What is Reality, Part II: Virtual Reality as “Real Life”?

Most of us would probably agree that task-oriented role playing computer games, such as World of Warcraft and Everquest, aren’t real life. In these games, you play as a “character,” acquire objects and go on quests. Examples are World of Warcraft or Everquest”. (These games are of course a real life activity, but the “experiences” of your character aren’t real in the sense that what happens to them doesn’t happen to you: Your character may go on a quest, but you don’t really feel that you did too.)


The line gets a little bit fuzzier with games that are less task focused, and involve activities that resemble real life activities—computer role playing games like the Sims and Second Life. In these games, users create avatars—their representations in the game—who then proceed to do things that resemble real life (with the exception of flying without a plane a few others). Avatars walk around, watch a sunset, travel, meet and interact with other avatars/people, fall in love, have sex, get into fights. In these games, an avatars is, in some sense, the alter ego of the user. Users spend significant amounts of time (and money) perfecting the appearance and style of their avatar. If you’ve never played these types of games, see below for a sample.

People who spend a lot of time in these virtual worlds (is "playing these games" the right phrase?) see their avatars as extensions of themselves, and players report the sense that what happens to their avatars happens to them (Here's an example of firefighter training in Second Life; each person you see on the screen is controlled by an actual human at a keyboard, directing its actions.

Research at Stanford’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab has found that among 30,000 virtual gamers who spend upwards of 20 hours/week in their virtual worlds, 40% of the males and 53% of the females report that their virtual friends are equal to or better than real-life friends. And, as discussed in my previous post, it’s not only our minds that respond to virtual worlds as if they’re real—our bodies do too. If you’re at the edge of a virtual cliff, your heart rate will increase just as it would at the edge of a real cliff.

In an effort to provide us all in the next step in entertainment, it’s only a matter of time until companies create a cost-effective technology that make virtual worlds more authentic and interactive.

Nintendo’s Wii is a step in that direction. For those of you not familiar with the Wii, check out this ad:



(If you’re not familiar with the Wii, when people move the white remote, they are controlling what happens on the screen: playing a traditional “computer game,” virtually conducting an orchestra, or virtually playing tennis or baseball.) If you ask people using the Wii whether their experience is “real”—you might hear more ays than nays. After all, if their bodies and minds feel that they’ve had the experience, does it matter whether the visual portion of the experience occurred on a screen or monitor?

Once the Wii-type devices become even more technologically enhanced in true immersive virtual reality, the question “what is reality” seems to me to have crossed a threshold into an existential realm (or a psychophysical realm), akin to the question “if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound?”

What Is Reality, I: Virtual Reality as Part of the Solution

Phobias are excessive fears that interferes with life. People with phobias typically try to avoid the feared stimulus because of the uncomfortable physical sensations that arise—often those of a panic attack: rapid heart rate, irregular breathing or the sensation of difficulty breathing, sweating, a sense of dread. If you avoid flying because of a fear of flying, it can limit your professional life and vacation activities. If you have a spider phobia, you may refuse to enter basements or wooded areas.


There's a very effective treatment for phobias: exposure. Exposure involves allowing yourself to confront the feared stimulus in a planned way for a sustained period of time (about 23-30 minutes) and noticing that nothing catastrophic happened. When you sustain attention to the feared stimulus, the uncomfortable physical sensation dissipate, and you confront head-on any irrational beliefs you may have about the feared stimulus. For instance, when someone with a spider phobia is exposed to a spider, he or she learns that, in fact, nothing awful happens beyond the physical discomfort of the anxiety symptoms, which pass with time. Ditto for fear of flying—beyond the physical discomfort of the anxiety, nothing catastrophic happens because of flying per se. (Of course, any method of transportation has risks: people get hit walking down the street, riding their bikes, in their cars.)


