Slashdot Mirror


Therapists use Virtual Reality for Veterans

ahoehn writes "NPR is reporting that researchers from the University of Southern California along with the Office of Naval Research are simulating combat situations which cause Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for theraputic purposes. Their immersive virtual reality technique seems to consist of the game Full Spectrum Warrior, headphones, and a set of VR goggles. From the article: 'The object is to help veterans come to terms with what they've experienced in places like Iraq and Afghanistan by immersing vets in the sights and sounds of those theaters of battle.' One can only assume that soon someone be reforming carjackers by letting them play the GTA."

198 comments

  1. reforming carjackers by letting them play the GTA? by mangu · · Score: 1

    it will work only if you pay them the street value of a stolen car for each one they get in the game...

  2. right... by mporcheron · · Score: 1

    while there playing gta they'll steal the goggles and run

    1. Re:right... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      Don't argue with idots
      Like those who can't spell "idiot"? :P
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:right... by x-caiver · · Score: 1

      But the goggles... the goggles do nothing!

    3. Re:right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just violated the advice in his sig.

    4. Re:right... by woah · · Score: 1

      Maybe the guy is dyslexic.

    5. Re:right... by mporcheron · · Score: 1

      fixed, and it's my keyboard (no, yeah right posts please), the stupid batteries keep going flat and i can't type a full sentence with letters missing :(

  3. Isn't this a little backwards? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd think that this technology would be more useful as a training tool, to help new soldiers learn what to expect in combat. Also, couldn't this be used as a physological filter, to identify those most likely to come down with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in the first place?

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's something like what you're talking about:

      http://www.forterrainc.com/

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by blinksilver · · Score: 1

      I don't clam to know much about this topic, but isn't this going to work the same way they help people overcome phobias. In small amounts, introduce the what is causing the fear in an effort to bring the person to term with what they fear.

    3. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by Silent1 · · Score: 1

      i worked with a guy that has Post Traumatic Stress disorder. Hes got a few purple hearts and has a lot of training under his belt. He told me some scary shit he went thru that nobody should go thru and then came the PTSD, its real trust me.

    4. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by Jeff+Molby · · Score: 1

      I'll bite.

      PTSD IS a problem. A lifetime of popping pills is probably not the best answer to it, but it is a problem.

      My brother's 3-man fireteam walked into an ambush in Afghanistan. He was the only one to survive. He was shot in the back and and had to lie motionless, face down as the afghanis picked through his pockets.

      I'm understating the issue by saying that he's pretty jumpy about people touching his back.

      These are experiences that you don't just "get over" after a few days. It will take a good deal of therapy for him to come to terms with the fear and helplessness that he had to deal with on that day.

    5. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by xstonedogx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the one hand you are saying ADHD and PTSD are "normal", but on the other hand you completely dismiss how others cope with these extreme experiences.

      PTSD is also a natural human reaction to unbelievable emotional stress. We all have bad times, and dealing with them unaided is healthy practice and should be encouraged. However, one must have empathy for people who have killed other people in battle or watched their best friends get picked off by an unseen sniper. These are not normal experiences, and it is unsurprising that they can have lasting adverse affects on a person's ability to lead a normal life after service.

      Sir, would you advise a cancer patient to deal with it unaided?

      My wife suffered PTSD when her ex-husband almost died. She received therapy and no longer suffers from PTSD. She and I are owners/board members of a non-profit organization specializing in offering tools for dealing with mental health issues. Many of our communinty and staff members suffer from PTSD along with other disorders.

      PTSD is a debilitating disorder that most people cannot overcome unaided.

      You can check out the DSM-IV criteria for PTSD here: http://www.mental-health-today.com/ptsd/dsm.htm

      I don't know what "bad times" the parent has been through in his own life, but I'm going to venture a guess that he is dramatically over-exagerrating his own minor trials.

      You admit that you don't know, but you still dismiss his claims. The fact is, everyone deals with different circumstances differently. We all have different strengths and weaknesses.

      If a soldier has no difficulty dealing with such experiences, or if a rape victim thinks his/her rape was "no big deal" then in my opinion, there is something seriously wrong with those people.

      Again, everyone copes in different ways. What is "seriously wrong" is that these people have to have these experiences in the first place. How they cope with those experiences is not "wrong". It may be harmful, ineffective, unusual, or difficult to understand. It may be indicative of some other type of disorder or illness, but it does not mean there is anything "seriously wrong" with them.

    6. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by Jeff+Molby · · Score: 1

      Sir, would you advise a cancer patient to deal with it unaided?

      I think he was drawing a distinction between "typical bad times" which everyone goes through and extreme experiences that can cause PTSD.

      The former can almost always be overcome w/o professional help, while the latter obviously requires assistance.

    7. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by subreality · · Score: 1

      ADHD so severe that you can't pay attention to a complicated task no matter how much you want to is a disorder. PTSD so severe that it prevents someone from interacting normally with others is a disorder.

      Some people with ADHD don't have it too bad, or can cope effectively with it; others need the drugs. Some people with PTSD can come to terms with what happened to them (or worse, what they had to do), they'll be fine; somewhere, everyone has a limit for how much they were prepared to deal with themselves, and going past that, they'll need help.

      Anyway, my point is, don't assume that someone with either ADHD or PTSD is just over-exaggerating just because they're normal things that some people live with just fine. For some, it really is debilitating.

    8. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by ValentineMSmith · · Score: 1

      I pray to God that you never, EVER get the opportunity to realize just how wrong you are.

      --
      Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
    9. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by esaloch · · Score: 0

      I think that a video game will not cause ptsd in many people like a real life situation will. I am very close to people with ptsd and have learned a fair amount about it as a result. If the issue causing the ptsd is dealt with while what happened is fresh in memory then it is vey possible to help the person not have issues the rest of their life. I think that is what this game is targetting.

    10. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by ki4iib · · Score: 1

      Hmn. I'm headed to BMT shortly, as a 1N...well, I'll be 1NXXX, at any rate. DEP, y'know. anyways, any suggestions?

    11. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by hostyle · · Score: 0, Troll

      What did he expect? A walk in the park? Soldiers in wars kill people and get killed themselves - thats their job. If they don't like it they shouldn't volunteer to do it.

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    12. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmn. I'm headed to BMT shortly, as a 1N...well, I'll be 1NXXX, at any rate. DEP, y'know. anyways, any suggestions?

      Yeah, don't join the Air Force. They're a bunch of pussies. (See post above.) Join a real service.

    13. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by Aaron+England · · Score: 1

      I'm a 1N. I'll give you the basic 'Basic' spiel. If you want to get out of BMT as painless as possible, lie as low as you can. Don't volunteer unless you know what you're volunteering for (unless it's KP duty). Stay out of trouble as much aS possible. Any attempt to break the rules is never worth the cost (usually a recycle back for 2 more weeks of BMT). And finally most important, TELL YOUR FAMILY/FREINDS TO WRITE YOU EVERYDAY. Even though it will only be 6 weeks away, every week there will seem like an entire month to you. So letters everyday will really help with the morale. Otherwise I invite you to join my website and there will be a lot of people to help you there: airforce-crossroads.com

    14. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by kwacka · · Score: 1

      As someone who used to treat people with PTSD, I always told people suffering that while the tragedy was that they may not be responsible for their problem, but that they were the only ones that could do something about it.

      Tools used then were repeated exposure of the trauma by the person - for example, asking them to explain over and over again what happened, or the use of closed-loop cassette tapes with their accounts recorded on it.

      A VR system could be ideal -if it could be tailored to each individual.

      Also, PTSD can also be life-threatening.

      Many sufferers kill themselves. Some have also killed others.

      Perhaps the ultimate form of 'over-exaggeration'?

    15. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by ki4iib · · Score: 1

      Sweet; thanks. I'm looking at 1N231, possibly; what're you getting? I only now realized that 1N231 is like, the -only- 1N that doesn't have a re-up bonus after your first enlistment... -sigh- I'm also learning that you start to speak a different language when you join the military...

    16. Re:Isn't this a little backwards? by LafinJack · · Score: 1

      You know what? I really have no desire at all to re-face what I saw down there. It's not the combat, it's the results of combat. That guy's leg which now resides fifteen feet from the rest of his body. That kid with bubbling skin and a mutilated face from an IED.

      No thanks. I'll deal with it.

      --
      we are building a religion
      a limited edition
      we are now accepting callers
      for these pendant key chains
  4. Leisure suit larry . . . by SpeedyGonz · · Score: 4, Funny

    . . . for pervs in hawaian shirts?

  5. The rapists? by Nuclear+Elephant · · Score: 2, Funny

    Therapists use Virtual Reality for Veterans

    Did anyone else read this "the rapists use virtual reality for veterans" ?

    1. Re:The rapists? by tapin · · Score: 1

      No, Mr. Connery. Just you.

    2. Re:The rapists? by Pyrrus · · Score: 1

      No, no I didn't.

    3. Re:The rapists? by Nuclear+Elephant · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, Mr. Connery. Just you.

      Crap. Then there goes my Karma (again).

    4. Re:The rapists? by yossarian+dent · · Score: 1
      Actually, I did; I only checked the comments to see if someone had beaten me to it.

      Downright disturbing, it was.

      --
      sig not ready: (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail.
    5. Re:The rapists? by Zarel · · Score: 1

      Nope. I read that as "Therapists use Virtual Reality for Vegetarians."

      --
      Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
    6. Re:The rapists? by slashrogue · · Score: 1

      Yes, Sean Connery did.

  6. right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because reforming someone and treating them for PTS is entirely in the same ball park.

  7. Grammar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, they all be reforming a shit.

  8. There immersive virtual reality technique... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO NO NO NO NO.

  9. Done Be by icypyr0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    One can only assume that soon someone be reforming carjackers by letting them play the GTA.

    Obviously, this should've been "soon someone done be reforming". Pft.. these posters need to learn English.

    1. re: done be by calice · · Score: 1

      pffft... who needs english, i'm never going to england.

      --
      Any information may be true or incorrect depending on your perception of said information
    2. Re:Done Be by hungrygrue · · Score: 1

      I think they need to start moderating posts "Illiterate". That being said, this post and its parent will soon be moderated "Offtopic".

  10. Imagine.... by guildsolutions · · Score: 2, Funny

    Therapists using this for pedophiles?

    im sure it will be tried at some point, somewhere... And claimed to be 'theraputic'.

    1. Re:Imagine.... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 0, Troll

      I have a therapy for pedophiles. .357 to the temple. Works every time.

