are making.
This is so basic it’s literally taught in the first grade. You have absolutely no grounds from which to criticize this article if you do not even understand the basic structures of scientific inquiry, foremost in this particular discussion that the ideas in a hypothesis are by no means automatically going to be reflected in the conclusion.
Why don’t you trust their metrics? If you don’t think the tests were accurate measurements, what would work better?
They used neurolinguistics and neural pathway mapping, there’s a whole section on it.
Testing one thing by no means implies any other method wouldn’t have proven the same thing. That’s… that’s not how studies work. They’re testing the efficacy of their methods.
That’s the hypothesis, not a thesis.
I think that if you say
then you need your metrics to control for, among other things, “individuals who have engaged in harassment”
But they’re not just testing efficacy either. They’re making a qualitative statement that VR has certain special characteristics when it comes to aiding empathy. That’s a claim that absolutely need to be contrasted against other media, and it’s absolutely “how studies work”.
(Edit: Oh.)
But… why? There’s no reason for them to do that, their goal isn’t comparison with other established methods, simply comparison with itself.