In learning that no harm befalls them other than their own physical anxiety, they can rethink their fears: "Hm…so I didn't go crazy from being around the spider, and it didn't bite me and turn me into some type of freakish creature…maybe I don't need to be so afraid of it" or "Hm…maybe my fear and worry wasn't actually keeping the plane in the air…maybe I can relax a bit and not view the plane ride as a death sentence." With repeated exposure to the feared stimulus--more time around spiders, more plane flights—the anxiety and physical reactions lessen even more.


There are several different ways exposure can be undertaken:

• imaginal exposure—using your imagination to form mental images of the feared stimulus
  
• in vivo exposure—being exposed to the actual feared stimulus. A percentage of people seeking treatment for phobias hestitate to use this method because they feel it will be "too much" for them.
  
• virtual exposure—being exposed to a "virtual" stimulus, such as virtual reality of the feared stimulus (on the high-tech end) to photographs or recordings of sounds of the feared stimulus (on the low-tech end). For more about virtual exposure, click here,
  

Here's an example of virtual exposure to an airplane.


Click here for a video about virtual reality therapy


Recent research suggests that as a treatment for some phobias, such as fear of flying and fear of heights, virtual exposure is as good as in vivo exposure. Even thought the virtual world is a bit cartoonish, users are able to confront the feared stimulus and learn that their almost automatic fear reaction is out of proportion to the situation. People were able allow the virtual reality to simulate reality to the point where there was no difference in people's responses to the two different types of reality.


To me, the fact that people respond to exposure with virtual reality as well as if it was "real" is remarkable. In the next blog posting, I'll talk more about virtual reality as is relates to gaming.

Civics and Citizenship

Continuing on the theme of civics, as of today, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is offering a revised naturalization test for people seeking citizenship.

Redesign Process
The major aim of the redesign process is to ensure that naturalization applicants have uniform, consistent testing experiences nationwide, and that the civics test can effectively assess whether applicants have a meaningful understanding of U.S. government and history. Following a basic U.S. history and civics curriculum, the redesigned test will serve as an important instrument to encourage civic learning and patriotism among prospective citizens.

You can see all 100 history and civics questions (and answers) here. In a citizenship test, in addition to other components (related to the ability to write in, speak, and read English), applicants must answer orally up to 10 questions randomly chosen from the pool of 100 questions. It would be interesting to know what percentage of US-born adults would be able to pass the naturalization test.

Here are some of my favorites; bulleted points are acceptable answers:

What does the Constitution do?
▪ sets up the government
▪ defines the government
▪ protects basic rights of Americans

What did the Declaration of Independence do?
▪ announced our independence (from Great Britain)
▪ declared our independence (from Great Britain)
▪ said that the United States is free (from Great Britain)

What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?
▪ checks and balances
▪ separation of powers

What is one responsibility that is only for United States citizens? 
▪ serve on a jury
▪ vote in a federal election

Name one right only for United States citizens.
▪ vote in a federal election
▪ run for federal office

What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?
▪ freedom of expression
▪ freedom of speech
▪ freedom of assembly
▪ freedom to petition the government
▪ freedom of worship
▪ the right to bear arms

Civic Education and Licensing Journalists

With the election coming up and the mainstream media focusing on trivialities and variants of "gotcha," my recurrent wish for a mandated national civics curriculum reared its head. Consider this: In 1998, 4th, 8th, and 12th graders around the country took a civics test at the behest of the U. S. Department of Education.

Students performed abysmally: A third of the high school seniors—who were or would soon be of voting age--didn't understand the basics of the American government. How many high school seniors demonstrated that they were proficient--the highest level of knowledge? One quarter of them. And only 9% percent of students could give two reasons why it is important for citizens to be involved in a democratic society.

Here's what the test was designed to assess:

Students [should] show broad knowledge of the American constitutional system and of the workings of our civil society. They [should] demonstrate a range of intellectual skills-identifying and describing important information, explaining and analyzing it, and evaluating information and defending positions with appropriate evidence and careful reasoning. (from the National Assessment of Educational Progress Civics Assessment Governing Board. Civics Framework for the 1998 National Assessment Educational Progress. US Department of Education, 1998.)