      Sometimes, we need a little less understanding, and a lot more ass kicking.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Imagine.... by uncle_fausty · · Score: 1
      Well, that came squarely out of left field.

      If there's one thing that irritates me above all others, it's the total inability of humans to contain a discussion on any topic to that topic.

    3. Re:Imagine.... by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Even if it wasn't used for "therapy" but instead used for a simulation - one that medicates the need for younglings - then it's a good thing right?

      Anything to stop actual crimes from being committed, but I'm sure that you wouldn't support it then either.

    4. Re:Imagine.... by miscGeek · · Score: 1

      I have a better way to stop the crime from being committed. Just find a good pair of garden shears and remove the offending organ!

      --
      May the source be with you!
    5. Re:Imagine.... by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why not?

      Immerse them in a high-resolution, millions-of-polygons virtual playground full of tiny kids, and every time they approach one give the vice clamped to their nuts another quick half-turn.

      If they don't learn soon the problem's solved either way, isn't it?

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    6. Re:Imagine.... by value_added · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if it wasn't used for "therapy" but instead used for a simulation - one that medicates the need for younglings - then it's a good thing right?

      Well,that's a tad more intelligent than a bullet to the brain suggested by someone else. Paedophilia is defined as an interest or desire, not an act. The word for the act is molestation or rape. Knowing what words mean is helpful to intelligent discussion, innit?

      Satisfying desires or interests of any sort take an infinite number of forms, most of which are benign. With respect to sexual desires, watching X-rated videos found in your local video store is one form. I trust that requires little explanation for the /. crowd. Moreover, watching those videos, does not encourage you to become a rapist, cause you to become a rapist or otherwise make you guilty of any crime. Just as obvious, right?

      The problem, however, is that the above common-sense logic, in the context of underage material, is turned on its head. Viewing such material is considered a crime. A serious crime. The reasoning behind this IIRC stems from a Supreme Court decision where it was argued and accepted that such material encourages the person act out on his desires. It has also been argued and accepted in related cases that the distribution of such material creates further demand for them, thereby creating a market of some sort, hence the new laws that make mere possesion a crime.

      So, while watching Jenna Jameson do the nasty won't make you a rapist, watching Natalie Portman do the same (to use the current reasoning) will. And, irrespective of your actions or lack of them, you will be deemed a threat to society. And if you are found to be in possession of a topless picture of Natalie Portman, you could very well end up in jail.

      Most paedophiles hide in their own maturbatory fantasy worlds and are of no threat to anyone except themselves. Similary, the most of what is considered kiddy porn, urban legends aside, involves no sexual acts.

      With respect to the topic at hand, my own opinion is that a therapeutic use would have the same value as that of a Jenna Jameson video. Which isn't much. Satisfying, perhaps, at least to her fans, but not therapeutic. And for the records, I really don't know WTF Jenna Jameson is, and used her name only because I've seen it bandied about on / when the topic involves RAID devices.

    7. Re:Imagine.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Man.... If it were that simple I'd be all in favor of it. But you would also need to cut off the rapist's nose, tongue, and fingers. And even without these items the rapist could still harm children.

      Anon post, it doesn't mesh with PC USA at all, but we do have the power to define rape as a capital crime and execute all of the rapists. 0

    8. Re:Imagine.... by KanSer · · Score: 1

      Fuck, imagine being the DEVELOPER.

      --
      • MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward Wednesday April 20, @4:20
    9. Re:Imagine.... by handslikesnakes · · Score: 1

      I kind of feel sorry for pedophiles. They have no more control over their predilections than you do yours.

    10. Re:Imagine.... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1
      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    11. Re:Imagine.... by typical · · Score: 1

      Unless pornography containing people below a particular age line deemed to be illegal magically works differently than other porn, it probably is theraputic (study demonstrating that pornography is correlated with a significant decrease in sex-related crimes).

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    12. Re:Imagine.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you must be new here. Intelligent comment, correctly spelt, and running against the Slashdot lynch mob mentality.

      I'll let you off this once, but for future reference, what you were meant to say was:

      "ha ha and then weel rip theyr balls off and make them eat them!!!!!!LOL"

    13. Re:Imagine.... by gmack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are talking out of the wrong oriface.

      I once worked for someone who had a site listing system that was invaded by child porn sites. Most of the listed sites were hosted in Russia so there was no one to turn them in to and nothing to do but clean out the offending content.

      Children sucking off fully grown adults.. penetration of children.. And that's just the banner ads. Three years later I still feel physically ill when I remember it(doesn't help that my memory can be photographic).

      Trust me: it's real. It's not an urban legend. It's NASTY. And the human filth that gets off on that stuff know all the keywords they use to search for it online.

      I for one support pictures and videos of children being raped being listed as a crime and those who view it should be branded dangerous to society. Getting turned on by a sex year old is NOT normal, healthy or acceptable.

    14. Re:Imagine.... by gmack · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't just the age. There is also the issue of consent. Children aren't really capable of knowing what they are agreeing to. Similairly if the adult porn happened to be rape footage I would find myself very worried about the person who enjoys watching it.

    15. Re:Imagine.... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      With respect to sexual desires, watching X-rated videos found in your local video store is one form. I trust that requires little explanation for the /. crowd. Moreover, watching those videos, does not encourage you to become a rapist, cause you to become a rapist or otherwise make you guilty of any crime. Just as obvious, right?

      If you are getting off on rape videos, you are a sicko too. If it is watching consensual sex, that is dramatically different. There is no such thing as consensual sex between an eight year old and an adult, though I suspect you might be a NAMBLA member.

      This kind of post makes me want to vomit. I am sure you feel better than everyone else with your "understanding" and compassion for others. Fact is, if you get off watching stuff happen to little kids, you DO need a bullet to the head.

      Folks who get off on this stuff do damage to society... there is a market that will give them what they want. Thousands of kids are forced into the "industry" each year. And people who get off on this shit WILL find a way to get it in real life too. Children are the easiest prey. Any sicko who wants it will find some vulnerable kid to use for their sexual deviancy.

      Most paedophiles hide in their own maturbatory fantasy worlds and are of no threat to anyone except themselves. Similary, the most of what is considered kiddy porn, urban legends aside, involves no sexual acts.

      This is where I knew you were full of shit (and like the other posted alluded to, 'talking out of your ass'. I know folks in law enforcement. One had to retire after being part of taking down a kiddie porn ring, and busting some of its "customers". He had seen people shot in the line of duty before, and that didn't bother him so much. But some of the graphic things online were too much for him. He wouldn't go into details....

      I really don't know WTF Jenna Jameson is

      And despite not knowing who you are talking about for half of your monologue, and using it as the illustration to prove you are right, you get modded up to +5.... amazing.

      For your own information, Jenna Jameson was 17 when she started her career. While that is underage, and illegal, someone watching would not be a pedophile. Eighteen in an arbitrary age that we use in this country as being capable of making decisions without parental consent. Pedophilia is desiring sexually immature girls. Pedophiles will act out, given the opportunity. Pedophiles should be rounded up and shot.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    16. Re:Imagine.... by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Well, seriously... why not? It certainly would be something that would make most people feel uncomfortable, but there wouldn't be any children hurt in *any* way or form whatsoever, while on the other hand, a successful therapy might mean that *real* abuse won't happen in the future.

      I don't know about you, but for me, it's immediately clear that this means that yes, it would be worth it. It'd still make me feel uneasy, of course - but it'd be worth it.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  11. Over their, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    over their, send the word, send the word, to beware...

    GrammarForGeeks.org
    Please contribute!!

    1. Re:Over their, by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1, Informative

      Their: Belonging to them.
      There: A place, not here.
      They're: A contraction, meaning "They Are".

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Over their, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats--you and I and maybe 5 other people are aware of the difference. And, I'm sick of the BS arguments that it's just nitpicking and we shouldn't pay attention. I had to stop and read that sentence over to make sense of it.

  12. Their or there? by hungrygrue · · Score: 1
    ...researchers from the University of Southern California along with the Office of Naval Research are simulating combat situations which cause Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for theraputic purposes. There immersive virtual reality technique seems to consist of the game Full Spectrum Warrior, headphones, and a set of VR goggles.
    Was that supposed to read "Their immersive" or "There, immersive"?
    1. Re:Their or there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either way the sentence is a word salad. Think about it--if the intention was for there to be a comma, it would have to read "There... techniques seem" or There, the... technique seems".

    2. Re:Their or there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, thats "They're immersive" and not Their or There.

      Don't correct someone else's English if you can't do better yourself.

    3. Re:Their or there? by hungrygrue · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are an idiot. At least you were smart enough to realise that you are an idiot and post as an anonymous coward so as to not embarrass yourself. "They're" is a contraction for "They Are" "Their" is posessive which is what was originally meant.

      Their - that which belongs to them

      they're - They Are

      there - that location

      If you would care to read the text you will see that the form which you suggested is, of the three, the only one which could not possibly have been intended.
    4. Re:Their or there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone modded you down as a troll? What in the holy fuck? There's some great moderation going on here.

      Grandparent is a douche and didn't have the foggiest idea what he/she was talking about; parent was simply pointing out that said grandparent is a tool and should shut the fuck up from now on.

    5. Re:Their or there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should put on some gloves. It's gonna be ugly trying to get your foot out of your mouth now.
      The contraction "they're" is short for "they are."
      The way you suggested it, the phrase would read "They are immersive virtual reality technique seems to consist of..." Needless to say, that is incorrect. The proper word in the sentence should have been "their" which is the possessive of "they."
      You should take your own advice and examine your own grammar before criticizing others on theirs.

  13. Behind the times my good doctor by Cylix · · Score: 1

    I say we just set them down in front of Battlefield 2 with a really nice rig.

    I have some reservations about the approach though. I fear we would trade one pain for another. Honestly, there is nothing worse then no cooperation on a 64 player pub server.

    At least the latter scar is at least more common and thus a larger pool of support is available.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  14. Blurring reality is a good idea by infonography · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If you can't differentiate the Bad real memories from the bad game memories it robs them of effective power. But beyond that, what bothered me on games earlier on in them is could I have done this or that better. So by running it again and again, I can come up with new ways and win.

    One bit I worry is that we will be condemming our troops to Nintendo Wars, programming robot killers who return to home unbalanced. The GTA Defense may actually be real in 10 years.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    1. Re:Blurring reality is a good idea by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      Fro mTFA I don't think they're actually playing the games - just being immersed in the environment.

      Strapping someone with PTSD into a VR chair and making them repeatedly kill people isn't going to make them better, but exposing them to the stimuli (environment, sounds, etc) can help them go back through the feelings they had and deal with them.

