Slashdot Mirror
Computer Characters Tortured for Science
Rob Carr writes "Considered unethical to ever perform again with humans, researcher Mel Slater recreated the Milgram experiment in a immersive virtual environment. Subjects (some of whom could see and hear the computerized woman, others who were only able to read text messages from her) were told that they were interacting with a computer character and told to give increasingly powerful electric shocks when wrong answers were given or the 'woman' took too long to respond. The computer program would correspondingly complain and beg as the 'shocks' were ramped up, falling apparently unconscious before the last shock. The skin conductance and electrocardiograms of the subjects were monitored. Even though the subjects knew they were only 'shocking' a computer program, their bodies reacted with increased stress responses. Several of the ones who could see and hear the woman stopped before reaching the 'lethal' voltage, and about half considered stopping the study. The full results of the experimental report can be read online at PLoS One. Already, some (like William Dutton of the Oxford Internet Institute) are asking whether even this sanitized experiment is ethical."
Take two groups: One has first gone through this "virtual torturing", the other is the control group. After this, each group will actually torture a volunteer in the same manner. Would the first group have less of an emotional response than the control group? I am sure there are many wrinkles to work out in the methodology, but this would be interesting to see the result of media on human response. It should pretty effectively answer who is right (or how right each side is) in this debate.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
First off, make it a male character, not a female character.
Then ask them if they'd torture a criminal.
After the torture (for those who do volunteer) tell them that there was a mistake and that the guy was innocent. But their assistance is needed with the real criminal.
In order for the study to have been tightly-controlled and more importantly, valid, they would have had to control for that. They may have asked if the participants knew who Milgram was, but they would probably have not asked to if they had heard of the experiment, as it would have introduced a slight bias. Mind you, Milgram's experiment was ground-breaking in that it showed that even ordinary people can perform actions contrary to societal norms, which was the thesis based on the "I was only following orders" cant of concentration camp operators during WWII. It is of course not an excuse, but merely an artifact of societal control -- which gets expressed most strongly in a totalitarian regime.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Something I've yet to see discussed is how this will impact perception of 'photoshopped' pornography. Right now it is illegal to possess any form of 'child' pornography (rightfully so) - and there have been some defense attempts to show that the images aren't real- they're photoshopped. But if they affect the brain in the same manner... well, I'm certainly not qualified to judge the ramifications. Perhaps steeper sentences will come about- who knows... ?
And then there's the more obvious- kill or be killed- games that exist. Not to dip into the Matrix "Your mind makes it real" mentality that you see written into laws now adays targeting violent games but there may be some form of truth to that axiom. To some individuals that can not or will not socialize this may provide the tipping point that triggers their anti-social behaviour.
Interesting research. It'll be more interesting to see how the ethic committees respond.
And instead of becoming accustomed to the virtual person and ceasing to empathise, many volunteers became more anxious as the study continued. Measures of stress, such as heart rate and sweatiness of palms, increased. These measures are nearly impossible to fake, and confirmed for Slater that the volunteers were actually feeling uncomfortable, rather than performing as they thought the experimenter would expect.
I've got to wonder what the participants' exposure to video games or other "virtual environments" would have on their responses. To a gamer, I'm not sure rapid heart rate, and sweaty palms indicate increased anxiety. They might have just been "getting into the game."
I remember when Half-Life first came out my friend and I spent a lot of time running around beating the innocent bystanders with our crowbars and watching them beg for forgiveness. We weren't doing it because we were sadists, just curious gamers. We'd never seen NPC's react in such a realistic way before, and thought it was "cool". My girlfriend came into the room while we were doing this and was horrified, got really upset and asked us to stop. Not being as avid a gamer, I don't think she was used to dissociating her emotions from video game characters.
I don't think video game violence numbs players to real world violence, but it sure numbs them to video game violence. Seems to me like prior experience would play a major role in your reaction to this experiment.
If the Milgram experiment was unethical how is this one different? They replaced the person who was being fake tortured. The ill effects could still be caused to the person who finds out they are willing to harm someone. The person being replaced was in on it in the first place. Am I missing something? If I'm not I struggle to see how Milgram was unethical.
I agree.
This made me think of a personal antecdote. I don't know how many people played any games from the dungeon keeper series, but I used to play the first one a lot. One of the hallmarks of the game is that you're an evil character. However, as much as the ability to play a different persona appeals to me, every time I set out to play an evil character in any game I end up feeling remorse for killing innocents, even though they aren't real.
Anyway, in dungeon keeper (Real time strategy) you start out with a group of loyal imps. They are weak, small and do all of the mining and grunt work in your dungeon. They are unique in the game in that they can be created, and will always serve you no matter how poorly you treat them. The game allows you to slap creatures to make them work harder. There is little downside in doing this with imps since they won't flee the dungeon in anger and since they are poor fighters their health level isn't really important. Logically, all imps should be regularly slapped for maximum dungeon efficancy. And in fact, the computer controlled rival keepers do just that.
But I couldn't really do it as a matter of course. I actually felt bad, knowing full well that they weren't real. They made noises like they were in pain but of course thats just the computer. It was only when I was in a dire spot (doing a fast gem seam grab at the start of the map and then fortifying the walls to hold off an attack) that I would slap them, and even then I felt kind of bad.
So I can sort of understand how the results are similar to the original experiment. Its evoking an emotional response, and playing it again logic.
When people respond to a computer character the same way they would a person or a living thing, it's a sign that people relate a bit too closely to the virtual world.
I hear people talking about TV and movie characters (i.e. actors pretending to be people who don't exist in the first place) as if they are real. People pay real money for virtual goods. However, I've also heard soldiers (particular pilots) compare real combat to video games. It seems like the line between virtual reality and actual reality is pretty dim for some.
But given the amount of time people spend on TV, in front of computers, or playing video games, this is hardly surprising.
Happens in Real Life already.. no beer required, just a phone and a husky voice.
Fast food workers torture co-worker
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
If their worldview is broken enough that they will kill somebody for no good reason, then damaging that worldview is a good thing. I'd argue it's unethical *not* to perform the Milgram experiment on as many people as possible (before they know what it is).
Mirror neurons are neurons that fire in response to what we see someone else experience. The other person picks up a pot, part of our brain that would be needed to pick up the pot fires as well. Pick up a hot pot without protection, and the person screams -- and part of your brain feels the burn. We're hard-wired for sympathy. The computer program is triggering mirror neurons in the human observer. I'd bet the researchers that wrote the computer program would have exhibited some signs of distress at the computer NPC being tortured -- even though they, better than anyone, would know that no human was involved.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
The article mentions that such and such of those who stopped early claimed to be familiar with the prior work.
It's perfectly possible that they asked questions like that after the experiment. That way they get their data and it doesn't put any ideas in the subjects' heads.
Maybe it is a genetic link. Scientist have tried to explain behavior with genetics, this could be an example. Australia is descended from criminals who would have questioned authority (thus their low numbers). Where as the descendents in Germany would be from the survivors, those who followed orders and weren't killed. Hypotetically if you put up a totalitarian gov't in Australia and killed of those who questioned your authority the next generation might follow orders better, being descended from those who originally followed orders.
I don't preview or spellcheck.