Okay, live and learn. Fast forward eight years to 2006, when 4th, 8th and 12th were administered the civics test. How'd they do? As you can see below, the fourth graders did a bit better, but there was no different between this cohort of 8th and 12th graders and those from 8 years ago.

[Source: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2006/2007476.asp]

Why might this be? Shouldn't all high school students graduate with a firm knowledge of civics? Isn't there a common core set of values all Americans should share? It is important for high school students to enter adulthood (and voting age) with a firm sense of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. It is in the country's interest for its citizens to look beyond 60 second sound bites or their "gut feeling" when deciding how to cast their vote on a referendum or for a candidate.

Here's what Center for Civic Education says about why civic education is important:

A free society must rely on the knowledge, skills, and virtue of its citizens and those they elect to public office. Civic education is the primary way our citizens acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for informed and engaged citizenship. While many institutions such as the family, the church and social organizations help forge a person’s civic character and propensity to participate, civic education in the schools is the one common experience American citizens share that helps them acquire and learn to use the skills, knowledge and attitudes that prepare them to be competent and responsible citizens throughout their lives. This is the historic civic mission of schools. A mission considered so important by those who established a free universal system of public education in the United States that they termed civic education as one of the central purposes of education. Unfortunately, as the indicators of civic engagement in our nation are dropping so too is the amount of time and attention devoted to civic education in our schools. 

And consider this:

The Policy Research Project on Civic Education Policies and Practices found that on average civics content in states' social studies standards overemphasize lower-order thinking of identifying and describing positions, stating that "civic statements requiring students to evaluate, take, and defend positions-the highest-order level of thinking-are the least prevalent in most state standards." (Policy Research Project on Civic Education Policies and Practices. The Civic Education of American Youth: From State Policies to School District Practices. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. Policy Research Project Report, no. 133, 1999)

Idea #1: Bring back mandatory national civic education for students. We could even have a national test on civics (not American History per se, but on civics—rights and responsibilities of being an American citizen). We could even have a national debate about whether students must pass such a test in order to graduate high school. (There is an organization, Center for Civic Education, which is devoted to promoting civic education in the schools). 

Idea #2: Consider making voting compulsory. Actually, the voting itself wouldn't be compulsory—just showing up at the polling place. This is how Australia does it (to see Eric Weiner's article about the Australian system, click here).  If people had to go into the voting booth, they might just be motivated to exert the mental effort to be informed about the issues.

Even if motivated, though, the skills necessary for true citizenship—"evaluating information and defending positions with appropriate evidence and careful reasoning"—are not skills that are much on display in public discussions of politics and governance. Rather, the "political discourse" consists of sound bites, simplistic arguments designed to tug at emotions rather than reason, and to smear an opposing candidate's position or character (often falsely or by stretching the truth significantly). Is the mainstream media helping further a civics education for Americans? No.

I'd like to make a proposal (idea #3, below). First, let me explain about professional ethics and licensing for psychotherapists, which I will then use as an anology; this may seem a like digression, but it isn't.

There are many different types of psychotherapists. In fact, anyone can call him or herself a psychotherapist and hang out a shingle (so to speak). What differentiates the generic "psychotherapist" from a specialized one? The simple answer is training, and then a license. It is illegal for psychologists who evaluate or treat patients or clients to say they are psychologists—unless they have a state license. Otherwise it is "practicing without a license."

To obtain a license, a psychologist must demonstrate having received the appropriate training and experience (as determined by the state licensing board), and then take a national test plus a test on state legal and ethical matters. If the test score passes the cutoff, the psychologist is given a license. To maintain the license, the psychologist must continue learning—must obtain a specific number of continuing education credits within a specific number of years (the particular numbers vary from state to state) for each license renewal.