      IIRC, in PTSD these feelings have which have been pushed into the subconscious where they fester and give rise to the disorder. The therapist can dynamically vary the immersiveness of the simulation by phasing in and out things like smoke, impaired vision, gunfire sounds, etc for added or reduced "realism". By allowing the vets to confront the feelings one step at a time, and ramping down the realism before they get distressed, the patient can start to work through the traumas, instead of retreating from them and bottling them up.

      It actually sounds like a good idea to me, and it's fascinating that we've actually got the technology to the stage where the brain can be fooled into thinking it's real on a subconscious level.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
  15. How callous... by stienman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One can only assume that soon someone be reforming carjackers by letting them play the GTA.

    Because, as everyone knows, a criminal hijacking cars results in the same trauma that soldier experiences when his humvee is blown up.

    I can't believe someone could even equate the "thrill" of performing a criminal act with the trauma of war.

    The psychologists are trying to help the soldiers understand why they act and react the way they do after a traumatic event. One Mash episode scratches the surface of this type of therapy. A doctor experiences something which seems ordinary in the daily life of a soldier, but he later tries to prevent another physician from administering gas anesthesia to a patient in need of surgery. During therapy the doctor comes to realize the the "ordinary" experience was actually a mother smothering her child to prevent the nearby enemy from finding the group's location.

    A PTSD soldier desires a normal life.

    -Adam

  16. Altogether now by oakgrove · · Score: 1
    One can only assume that soon someone be reforming carjackers by letting them play the GTA

    All your grammatical errors are belong to us

    --
    The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    1. Re:Altogether now by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      All your not knowing how to close italic tags are belong to us

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:Altogether now by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      All our knowledge of ending sentences with the appropriate punctuation are belong to neither of us.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    3. Re:Altogether now by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      All our same joke over and over again are belong to us.

      (That sounded a lot better in my head...)

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    4. Re:Altogether now by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      All your spectators are belongs to us

      Haha. Thank you

  17. Yeah you're super funny. by BaronSprite · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good job trying to patronize treatment that could help people whom selflessly risked their lives (even if you agree with it or not) to help protect your country and you. Your little GTA comment was completely unneccesary.

    1. Re:Yeah you're super funny. by srgtick · · Score: 1

      Thankyou.

    2. Re:Yeah you're super funny. by nauticalsland · · Score: 0

      I agree 100% I dont log into slashdot ever, but this little comment pissed me off... I live with ptsd and I dont wish what I have to go through daily on anyone... even the poster for his JUVINILE and completely spoiled little brat comment... I thought slashdot posters where people of experience??? I say fire that fucker!

    3. Re:Yeah you're super funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It made me laugh anyway :)

      Really though, it sounds like a good idea, but I think I have even a better one: How about we stop sending soldiers over to fight in battles we should never got into in the first place? Whao... what a crazy idea.

    4. Re:Yeah you're super funny. by patternjuggler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good job trying to patronize treatment that could help people whom selflessly risked their lives (even if you agree with it or not) to help protect your country and you.

      It was supposed to be non-sequitur, or humorous. I think it's okay to make fun of anything, even diseases and events that are killing thousands of people or causing untold suffering right now- humor and snide remarks are a good outlet when you have no power over a thing. On the other hand, if you are the very person that caused the suffering or death to happen then making fun of it is really contemptible.

  18. Cheap Shot by kwilliamyoungatl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One can only assume that soon someone be reforming carjackers by letting them play the GTA.
    This is a cheap shop that vividly reveals the author's ignorance.
    In the first place, there is an enormous moral difference between carjacking and attempting to kill and capture, for example terrorists in Afganistan.
    Moreover, PTSS is a *real* issue. People going to war see unpleasant things, and dealing with that may be difficult. The intention is not to get them to feel bad about what they did, but to adjust to life where getting shot at is not an issue.

    Scuttlemonkey should be ashamed.

    1. Re:Cheap Shot by patternjuggler · · Score: 1


      Scuttlemonkey should be ashamed.


      I sort of figure if someone voluntarily goes off to a shooting war and comes back with PTSS or more serious injuries they'll be able to handle a snide comment or two on slashdot. If not, then those of you joining up need to prepare yourselves not only for possible death or bodily or psychological damage, but also for impersonal verbal jabs from strangers on the internet.

  19. Ill take the rapists for 400 alex by hobotron · · Score: 0, Offtopic



    The day is mine, Trebeck!

    --
    There is truth in humor.
    1. Re:Ill take the rapists for 400 alex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Mods,

      Just because you don't get the joke doesn't mean it's offtopic.

    2. Re:Ill take the rapists for 400 alex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Homotron,

      Fuck off.

      Sincerely,

            The Mods

    3. Re:Ill take the rapists for 400 alex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its hobotron you fag, and the joke was way funny.

  20. NPR had a better article by master_meio · · Score: 0, Interesting
    Virtual Reality Therapy for Combat Stress

    Day to Day, August 19, 2005 A new, high-tech system designed to treat military veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder -- or PTSD -- may be familiar to fans of a squad-based combat video game.

    Using components from the popular game Full Spectrum Warrior, psychologist Skip Rizzo and his colleagues have fashioned a "virtual" world that simulates the sources of combat stress.

    The project is a joint venture between the Institute for Creative Technologies -- a cutting-edge research lab at the University of Southern California -- and the Office of Naval Research. The object is to help veterans come to terms with what they've experienced in places like Iraq and Afghanistan by immersing vets in the sights and sounds of those theaters of battle.

    The soldier being treated wears VR goggles and headphones. Using a tablet-based interface, a therapist can activate or remove the sounds of gunshots or the sight of smoke, depending on a patient's reaction. The idea is to re-introduce the patients to the experiences that triggered the trauma, gradually, until the memory no longer incapacitates them.

    Eventually, Rizzo believes the therapy will include other stimuli, such as vibrations to simulate the impact of bombs or rumbling of tanks, and even the smells of war -- the body odor, garbage and spices of urban combat, for example.

    Early results from trials suggest virtual reality therapy is uniquely suited to a generation raised on video games. The gaming aspect of the treatment also helps to lessen the stigma associated with getting therapy.

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. I wonder if the therapists are giving the vets Ecstasy before they engage in the simulation. See

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mdma

    --
    ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    1. Re:X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. They're not. MDMA is snake-oil and has no value.

    2. Re:X? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Turning them into forever depressed e-tards because their brains are fried doesn't sound like a good outcome.

      X, aka E, aka Ecstasy is a very dangerous substance.

      No, I'm not a DEA agent, heck, even many very "pro-drug" people are (rightfully) afraid of a substance which causes serotonin neurons to be so depleted that they suck up dopamine and die due to peroxide formation.

      There are a lot of cautions on Erowid even about it.

      Don't forget the 108 degree fevers either.

      Or hyponatremia, which has left some people brain dead.

      Neurotoxins are real, just look up 5,6-hydroxytryptamine, 5,7-hydroxytryptamine, 6-hydroxydopamine and MPTP for some very scary examples.

      Also, X users say no high is as good as the first. Perhaps because some of the brain cells are dead?

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  23. but do the programmers get therapy? by artifex2004 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    After having to create torn-apart bodies of women and children and sounds of others dying?

    1. Re:but do the programmers get therapy? by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      That's not the job of the programmers. That's all done by the artists and level designers. Those guys are allready pretty messed up, I don't think it could get any worse.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  24. Wait... by Jaiwithani · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought video games CAUSED violent behavior?

    ...now I just don't know what to believe...

    --
    By the time you've rhymed one line, I've already busted ten; You rap in exponential time and I'm big-O of log(n).
  25. You mean by mynickwastaken · · Score: 0

    They tried with alcohol... they failed.
    They tried with drug therapy... they failed.

    Now they are trying with Virtual Reality?!

    It seems that they are out of ideas.

  26. would be cool if... by nih · · Score: 1

    it simulated gulf war syndrome!

    --
    I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
  27. ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by markybob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a disabled veteran and have struggled to come to terms with what I've been through during two deployments. I expect an apology from you and Slashdot in general for posting such a demeaning thing about those who've tried to protect their countries.

    1. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Give him an M16, this t-shirt, and drop him off in the middle of one of the nastier towns in Iraq, at 0200 local time.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by kwilliamyoungatl · · Score: 1
      I'm a disabled veteran

      Thank you, sir, for your service and sacrifice.

    3. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by JNighthawk · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Bob. I appreciate your work.

      --
      Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    4. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An apology? Give it up, soldier. This is slashdot after all.

    5. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As soon as I get an appology for your wasting my $500k to train you, $200k to deploy you, and $500k to stich you back together. How bout this... I'm sorry you volunteered to learn how to kill for some rich white guy with absolutely no connection to the people whom he was elected to protect, and then screwed up and got injured.

      What a baby.

      I screwed your wife when you were "over there". How's that for an apology?

    6. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by nauticalsland · · Score: 0

      I totally agree with you, I am SHOCKED at the total JUVINILE and pathetic comment about a video game being the same as robbing a car compared to fighting and seeing your friends die to save this little fuck so he can sit around at mommys house and type on his computer for slashdot I WANT AN APOLOGY FOR THAT COMMENT... HOW DARE YOU MAKE FUN OF THE HORRORS OF WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM HAVE TO GO THROUGH!!! I am unbelievable mad right now, shame on your slashdot...

    7. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are an asshole fighting a illegal and corrupt war.
      Your facist leaders have deceived you.
      Bush and his (zionist) masterminds are as bad as Hitler.
      I do indeed pitty you. But then, you are an injured american veteran.
      But Iraq counts at least 10 times as much (innocent) veterans as the US.
      Most us soldiers are nothing more than mercenaries.
      They kill for money, whatever they believe.
      So, I do not really need to pitty you.
      Are you entitled to more pitty, because you are a US citizen? I don't think so.

      Regards, from europe.

    8. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      keep wanking JNighthawk

    9. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your sacrifice, but you don't deserve shit of an apology. We're told that you're defending our freedom, and you know what? We have the freedom to say shit that pisses you off.

      And how, exactly, were you protecting your country by invading one without the ability to attack ours?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    10. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by typical · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? Construction workers don't get apologies, nor do landscape painters. Veterans aren't any different. If your recruiter told you different, he was selling you a line of shit. You worked a job, and maybe that job doesn't get the respect you'd like it to do, but nobody made you take that job either.

      And the "protect your country" line is bullshit. That might fly somewhere in Central America or Eastern Europe, but the US hasn't been in danger that could be solved by conventional military force for a long time.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    11. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thank you for your sacrifice, but you don't deserve shit of an apology. We're told that you're defending our freedom, and you know what? We have the freedom to say shit that pisses you off.

      And how, exactly, were you protecting your country by invading one without the ability to attack ours?


      Firstly, he didn't specify if he had deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or both.. or maybe neither. In the case of Afghanistan you sure as hell better believe they can attack us.. people of the ilk we're hunting there will eat your ass alive. Just wait till the first shopping mall or elementary school comes under attack by terrorists trained in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan and you'll see what the deal is.

      Now Iraq of course was a mistake made by Georgie on his little expeditionary quest.
    12. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by JNighthawk · · Score: 1

      uNF, troll.

      --
      Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    13. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the OP but I must comment. Its obviously pointless to argue with a moron but I must comment.
      I bet your the kind of idiot who compares bush to hitler. You probably have your head so far up your ass that you think we could just disband the military and live in a peacful utopia right?
      Move to canada already asshole, we dont need you.

    14. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by slugo3 · · Score: 1

      If you can't appreciate the sacrifice that these guys made so that you have to freedom to speak your mind then there is no point in arguing that with you but there is a huge difference. Also excluding Iraq there has always been a draft so a lot of people WERE "made to take the job". You think maybe someone who volunteers is deserving of less respect? Personally I would have more respect for someone who volunteered.
      If you think the "protect your country" line is BS then I assume you think we don't need to protect our country? What is unconventional about the current military force?
      Although we have freedom of speech it doesn't make it ok to be an asshole.

    15. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just wait till the first shopping mall or elementary school comes under attack by terrorists trained in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan and you'll see what the deal is."

      I'd just like to point out that during the late 1970s, the CIA poured over 80 percent of its operating budget into the Afghan training camps - now known as 'The Base'.

      I think the best phrase for this is 'reap what you sow'.

    16. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by patternjuggler · · Score: 1

      I'm a disabled veteran and have struggled to come to terms with what I've been through during two deployments. I expect an apology from you and Slashdot in general for posting such a demeaning thing about those who've tried to protect their countries.

      If it were a national evening news anchor or some major politician (say the president) making light of those suffering because of a war or disaster then I would agree with you. This is the internet, and slashdot for christ's sake- there's a faceless slashdot editor with a made up name (and you're just an unknown slashdot user with a made up name), and you want an apology from the editor and 'slashdot in general'?? It's one thing avoid making a joke about say a terminal illness when someone in the room has it, but on the internet there's no point in trying to accommodate the feelings of every conceivable reader.

    17. Re:ScuttleMonkey, listen up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, you got me all wrong. I believe Bush is a perfectly unique idiot. While some lines of comparison can be drawn between him and Nero, he doesn't do the majority of nasty things that were done all those years ago. He's simply dumb and out of touch. The military is here to defend the US and it's allies. The police action in Iraq does neither. The situation in the east could have been handled with far more grace, but dropping bombs is easier I guess.

      Please note that my above post is my sincerest form of "Fuck You" to the whiny jarhead asking "slashdot" for an appology. You join the service, you get shit on by the people. The sound of a discontent population is the sound of freedom, and should be music to the ears of any serviceman.

      Canada? How bout Austria or someplace nice? Greece?

  28. Why not Logotherapy? by smchris · · Score: 1


    Sounds like they're doing simple desensitization. They should introduce paradoxical reaction. Have an army of Hello, Kitty! attack them with yarn balls.

  29. Clockwork Orange by thomag · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sure we could use this on criminals. Just give them a little shock when they're naughty. And it'll be just like that Clockwork Orange business where this idea worked great.

    1. Re:Clockwork Orange by jsilver212 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it does work out in the original book. (See chapter 21.) -js

  30. Lex Talionis! by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    Jaywalkers beware!

    Seriously, are you an American? The founding fathers are spinning in their graves....

  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. What about the other side? by Gorimek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Think about how much bigger the post traumatic stress load must be on the other side(s) of this war, that takes 10 - 100 times as high casualities, and presumably has very few therapy options available.

    I don't know much about PST, but I can't think it will manifest itself in ways that are good for anyone.

    1. Re:What about the other side? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      You are right, the country with almost the most mentally ill people per capita is Afghanistan who has seen war for 25 years straight now.

      PTSD is serious and often manifests itself like this.

      Anything that can help save innocent citizens is good in my book.

    2. Re:What about the other side? by Avenger337 · · Score: 1

      "I don't know much about PST"

      It's an hour behind MST (Mountain Standard Time).

  33. YOU LIKE CHILD PORN?!?!?!? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1
    1. Re:YOU LIKE CHILD PORN?!?!?!? by miscGeek · · Score: 1
      My post was more aimed at child molestors, and was partly in jest. Sorry, guess I should have included a :) in my original post.

      You do make a good point though. There have been cases of parents arrested and I'm sure a few convictions for having pictures of their kids nude or partial nude. i.e bath tub pictures.

      So, I do see a problem with having punishments that are that severe. Although, only because of the few innocent people that are convicted. No amount of compensation would make up for that type of punishment. Same reason I'm not entirely for the death penalty.

      --
      May the source be with you!
    2. Re:YOU LIKE CHILD PORN?!?!?!? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      See, common ground after all.

      We seem to agree that it is mainly a medical problem - a problem with the mind. Treatment could avoid the need for punishment.

      [Frankly, I feel quite inspirational after writing that]

  34. And in addition by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

    It's the concept of desensitization.

    You let the veteran relive his experiences in a non-hostile environment. Through repetition, it allows the individual to "delink" his experience from the autonomic alarm response that these things generate.

    Vets with PTSD are often hyper-alert, and exhibit "scanning" type behavior. Simple, common experiences can trigger an immense autonomic fight-or-flight response, complete with panic, sweating, rapid heartrate, elevated blood pressure, flushing, etc...

    This isn't about GTA or anything similar... it's real, actual, well-established therapy.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:And in addition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here comes the pseudo-science.

  35. cost effective soldiers, respect for vets by handy_vandal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why are they doing this? The soldiers knew what they were getting into when they signed up, they knew the risks. If they felt they couldn't handle the stresses of war then they shouldn't have signed up.

    The army needs all the soldiers it can get. Recruitment numbers are not good. Stop-loss orders are in effect. Perhaps AWOLs are up, I'm not sure.

    In any case, the army has a basic interest in keeping soldiers in fighting trim. If videogame therapy helps return a soldier to the battlefield, that's a good thing for the army. Second best, returning a soldier to a non-combat support task. Failing that, finding a way to lower VA costs ... such as replacing human therapists with computers.

    Just a thought -- I'm not army myself, not really qualified.

    I must say, too, that there are some profoundly insensitive posts in this thread. Don't talk to me about Wasting Taxpayer Money on vets. I don't happen to support the Iraq wars, but goddamit, soldiers keep getting fucked by their superiors, war after war. World War One: bonus marchers. World War Two, Korea: post-war bomb testing, irradiated vets, cancer, official denial. Vietnam ... where to begin, so many horrors to choose from. So show some fucking respect for vets, okay?

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:cost effective soldiers, respect for vets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why are they doing this? The soldiers knew what they were getting into when they signed up, they knew the risks. If they felt they couldn't handle the stresses of war then they shouldn't have signed up."

      Let me ask a few questions about the experience of being a soldier, sailor, marine or airman in time of war. These were part of everyday life for many of us, but we were never warned about them in realistic terms. Plus, many in my generation were drafted and had no choice in the matter. Just think about how you might react to some of these situations.

      1. Have you ever intentionally killed another human being?

      2. Have you ever fired a weapon at another person with intent to kill?

      3. Has anyone ever tried to kill you?

      4. Have you ever seen somebody killed?

      5. Have you ever had the person next to you killed so violently that there were pieces of his body stuck to your clothes?

      6. Have you ever had your best friend die in your arms, or worse yet, ten feet away and exposed to enemy fire so you couldn't even hold his hand or comfort him as he screamed out his final breaths?

      7. Have you ever looked at a small child walking toward you wondering if she was holding a live grenade behind her back?

      8. Have you ever fired a weapon at a fuel or ammo dump knowing that if you hit it innocent people will die, because the dump was intentionally set up next to a hospital, orphanage or school?

      9. Have you ever listened to an enemy soldier cursing on the radio, trying to disrupt the conversation between you and the spotter that is directing your heavy guns as they drop shells on his friends?

      10. Have you done at least one of these every day for six months to a year?

      If you answered no to all of these, then you have no idea what it is like, nor how you would react to them.

      I have been seeing a therapist for five years now, and am learning to deal with most of my experiences. There are still some that we haven't gotten to, and may never discuss. But I can survive day to day without the anti-depressants and other drugs that some of my friends need just to be able to get out of bed without a loaded weapon in their hands.

      In spite of this, one of my sons is deploying into Iraq next month. He will do what he is asked and try to survive, just as we did. The next time someone tells you that this is wrong, think about how many people in the US have been killed by terrorists since we sent our forces over there.

      A Vietnam Vet

    2. Re:cost effective soldiers, respect for vets by nuggz · · Score: 1

      Good points, I agree fully. I've never been deployed and now being out never will be.

      The next time someone tells you that this is wrong, think about how many people in the US have been killed by terrorists since we sent our forces over there.
      Which over there?
      How many terrorist attacks happened BEFORE US forces were sent over?
      Invading Iraq/Afghanistan didn't stop London, wouldn't have stopped 9/11, or the 1993 World trade center bombing nor would it have stopped Oklahoma city.

      Don't get respect for vetrans and the armed forces confused with support for government policy.
      I support the military, they are fighting for us and deserve the best support before and after we can provide.

      If invading Iraq is wrong, it is the fault of the American people for letting it happen, not the soldiers doing what they're told.

    3. Re:cost effective soldiers, respect for vets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Invading Iraq/Afghanistan didn't stop London, wouldn't have stopped 9/11, or the 1993 World trade center bombing nor would it have stopped Oklahoma City."

      I strongly disagree on all but Oklahoma City. That was done by a couple of rogues, possibly after they were kicked out of a white supremecy group. But I believe that the rest were only possible because the Taliban and Sadham were supporting and training El Quida. Cutting off their communications and finances has stopped them from commiting further atrocities. The London attacks are more likely to have been ordered by one of the militant pseudo-Muslim clerics currently living the high life in the UK.