If a psychologist is found to have violated the state laws or ethical code that relate to professional conduct, the license can be taken away. (A license is necessary to receive health insurance payment for services, and required for certain jobs.) The licensing process is set up to protect citizens from fraud and from unethical or illegal behavior by the psychologist in his or her professional capacity.

Idea #3: License journalists. Just as psychologists are licensed, let's license journalists. For this discussion, I'm going to create a distinction between a correspondent (analogous to the generic psychotherapist—anyone can call themselves a correspondent) and a journalist (analogous to a psychologist--whose title conveys a deeper responsibility—for analysis, commentary, accuracy, integrity). The journalist is held to a higher standard, and requires more training (and should, in theory, receive more compensation). If a journalist has engaged in irresponsible reporting or analysis--according to the decision of the licensing board--his or her license could be taken away, and if so, then that individual cannot practice as a journalist. The fact that the licensing credential has been stripped becomes public knowledge. (We can use words other than correspondent and journalist—I'm using those terms to illustrate the concept of the two different types of labels for people who convey news to the public). When we see, hear, or read news through any media, we would thus be able to know whether or not the source was held to a high standard of accuracy and integrity.

What about "press passes"? Any organization giving out press passes can determine how many passes to give to correspondents versus journalists. What about freedom of the press? I'm not saying correspondents or journalists should be muzzled. I'm advocating that, as with psychologists, the public should be protected from fraud and a misuse of the professional positions of people in the press. Anyone can say or claim anything they want, but journalists—in their professional capacity—should behave with a sense of integrity and ethics.

Here's how we might develop such a system.

Step 1: Have the profession develop a national journalistic code of ethics (it has to be specific enough in most cases it's relatively clear when someone has crossed the line). As with psychology, the goal is to ensure that people who obtain a journalist license understand their rights and their legal and ethical obligations; having such a code allows the public understand those obligations and rights as well.

Step 2: Set minimum training and work experience standards for someone to be eligible to become a journalist.

Step 3: Once someone meets the minimum standards outlined in Step 2, he or she can take a test to demonstrate knowledge of the profession's rights and responsibilities (these will be based on Step 1). The cutoff score for passing is determined by the licensing board.

Step 4: Once licensed, the journalist must renew the license periodically, demonstrating continued education by earning continuing education credits (determined by the licensing board). Members of the public can bring complaints against a journalist for violating the ethical code; if the licensing board determines after a hearing that the charges have merit, the journalist's license may be revoked.

I'm not a journalist (clearly) and so this proposal may be unworkable or naive. But with the proliferation of "news" sources on the internet, in print, and on television, it seems to me that there must be some accountability and responsibility.

Clarifications About The Dark Knight

In a response to comment about an earlier blog entry, I noted the cumulative trauma that might explain why Harvey Dent went over the edge to become Two-Face:

his parents and sibling killed, love of his life killed--after she'd agreed to marry him, facial disfigurement, and extreme pain from the fire.

Since that post, I've read the "novelization" of the movie , written by former Batman writer/editor Denny O'Neil. (Click here, The Dark Knight, for a link to Amazon's webpage for the book)

The novelization provided interesting backstories for the events in the movie, and helped clarify a couple of the movie's more confusing elements. The novelization makes it clear that:

1. The two murdered individuals with "Harvey" and "Dent" identification tags had no family relationship to Harvey Dent;
   
2. The Joker intended to misdirect Batman when he revealed the locations where Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent were being held. He tells Batman that Rachel is at one address and Dent at the other location. When Gordon then asks Batman which one he was going to, Batman replies, "Dent knew the risks," and he rushes off to the location that Joker said housed Rachel.  
   