      A Vietnam Vet

    4. Re:cost effective soldiers, respect for vets by nuggz · · Score: 0, Troll

      Invading Iraq/Afghanistan didn't stop London

      I strongly disagree

      Well the London bombing happened years after invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the invasions did NOT stop it from happening. I don't understand your disagreement.

      Saddam and Osama have never worked together, they don't even have the same idealogy.

      How many attacks were there before the invasion of Iraq (almost none), and how many are there now (almost none). The arguement that it is making things better is not provable by end results.

      This situation and the proper actions will have to be debated endlessly as there is no clear answer.

      I think the invasion of Iraq was basically wrong, although now the US has a moral obligation to provide security until the new government is established.
      I think the invasion of Afghanistan should have probably come years ago.

  36. PTSD and Reality by Stalyn · · Score: 1

    Just a couple things I would like to point out. First off PTSD is not always triggered by one traumatic event but also from the day to day stressors of having your life threatened. Some studies have actually stated this is the most frequent cause. Also I would imagine that these stressors have to do with actually believing your life is threatened and not from your body being tricked into thinking that. In other words making loud sounds and playing some video game isn't going to give you PTSD.

    However the purpose behind this is for a theraputic effect. I'm not sure how this will work either. PTSD is like brain damage done by intense stress. This is something you basically live with for your entire life. It is not something learned or like a phobia. This is serious mental damage. I just don't see how playing a video game is going to help.

    --
    The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    1. Re:PTSD and Reality by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      PTSD is a learned response and can be unlearned. Therapy has come a long way in the last 20 years, and I'm not talking about medication, virtual reality or even CBT. I'm talking about NLP, hypnotherapy, Provocative Therapy & EFT.

  37. War Is Good - It's Only A Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're having nasty recollections of the war you fought in?

    No Problem... just numb your brain and conscience by immersing yourself in a virtual war. You'll stop feeling so bad when you learn: War Is Good...War Is Good...

    Just Another Vet

  38. Games help, not hinder? by Kattana · · Score: 0

    If games are being used to help people deal with violent sitation maybe this will take the air out of the whole violent games make kids do bad things argument. If playing them lets kids cope better with the violence out there in the world, then maybe we can try and find the real cause, like say the parents that are blaming everything on games.

  39. why do veterans think they are better than others by hildi · · Score: 0, Insightful

    just because you had a job where you can get killed doesn't make you special. lots of people get killed at their jobs, and lots of people risk their lives every day for others. the main difference is that most of them dont get medals or parades for it.

  40. psychological casualties by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

    are NOT what the army needs, or wants. Proper therapy and post-combat counseling/guidance can prevent a soldier from becoming a psychological casualty; who becomes an inhabitant of the VA system and never quite recovers his normal life.

    Patriotism aside, the army has a huge vested interest in keeping these guys sane and mentally healthy. Combat veterans maintain an institutional memory of the "lessons learned" from their battles and experiences. These are lessons that are learned at great cost in men and material, and can save lives in the future. Seasoned soldiers are far superior to green troops.

    Those young NCOs and company-grade officers are the core of the armed forces, and will form the backbone of that force for the next 15-20 years. The military needs every one of those Iraq vets healthy and sane, particularly since they now possess expertise in urban combat, the most-costly and dangerous of military endeavors.

    Those combat vets are a national resource, forged in the crucible of Iraq, and they need to be treated as such.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:psychological casualties by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Those young NCOs and company-grade officers are the core of the armed forces, and will form the backbone of that force for the next 15-20 years."

      Of course the other possibility is many of them will become the backbone of an antiwar movement and might aggressively work to bring down the government that lied them in to a grizzly, pointless war.

      Thats what happened with many of the vets coming back from the Russian occupation of Afghanistan in the 80's. They turned in to the heart of a movement that helped bring down the Communist party (a.k.a. the fat cats), who sent them off to a horrific war where and turned them in to both bloody thirsty killers and sitting ducks with PTSD in spades.

      The vets in Iraq aren't in quite as bloody and savage a place as Afghanistan was and maybe they well get out sooner. But then then too the vets in Iraq have a nasty edge, they now know that the top two reasons the Republican fat cats used to justify sending them in harms way were a complete lie. Don't think the Soviet Union sunk so low as to lie to justify invading Afghanistan.

      Of course another route Iraqi vets might take is to stay in and rise in the ranks. Maybe down the road they will fight harder against civilians who both lie them in to a war, and completely botch post victory planning which led them in to a quagmire. Unfortunately people who make it in to the top ranks of the military tend to do it because they always follow orders, no matter how insane they are.

      "The military needs every one of those Iraq vets healthy and sane, particularly since they now possess expertise in urban combat, the most-costly and dangerous of military endeavors."

      You are talking like you are looking forward to the prospect of the U.S. spending the next 20-30 years getting bogged down fighting one urban insurgency after another. To be honest I think I would prefer the U.S. had no need for soldiers with urban warfare skills to fight more Iraq's in the future because either:

      A. The politicians figure out better ways to resolve problems
      B. If the politicans do have to resort to force that they aren't so stupid as to get bogged down in urban insurgency quagmires that are nearly impossible to win.

      Urban warfare is universally bad because its the form of ground warfare that results in maximum innocent civilian casualties which is why many of those vets have PTSD, watching women and children get waxed.

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:psychological casualties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Urban warfare is universally bad because its the form of ground warfare that results in maximum innocent civilian casualties which is why many of those vets have PTSD, watching women and children get waxed.

      Which is why we must make them realize it is better for there to be collateral damage than another 9/11 or worse.

    3. Re:psychological casualties by demachina · · Score: 1

      Dude you need to try using a few more words next time, you didn't make your point. Who is "they", Al Qaeda, Saddam, who knows? By collateral damage do you mean women and children getting killed in Iraq is good because it teaches those nasty terrorists what will happen if they launch another 9/11. If so you should probably seek councilling, because your sick. Those women and children in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You just put yourself down at the same level as Al Qaeda if killing innocent women and children that had nothing to do with 9/11 is your idea of how to make your point.

      --
      @de_machina
    4. Re:psychological casualties by deimtee · · Score: 1

      You seem to be saying that the Iraqi occupation is a live-ammo training exercise. That's a reason for the mess over there that I hadn't heard of before.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    5. Re:psychological casualties by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I mis-stated the point. It's not the reason we're there... it's a side benefit of that conflict.

      As a former field-grade officer, I can assure you I'd rather have veteran, experienced, previously-deployed troops than folks fresh out of basic.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  41. compulsive auto theft? by rakslice · · Score: 1

    I don't know why, but for some reason vehicular kleptomania seems less plausible than regular kleptomania...

  42. Hope this works out... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2, Funny

    I really hope that Full Spectrum Warrior is a better theraputic tool than it is a video game.

    -B

  43. Someone please quote 'A Clockwork Orange' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because I don't have my copy handy.

    - m

    1. Re:Someone please quote 'A Clockwork Orange' by toccoa · · Score: 1

      or at least hum some Ludwig van

  44. That Dirty Open Secret by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "one must have empathy for people who have killed other people in battle"

    Something none of the military brass like to talk about... PTSD, overwhelmingly, debilitates soldiers who have personally killed people. "Combat stress" -- from being shot at -- is incidental by comparison. The ones ordered to slaughter unarmed civilians, particularly women and children, get it worst. (Bomber pilots and artillery specialists do the most of that, but find it easiest to pretend; they don't usually see their victims fall.) Those who think honestly know draftees are really no different from civilians. Soldiers who "only" had their legs blown off get off easy, again by comparison.

    My father used to call Viet Nam vets with PTSD crybabies. I asked him if he (as a Naval officer, earlier) had ever been obliged to kill anybody. He must have thought it over carefully, because I never heard him criticize a vet after that.

    1. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Do you have any personal experience or are you (as I'm betting) talking out your ass?

      The "military brass" has been very up front about PTSD in recent conflicts. There are far more measures taken now than when I was in the military 10 years ago. (Mandatory counseling before exfil back to states for instance.)

      Your statement that military leadership "orders" the slaughter of unarmed civilians is a fucking joke.

      We haven't had draftees for quite some time now, how is that statement relevant?

      What the fuck do you know about losing arms/legs in combat and how easy it is "by comparison". I'd bet my left nut that most vets with PTSD would disagree.

      Bottom line, you sound like a fucktard college kid who likes to pretend they've had some worldly experiences, but has never been out of the state of West Virginia except on spring break. Probably were a super high speed CIA-ninja-sniper-assasin riding a desk in the National Guard.

      Fuck off.

    2. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by timeOday · · Score: 2, Informative
      Frontline recently aired an excellent program on PTSD, and what's more you can watch it online for free. (Yes I love public television).

      What you are saying is not really a secret:

      PTSD is a recognition that if you've been in the wrong place at the wrong time or have been in a place where you've had to commit acts such as shooting other combatants or civilians or driven a car that you weren't in control of and killed people or things of that sort, that these events can change the way you feel about yourself and feel about the world.
      However, the above link goes on to contradict the assertion that PTSD affects only killers, nor is it limited to soldiers. Have a look, it's interesting stuff.
    3. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The "military brass" has been very up front about PTSD in recent conflicts. There are far more measures taken now than when I was in the military 10 years ago. (Mandatory counseling before exfil back to states for instance.)

      Please try to pay attention. Military brass take PTSD seriously, but use euphemisms like "combat stress". PTSD resulting solely from having killed people is never mentioned to trainees.

      Your statement that military leadership "orders" the slaughter of unarmed civilians is a fucking joke.

      I guess you weren't fixing pipes in any of those water treatment plants they blew up at the beginning of the first Iraq invasion. I guess you weren't among of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands who died of dehydration after having had to drink water that hadn't been treated in one of those plants. Who do you think they're after when they bomb a city, the stray dogs and cockroaches? Who do you think dies when a soldier at a guard station (under orders!) machine-guns a car that didn't stop at the right place because the driver got confused?

      We haven't had draftees for quite some time now, how is that statement relevant?

      Guess what: Iraq did. The overwhelming majority of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers blown to hell were draftees who would have done practially anything not to be there. They're really no different from civilians. ("Conscientious objectors", you say? How about "mass graves"?) Practically every draftee shot or blown up was -- as you'll gladly admit if you have even a shred of honesty -- no different from a civilian.

      What the fuck do you know about losing arms/legs in combat and how easy it is "by comparison". I'd bet my left nut that most vets with PTSD would disagree.

      Interesting that you (unlike they) won't actually be obliged to follow through. The therapists say those injured but who never shot anybody have an overwhelmingly lower incidence of PTSD. A good thing, they have lots else to worry about.

    4. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      Please... insightful?

      Let's set aside the rabid anti-war "OMG!! US is sl4ught3ring 3v3ry1! OMG!!!1eleven" stuff. The US uses guided munitions specifically to maximize combat effectiveness, and minimize civilian casualties... this isn't Dresden. If the United States wasn't concerned about civilian deaths, they'd simply have pulled back from Fallujah and leveled the place with B-52s and artillery (like Jordanian armor did to Palestinians at the end of the six-day war).

      Yes, a large number of the Iraqi army didn't want to fight... thus they deserted in large numbers. Why on earth do you think our push to Baghdad was so quick? Where do you think all those young men of miltary age came from that lined the roads as we drove through Iraqi cities?

      They're really no different from civilians.

      They are not, NOT "civilians." They may have been conscripts of dubious military skill... but they had arms, and the ability to fight. Those that stood and fought were crushed, those who ran survived... but they were not "civilians," and your attempt to lump them in with the populace dilutes that critical distinction, and endangers the innocents in the latter group.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    5. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by chamenos · · Score: 1

      They are not, NOT "civilians." They may have been conscripts of dubious military skill... but they had arms, and the ability to fight. Those that stood and fought were crushed, those who ran survived... but they were not "civilians," and your attempt to lump them in with the populace dilutes that critical distinction, and endangers the innocents in the latter group.

      the parent post's point was that conscripts do not choose to fight. they are civilians forced to take up arms, hence it is unethical to consider them combatants even though they might be defined as such by the rules of engagement.

      should sex slaves be prosecuted for vice just the same as prostitutes?

      by your sweeping definition, most of the united states populace should also be considered combatants, since they're armed and both willing and able to fight. should 9/11 then be considered an act of war, not terrorism?

      your definition of what constitutes a combatant conveniently ignores the factor of choice that distinguishes conscripts from willing combatants, in an attempt to rationalize the unethical slaughter of military slaves during wartime.

    6. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      Do we need to have another definition of "Lawful Combatant" discussed here? This has already been done to death in the Gitmo threads, but we'll go over it again.

      1. Wearing a recognizable uniform
      2. bearing arms openly
      3. accountable chain-of-command
      4. follows-the-laws-of-war

      These four = lawful combatant. Any such not actively surrendering are fair game, conscripts or not. These things are drilled into EVERY member of the US armed forces, officers and enlisted.

      If they were all conscripts, why did they not kill their own officers and surrender? Why did they not overthrow Saddam themselves and retake their country? There's a difference between being forced to fight at gunpoint, and simply being a reluctant participant. How do you propose we tell conscripts from Special Republican Guard or Fedayeen at 800 meters?

      It's also better to be a surrendering soldier than a deserter. In previous wars, deserters and soldiers out of uniform were often considered unlawful combatants, who could be (and were) summarily tried and executed in the field. The German army was using teenage and elderly conscripts by the end of WWII, yet nobody cries and weeps and claims that those were "civilian" casualties.

      I see a great deal of this conceptual gerrymandering as a thinly-disguised effort by the International ANSWER crowd and their political allies to inflate "civilian casualty" figures, specifically to bludgeon the current administration about their "brutality" and the "unethical, unlawful" war. Sorry, but simply calling everyone, including members of the Iraqi Army "civilians," doesn't make it so.

      The distinctions between civilians and combatants are sharp in the minds of every soldier. As a matter of policy and military culture, we don't slaughter surrendering enemy soldiers, and we don't deliberately kill civilians. I was a field-grade officer in those same armed forces, and we don't do that... we just don't.

      by your sweeping definition

      Not my definition... those are straight from the Laws of War.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    7. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by chamenos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Do we need to have another definition of "Lawful Combatant" discussed here? This has already been done to death in the Gitmo threads, but we'll go over it again."

      no we don't, because i am perfectly well aware of the definition of what a lawful combatant is. the point of my previous post was that it is unethical to consider conscripts lawful combatants due to the reasons i have stated.

      -----

      "If they were all conscripts, why did they not kill their own officers and surrender? Why did they not overthrow Saddam themselves and retake their country? There's a difference between being forced to fight at gunpoint, and simply being a reluctant participant."

      gee, that sounds so simple doesn't it? on the same token, if the chinese were all living in fear under their communist government, why didn't they just kill their leaders, overthrow the regime and retake china for themselves? doing something because you have no other choice due to the circumstances you're in, doesn't constitute free choice.

      -----

      "How do you propose we tell conscripts from Special Republican Guard or Fedayeen at 800 meters?"

      we can't, and i never said we could. again, the point i was trying to make was that despite the laws of war and its supposed purpose of making war less chaotic, it introduces some moral quandraries that cannot be ignored. simply because i point out a problem, doesn't mean i purport have a fool-proof solution for it.

      -----

      "It's also better to be a surrendering soldier than a deserter. In previous wars, deserters and soldiers out of uniform were often considered unlawful combatants, who could be (and were) summarily tried and executed in the field."

      and what do you think the opposing force does to it's deserters? bid them farewell and a safe journey? conscripts are caught between a rock and a hard place, due to no fault or choice of their own.

      -----

      "The German army was using teenage and elderly conscripts by the end of WWII, yet nobody cries and weeps and claims that those were "civilian" casualties."

      it might be easier not to acknowledge it since dehumanizing the enemy makes war more palatable, but that doesn't make it right.

      -----

      "I see a great deal of this conceptual gerrymandering as a thinly-disguised effort by the International ANSWER crowd and their political allies to inflate "civilian casualty" figures, specifically to bludgeon the current administration about their "brutality" and the "unethical, unlawful" war. Sorry, but simply calling everyone, including members of the Iraqi Army "civilians," doesn't make it so."

      think what you might, i have no political agenda whatsoever.

      -----

      "The distinctions between civilians and combatants are sharp in the minds of every soldier. As a matter of policy and military culture, we don't slaughter surrendering enemy soldiers, and we don't deliberately kill civilians. I was a field-grade officer in those same armed forces, and we don't do that... we just don't."

      just don't ever think that conscripts are there because they want to. the laws of war might make them fair game simply because it's much more convenient and practical to, and that's all there is to it.

      -----

      "Not my definition... those are straight from the Laws of War."

      a definition that you seem to have subscribed to.

    8. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by identity0 · · Score: 1

      They are not, NOT "civilians." ... your attempt to lump them in with the populace dilutes that critical distinction, and endangers the innocents in the latter group.

      Look, I know this is Slashdot, and people wander off topic, but you are talking about legal/ethical issues, and he was talking about psychological issues. The topic is about using videogames to treat PTSD, remember?

      Let's set aside the rabid anti-war "OMG!! US is sl4ught3ring 3v3ry1! OMG!!!1eleven" stuff.

      WTF? Acknowledging that civillians are killed in combat = l337 speak? If you think that's worth belittling like AOLers, maybe you should go play Counter-stike and take it out on people there. Might help with your PSPS - post Slashdot post stress.

    9. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 1
      What you are saying is not really a secret

      You are invited to look up "open secret" in the dictionary. Then, look up "elephant in the room".

      the above link goes on to contradict the assertion that PTSD affects only killers, nor is it limited to soldiers.

      No one I know of has ever asserted that PTSD affects only killers, or is limited to soldiers.

      I love public television

      Who has time to watch television? Perhaps you would better spend the time learning to pay attention to what you are reading, and the rest of the time actually reading. A half-hour of TV corresponds to three to five minutes' reading, for most topics. (Exception: anything by David Attenborough.)

    10. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 1
      Let's set aside the rabid anti-war ... [gibberish]

      There's no such thing as "rabid anti-war" anything. Rabid jingoism, sure. Rabid treasonous jingoism, even, given the pattern of systematic deception we've found. Rabid toadyism, too, and rabid war profiteering, yes. Anti-war attitudes might be reflexive, but not rabid.

      They are not, NOT "civilians."

      Please try to pay attention. Nobody said the Iraqi conscripts were civilians. I said they were draftees, and thus not appreciably different from civilians, as far as blowing their guts out or burning their faces off goes. You can swear like Cartman that they're no different from stampeding wildebeest or black-widow spiders, but deep down you know better. They're people like yourself, with wives and kids, and doing their best to do what they think is right. Most of those ripped to bloody shreds in Iraq never, like the civilians, pointed a gun at anybody, nor even had a chance to.

      Maybe somebody made up rules that say it's not murder, but that doesn't really make so much difference. Anybody can make up fancy rules, and even give them fancy capitalized names. In the end, killing is killing.

      your attempt ... endangers the innocents"

      Hey, guess what: bombing, shooting at, and starving the innocents endangers them. So does destroying their water treatment and sewage systems, and blockading medical and food supplies and the equipment to produce and distribute it. So does leaving hundreds of tons of high explosives unguarded for the non-innocents to truck away and make into hundreds of thousands more bombs. So does blowing up half of Afghanistan and then abandoning it (again!) to the warlords and Talibaners, in favor of pursuing a personal vendetta in Iraq.

      Encouraging tobacco executives to trick teenagers into lifelong addictions, and million upon million agonizing deaths by cancer, endangers innocents (not just the erstwhile teenagers, but their children besides). Forcing other countries to dismantle antismoking campaigns under threat of crippling import duties endangers innocents.

      I could go on. Saying that people are people is what some of us call truth. Even "rabid" (as you say) Christians have been heard, at times, to approve of truth. If you've resolved to murder somebody (or thousands of somebodies), the least respect their memory deserves is that you be honest about it.

    11. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should re-read the thread, notably the post ahead of mine. This particular tangent was not started by me, but you don't have to apologize for castigating the wrong poster... I have thick skin.

      As to your second point, nobody denies that civilians are inadvertantly killed in combat. I was disagreeing with the parent posters point that Iraqi army troops really didn't want to fight, and thus were no different from "civilians."

      I will, however, acknowlege your admonition about the manner of my satire.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    12. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      not appreciably different from civilians... If you've resolved to murder somebody

      How thin do you want to slice this? Apparently not thin enough to actually say they're civilians, but thick enough to say they're "murdered."

      In the end, killing is killing.

      And here, I suspect, lies the root of our disagreement. I find certain killing to be perfectly acceptable, and would dispute the characterization of killing in wartime as "murder."

      So tell me now, since you brought up the food, healthcare, etc: who is helping the people of Iraq? The answer is US troops, who've reconstructed Iraqi hospitals and schools, routinely provide medical care even to wounded terrorists, and deliver the food aid... yes, even those evil, profiteering contractors (like the four Blackwater operators who were burned to death and mutilated in Fallujah protecting a food convoy.