They have deleted this line from the movie, which is too bad because it makes the subsequent sequence much clearer. And once Batman found Dent rather than Rachel at the location, the novelization explains (page 231):

"He had expected to see Rachel, to free her and get her out of the building. To tell her he loved her and would keep her safe forever. Instead, he saw Harvey Dent lying in a black puddle, bound to a chair. Next to him were two barrels, one on its side, and a timer. Shock and horror flooded over Batman…Rachel, thought Batman. Good God, I've failed her…

Dr Robin on BlogTalkRadio.com

Today on blog talk radio Pop Culture America, I discussed with hosts John and Dave possible reasons for the success of The Dark Knight and chat about psychology of superheroes generally. Click on the link, above, to hear the show--my segment begins 30 minutes into the show.

A Cohort Effect to The Dark Knight Experience?

I just returned from my second viewing of The Dark Knight, which I saw in an IMAX theatre. Let's get the IMAX part out of the way---Wow! The aerial scenes were breathtaking, literally. As a viewer, I felt that I was in the helicopter that housed the camera, flying above the city. And close-ups of the Joker were terrifying—it felt as if he had me in a stranglehold and was forcing me to look at him, as he did with Rachel Dawes.

I quickly habituated to the IMAX features of the movie (except for the aerial shots), and focused on the movie itself—plot, story, visual aspects, message. During my first viewing, I must confess that during the last third of the film, I was expending a lot of energy trying to keep up with the fast-paced twists and turns of the plot, and the cuts between different characters and storylines. The first time, I didn't quite get some of the quietly spoken words, and didn't understand some of the quick visuals. I was still be processing the implications of one scene—in terms of the plot, the character development, the emotional consequences—when I was ripped from that scene to the next complex scene.

There were times when I wished that I could press a pause button so that I could fully digest a scene before moving on to the next one. It was frustrating. I felt as if I was on a treadmill that would sometimes shift into a faster pace than I was prepared for, and it was all I could do to keep up and not fall off. In the last third of the film, rather than feeling energized, the pace left me fatigued. The younger people that I know who saw the movie did not feel this way, and they seemed to understand most everything that happened. And they didn't feel tired during the film, only afterward, when the adrenaline rush stopped.

In my second go-round with The Dark Knight, I could appreciate the finer details of the story that I missed this first time (such as the extent of Dent's grudge against Jim Gordon and Dent's use of his coin before versus after his kidnapping).

After this second viewing, my adult companion who had not seen the film before commented that he felt overloaded by the last third of the film. As with my first viewing, his cognitive and emotional energy to handle the film diminished with its length and the horror the Joker wrought.

Why the different responses between older viewers (I'm guessing the dividing line is at around 40+ years old) and younger viewers? You could chalk it up to an age difference—that younger people, but virtue of their age, are better able to track fast paced events, and so don't become particularly tired by it. I don’t think that's the answer, though. Rather, I think it's because people who are in their 20s and younger have been exposed to things that my generation wasn't exposed to as children: computer and console games, extreme multitasking with instant messaging and internet surfing, and fast passed television shows and movies. That exposure has influenced how this younger generation processes and responds to information. Had my generation been exposed to these technologies in our formidable years, I think we wouldn't be fatigued by the end of The Dark Knight either.



Psychologists call this a cohort effect: The impact of a common event or experience on a group of people, compared to those who do not share the event or experience. My hypothesis is that there is a cohort effect in how tired people feel after watching The Dark Knight. Younger viewers, by virtue of their technological and media experiences during their formidable years, experience the film differently than do older viewers.

There's an easy way to test my hypothesis about the cohort effect: Assess the reactions of two types of The Dark Knight viewers: Compare young viewers who grew up with significant a amounts of computer, gaming, and media exposure with those young people who did not. I welcome any comments you have about my hypothesis!

[On a related note, younger people in general are "smarter" than their elders: IQs scores have been increasing by, on average, 3 IQ points every 10 years. This finding is called the Flynn Effect, named after the social scientist, James Flynn, whose research revealed the increase. There are various explanations for the Flynn effect, including increasingly better health and nutrition in children, increased familiarity with IQ-type questions, and an increasingly complexity in the environments in which children are growing up. These are discussed in his most recent book, What is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect. To read Malcom Gladwell's article about the Flynn effect, click here]