      It's telling to me that you will not acknowledge the ethical upsides of this conflict along with the negatives. But then again, your cries of "jingoism," "personal vendetta," and the like tell me all I need to know about your ideological bias.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    13. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 1
      I find certain killing to be perfectly acceptable, and would dispute the characterization of killing in wartime as "murder."

      Please try to pay attention. The topic under discussion concerns psychological consequences of people's actions.

      Whatever rationalizations you have for distinguishing this police-action from that mass-murder are irrelevant to the topic. I used a variety of descriptions of the same act to emphasize that the distinctions are arbitrary. It's telling that you don't object to the others, considering that they all describe the same act.

      So tell me now, since you brought up the food, healthcare, etc: who is helping the people of Iraq?

      Please try to pay attention. The examples of routine slaughter in Iraq were in response to the trivially false assertion that U.S. troops aren't under orders to kill civilians, and that talking about it somehow "endangers innocents". Let's ask the innocents which they would prefer: me talking about how their son didn't deserve to die, or you blasting their guts all over the wall?

      Can you even remember the topic? Many thousands of U.S. troops have their own guts in knots over having followed orders to slaughter people (civilian or otherwise) whose only offense was to be in front of them. It would rip up anyone who's not a psychopath. It's obviously worse for those soldiers when they learn that they were there as a result of deliberate, and possibly treasonous, deception. (Treason is of particular concern to soldiers; treasonous orders must be disobeyed.)

      I doubt anyone's guts are in knots about having fed people, so I don't understand why you bring it up.

      ... profiteering contractors like the four Blackwater operators who were burned to death

      (This is off-topic, but ... the operators weren't profiteers. They were just unlucky working stiffs. The profiteers are sitting safe at home, perhaps even chuckling at how dumb those guys were to have been there.)

      It's telling to me that you will not acknowledge the ethical upsides of this conflict along with the negatives.

      Please try to pay attention. The topic is not about ethical upsides or downsides of "conflicts". The topic is the psychological effects on the poor dumb stiffs sent (by your profiteers' pals) to slaughter people in uncounted thousands, conscript and civilian alike. Illegitimacy doesn't create the problems, it just makes them worse.

      But then again, your cries of "jingoism," "personal vendetta," and the like tell me all I need to know about your ideological bias.

      I suppose accusations of "ideological bias" make it much easier for you to ignore the facts.

    14. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      Please try to pay attention.

      You keep saying that... I don't think it means what you think it means. I'm beginning to think you're a bot programmed to say the same thing over and over.

      Fortunately, most troops don't have themselves in knots over the trivially false assertions of the left-wing anti-war crowd. Remember "BUSH LIED!!" and "NO WAR FOR OIL!!" and "WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS... WHEN THEY KILL THEIR OFFICERS!" Remember all that tripe? Most aren't buying it, to their credit.

      It's absolutely hilarious to me that you're so very concerned about the psychological health of those troops, yet you continue to promulgate the falsehoods that they're murderers, and defend the left-wing talking points that minimize the good things that have been done in this conflict. Those falsehoods psychologically harm the few troops that believe one iota of that nonsense. Is that what you want? Are you vile and small enough a person to take out your anger with the administration on the returning troops?

      I've personally counseled both troops and police officers who have used lethal force in the line of duty... the perceived rightness of their cause is important in minimizing the psychological costs involved in doing their duty. Do you think all those worthless fools who screamed "babykiller!!!" at returning vietnam vets helped their psychological recovery?

      I'll repeat it again: as a matter of policy, routine, or military culture, we. do. not. deliberately. slaughter. civlians.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    15. Re:That Dirty Open Secret by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 1
      Changing the subject prevents you from addressing the topic at hand. A reasonable observer may conclude, when you persist, that that is your intent.

      It is objective fact that PTSD is most traumatic in soldiers who have killed, moreso in those who have killed civilians (under orders, or otherwise).

      It is objective fact that the supposed "weapons of mass destruction" claimed to justify the invasion have not turned up, nor even any hint of their existence. It is objective fact that assertions of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda, also used to justify the invasion, remain unsupported. It is objective fact that many of those most involved in summarizing intelligence have reported heavy pressure to remove relevant facts from their reports. It is objective fact that the writers of Bush's speech promoting invasion knew, even when they wrote it, that the claim Iraq had sought uranium was baseless.

      Lying about those facts and their implications doesn't help your case, whatever you imagine it to be. Readers may easily verify them. Any "good things ... in this 'conflict'" are as far off-topic as the first time you tried to distract readers with them.

      If those troops who slaughtered civilians and draftees suffer as a result of knowing the facts above, that is directly the responsibility of those who sent them. Blaming, instead, people who point out facts is worse than a rhetorical gambit; it's frankly despicable. Lying here won't protect troops from psychological harm; the facts are readily available. (We may pray they are someday drawn upon to support a verdict of treason.)

      "Anyone who can make you believe falsehoods can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

      Repeating a false assertion with lots of periods in it ("we. do. not. deliberately. slaughter. civilians") doesn't make it true, or even any less false. The only truth your statement reflects is that mass slaughter of civilians was the main point of relatively few missions between 1973 and 2001. Maybe that means progress, but such progress seems easily turned back.

      Nothing you have posted bolsters any of your claims. It remains that soldiers have been and are ordered to kill civilians, and that the military brass do not openly discuss PTSD that arise most directly from those orders. You have offered nothing more than brute pragmatism to distinguish conscripts from civilians. You have no grounds to claim that discussing the truth here actually causes or worsens anyone's PTSD, never mind that it "endangers innocents". You have revealed no connection between PTSD and distribution of food to subject people not (yet?) shot.

      Claiming that facts are "left-wing talking points" does not refute them. Truths, as talking points, are much less expensive to propagate than lies. (The corollary is that lies may suffice, if you spend enough.) People who are not war profiteers must needs pursue the less costly approach.

      Finally, my heart goes out to those poor souls you have "counseled". Judging by the evidence, you must have just repeated louder the lies they'd already heard. Here's a hint: shouting lies makes them the more suspect.

  45. idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you guys have no idea what you are talking about

    one of the best ways to defeat fear is to face it
    and one of the best ways to face your fears is in VR

    thats why they use VR to treat phobia

    1. Re:idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can VR be used to help me talk to girls?

  46. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  47. This could combine well with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the use of MDMA in PTSD (as currently being studied by Michael Mithoefer)...

  48. Somewhat logical. by Bruce+McBruce · · Score: 1
    Laugh as you might, it does actually make a degree of sense to do this. To place the vets in a mental environment could be considered one of the elements of classical conditioning.

    If they did it right, they could pair less traumatic stimuli (for this case, let's say something like fluffy bunnies) with the memories that Full Spectrum Warrior evokes over a period of time. Er, yeah. If you know your Psychology, it does make sense: Classical Conditioning can both induce and remove fears, which is essentially what these psychologists would be working on.

    1. Re:Somewhat logical. by x-caiver · · Score: 1

      So you could eventually trick the patient in to believing that fuzzy bunnies are evil, and that armed militia are no threat. For whatever that is worth...

    2. Re:Somewhat logical. by Bruce+McBruce · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Look up the "Little Albert" Experiment some time if you want to see something like that. They conditioned an infant into being deathly afraid of a white lab rat.

  49. Unbelievable? by nauticalsland · · Score: 0

    I cant believe the comments made at the end of the intro? a juvinile gaming joke after a serious article that shows a breakthrough in treating a VERY serious mental illness... I live with PTSD, I did not get it from being in war, but through prolonged exposure to trama... I do not wish this on anyone, including that immature fuck that mad that GTO joke. Luckely there is an understanding about PTSD out there, and that it is being looked at as a very serious problem... I mean if you cant work, or funtion for life.. thats a serious problem... I wish all those that have PTSD or similar the best, keep on trucken, and my thoughts and prayers are with you in your time of need...

  50. An equation being twisted? Never! by hidispenser · · Score: 1

    I can't believe someone could even equate the "thrill" of performing a criminal act with the trauma of war.

    He wasn't equating "trauma" to "thrill", he was equating the potential "solution" to both, which is said to be "more immersion in the thing that ailes you will have you right as rain."

    He made a decent point. Enough to make me wonder if I had suffered from a near-drowning, would playing a violent game in which I repeatedly sink and drown help me? (As opposed to a nice game where I'm swimming peacefully.)

  51. It would be better... by FFFish · · Score: 1

    ...if there were virtual veterans.

    War is, on the whole, stupid. The current US war is particularly so.

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  52. Re:why? by x-caiver · · Score: 1

    If you already know the exact amount of trauma that you would suffer having to kill someone / having to see someone being killed / etc, then good for you.

    There have been cases where trained fire fighters freeze up when they get inside of a burning building. There are tons of cases where police officers have to make multiple visits to the shrink after shooting someone / getting shot at. There are many many cases of people totally shutting down, to the point where the can't talk or stand for awhile, when they are in a war. In the heat of the moment average citizens do heroic things, then sometimes weeks later suddenly realize what they've done and end up with repeating nightmares.

    Apparently you are smarter than all of those trained professionals, since you already know exactly how a horrible situation is giong to affect you.

  53. But are they playing Beethoven in the background? by infonography · · Score: 1

    When these subjects are receiving the Ludovico treatment, what is playing in the background?

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  54. There is a difference by Infonaut · · Score: 3, Insightful
    the main difference is that most of them dont get medals or parades for it.

    Actually the difference is that soldiers (unlike even police officers and firefighters) work for the federal government as instruments of American political will. A police officer works for the city of Phoenix, and a firefighter works for Westchester County, but a soldier puts his life on the line on behalf of every American.

    When a police officer saves a life or kills a criminal and gets a medal, he is recognized for the effort he has made on behalf of his community. When a soldier receives such recognition, it is for acts on behalf of the entire nation.

    Also, there is a critical difference in that soldiers are called up on to kill people. That's not something that might come up in their jobs, it is at the core of their jobs. They are asked to do the very thing that society teaches us all not to do. The recognition that veterans receive is largely because soldiers not only take risks, but they are made to kill.

    They are the proxies for you and me and John Kerry and George Bush. Whether you support the war or not, the soldiers are still killing and dying because our representative government sent them to do that job on behalf of all of us.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  55. Geek Trauma? by macintoshguy · · Score: 0

    Are there any real applications in this in helping geeks get over the traumatic experience of a week with no internet connection/computer? :P

  56. In Exchange... by UltimaL337Star · · Score: 1

    As promised, they'll be treated to free immersive porn and one of these http://www.bustymousepads.com/images/gallery1_b.jp g

  57. An excuse to _Fire_ the monkey? by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    Most of us having been looking that he done gets fired sometime too.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  58. Olfactory by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The object is to help veterans come to terms with what they've experienced in places like Iraq and Afghanistan by immersing vets in the sights and sounds of those theaters of battle.

    Sights and sounds aren't enough, I don't think. The sense most strongly liked to memory is the sense of smell. I by no means have PTSD like a lot of these guys do (I never came under direct fire, just had to worry about mines and unexploded ordinance mostly), but the smell of diesel exhaust or bug repellant still make me feel distinctly twitchy. I used to also get nervous seeing war movies, but after a couple years I was able to watch 'em fine without feeling like flipping out. But even to this day, driving behind a school bus if I catch a whiff of that diesel, my stomach tightens up.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  59. Re:why? by Usagi_yo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Because many join the services with the expecation that they will never see action. Take a free ride for training, 3 square a day and a place to chill. Easy money.

    Then reality comes by and smacks them upside the head. Some come to, others suddenly find a new belief in war is wrong, this war is wrong et al, anything to deny their obligations that they took so lightly when they enlisted.

    Back on subject, most soldiers end up having no problems, they adjust to what they have to do and need to do. The killing, the maiming, the friends dying or losing limbs. See a man holding his intestines in his hands, thoughtlessly trying to put them back in, or another cradling his just blown off leg.

    Some disconnect from these. Others have a harder time disconnecting. I can see playing a violent game can help people disconnect. Help them overcome the guilt they often feel from surviving where others died horrible deaths.

  60. Done already in 1999 by OnkelJossip · · Score: 1

    Similar research was already conducted in 1999 by Larry Hodges.
    Here's an overview. And for a relaxed Sunday afternoon read: check out the related research paper (PDF).

    I saw Larry and fellow Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy researchers at a talk in 2000. Larry showed a video of a Vietnam Vet suffering from PTSD who was exposed to a virtual Vietnam war scenario. Within a short time the Vet totally forgot that he was in a simulation and started to yell out to his virtual comrades, trying to warn them of an imminent attack. Watching this video was both fascinating and appalling at the same time. On the one hand I was proud to see how far VR research has come. On the other hand I realized how horrible the Nam war experience must really have been for the Vet.

  61. what a crock of shit by hildi · · Score: 0

    1. our government is representative of money, not of me or of most ordinary slobs in the country. 2. lots of police are federal employees. ever heard of park rangers? the FBI? border patrol? 3. police have to kill sometimes too. its part of their training. but they do it in a legal system, where they have to pay if they kill innocent people. 4. if u are a proper right wing nutjob, then doctors who do abortions are also 'trained to kill' on behalf of 'society' and representative government. im still trying to figure out why soldiers are 'different'.

    1. Re:what a crock of shit by Infonaut · · Score: 2, Insightful
      1. our government is representative of money, not of me or of most ordinary slobs in the country.

      The government is representative of its citizenry as a whole. It is certainly does not represent me specifically, given that I'm opposed to much of what it does on my behalf. But just because I don't agree with its current policies or leadership doesn't mean that it is not a lawful or representative government. Soldiers don't have the luxury of deciding not to obey the government when they feel it doesn't represent their interests.

      2. lots of police are federal employees. ever heard of park rangers? the FBI? border patrol?

      Sure. They get medals and awards and other special recognition, as soliders do. Generally they get it when they put their lives on the line.

      3. police have to kill sometimes too. its part of their training. but they do it in a legal system, where they have to pay if they kill innocent people.

      Agreed. Aside from those in federal employ, they are not being called to do so on behalf of the entire nation. Soldiers operate in a legal framework, but the parameters of that framework are determined by their civilian leadership, as we've seen in Iraq. As I mentioned earlier, soldiers are called upon to kill, in many cases in morally ambiguous circumstances. That makes their sacrifice exceptional, because they have to live with the consequences of that killing long after they are out of the combat zone.

      4. if u are a proper right wing nutjob, then doctors who do abortions are also 'trained to kill' on behalf of 'society' and representative government. im still trying to figure out why soldiers are 'different'.

      Doctors who perform abortions are acting on behalf of individuals, not society as a whole. When a doctor performs an abortion, they're doing it for one woman.

      I'm not suggesting that you should value soldiers any more than you value a UPS driver, the bum on the street corner, your physics professor, or you dentist. But there are reasons why society as a whole treats soldiers differently.

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  62. No apology coming by nuggz · · Score: 1

    Sorry, that just isn't going to happen.

    The US has experienced a level of relative saftey and prosperity for so long the population doesn't understand there is any other way.

    You might have fought to keep them safe, but most people never felt in any real danger, so they don't care.

    You've seen the real world, now welcome back to the surreal life, where having to spend $2 in gas to get to Starbucks is a national crisis.

  63. I've never been in a war... by Biomechanical · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or any sort of combat situation. The closest I've come is when an arsehole tried to mug me - broke my nose but didn't get anything so I wasn't even a little bit stressed by it.

    Now, don't automatically dismiss my next thoughts because of that though. I'd like to try and say a few things and hopefully get my point across clearly.

    Firstly, War is Hell. There is no doubt about that. To take a man - and I say that as a general sexless term - and put them in a situation where they could, at any moment, suddenly be dead, can not be good for their nerves in the first place.

    Imagine being on a camping trip with your buddies. You've had a few beers, caught a couple of fish, and are generally relaxing around the camp fire while waving off the odd mosquito and keeping warm in your goretex (or whatever) jacket.

    "The mosquitos seem a bit heavy tonight." says one of your friends as you hear a particularly loud whining noise, and then his face is half-gone and he's dead.

    There's no thoughts that come of something like that. It's just "flight or fight" time. You can run, or you can kiss the dirt and crawl into your tent.

    Your goretex jacket is suddenly army greens. The mosquitos crack through the air. People are shouting directions, orders, for medical help, and just generally screaming in pain. Your fishing pole has become a large calibre, semi-automatic weapon, hard to tell if it's loaded or even what the exact calibre is in the bad light from the fire and with dirt on your hands. The tent is a fox hole or low trench with a shitty green tarp overhead.

    It's hard to think, to see clearly. You're scared - scared of dying, scared of living in pain, scared of ending up alone, scared of getting captured. There's the smell of mud, burning wood, maybe blood. At any moment a grenade might drop in and remove a limb if it doesn't kill you right away.

    And this, why you're out here, is because some guy in another country had decided that his piece of land wasn't big enough, or because he had to show "johnny foreigner" who's the boss.

    You're probably not even in your own country, defending it against invaders.

    "What the fuck am I doing here? What's going on up top? Why did I ever join? Will I ever see my wife again? Was that Hank that just screamed? Oh God I don't want to be here!"

    I don't know if this is a quote or a paraphrase from someone else but someone'll probably say it one day - "Those who would make war, would not if they had to fight it."

    I don't agree with war in general. I think it lost most of it's honour and principles of necessity when kings stopped going into battle with their soldiers. At the same time though I do feel sympathy for those who've been through war. I can only imagine in a small and pathetic way, like above, what it's like to be in the middle of a battle.

    If this new approach, using VR to confront and wear away the affects of Shell Shock, can work, I hope it get used and helps all those that fought in wars and came out broken. I hope they can rebuild their minds and put them to use in a new, and productive endeavour, remembering without terror what they once went through so they can hopefully dissuade the next generation from joining up the "defense" forces.

    There shouldn't be war any more. Our final act in the military should be to disband it as a fighting unit, gather up all the veterans with shell shock, and try to heal them.

    International commerce and the almighty dollar is the new weapon in our information age. Maybe when this time is over and we're scrabbling for the bits after a societal collapse we'll need to fight again, but now, there is no need for it.

    If a man is terrorising a society, take out that man. If a dictator is harming his people and they've cried out for help, take out that dictator. We have the technology today, when used correctly, to end wars before they even start.

    Idealistic and naive, maybe, but I'd like to at least dream that we won't all end up one day completely fucked because of some scared little egomaniac sitting in an irregularly shaped office barking orders into a phone. Maybe if they had to fight, we wouldn't.

    --
    His name is Robert Paulsen...
  64. Am I the only one... by HelpfulPete · · Score: 1

    ...who is about to rush out and buy this game that's supposed to be so intense as to trigger PTSD?

    And here's a bizarre comparison; I was home in Brooklyn on 9-11, with a view of the towers out my bedroom window. I was into flight sim at the time and I flew jumbo jets around Manhattan just to see the towers still standing. Somehow, it made me feel a little better at a time when I (like most NYers) was more or less bonkers with PTSD.

    --
    "Society is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you get a lot of scum on top. " - Edward Abbey
  65. Why many from the sixties despise psychiatrists by whitroth · · Score: 1

    So tell, me, doc, they put these folks in a kill-or-be-killed situation, with guerillas hiding in the midst of a large number of civilians, and they fired madly, and killed women and children. They're human beings.

    And, of course, Bush won't even meet with one guy's mother, and Nixon got pardoned - the folks who put them there.

    How do you "make it okay" for them to live with literal unjustified manslaughter and murder, and to think of their dead every day of their lives? Brainwash 'em, make 'em think it's all a dream? Kill their feellings, so that they'll never have a decent human relationship? Toss 'em out, and let them join the homeless?

    Video goddamned games. That's what the administration thinks of human life, and you, Mr. Pshrink, want to "make it ok".

    At least Dr. Spock spoke out against 'Nam, after his book helped raise so many kids.

            mark, antiwar then, and antiwar now

    1. Re:Why many from the sixties despise psychiatrists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush already met with Cindy Sheehan. Twice!

  66. corto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no one did relate that story to the corto/armitage character from Neuromancer ?

    what a disapointment...

  67. Re:why? by patternjuggler · · Score: 1

    The killing, the maiming, the friends dying or losing limbs. See a man holding his intestines in his hands, thoughtlessly trying to put them back in, or another cradling his just blown off leg..

    Cause when you reach over and put your hand into a pile of goo that was your
    best friend's face, you'll know what to do. Forget it, Marge, it's Chinatown.

  68. Re:But are they playing Beethoven in the backgroun by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

    Heh. Ludwig Van, of course.

    But seriously, assuming it's therapy (and voluntary), I think this is a really exciting development - akin to using the holodeck for therapeutic purposes in Star Trek (I forget which episodes).

    --
    Everything in moderation, including moderation itself