Why This Matters

[V-Mink]

Granted, it's a fluff piece on a single experiment done at Stanford... but this is the sort of thing -- hints, suggestions, small-scale controlled experiments -- that sparks bigger and more rigorous experiments of SCIENCE.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/january/virtual-reality-altruism-013013.html


(And not merely the bunsen burner of science that heats the crucible of insanity to create the noxious fumes of madness, thus resulting in MAD SCIENCE!  LAUGH WITH ME!)

[HarvesterOfEyes]

The study showed a difference in subsequent behavior between the people who chose to take the role of the hero and those who chose to take the role of the spectator.

A fine example of how study results tend to be either obvious or false.

...and taxpayers were forced to pay for that.

[Twisted Toon]

"We want to have a more precise understanding of why this occurs," he said. "What's more important for encouraging altruistic behavior: being able to fly, or being active in choosing to help?"

My personal opinion for this is being active in choosing to help.

Whether I can fly or not, I will pick something up for someone if they drop it. whether it's a pen, a $20, or a scrap of paper.
I also hold doors open for people that are within a few seconds of entering or exiting the doorway I just used.
Sometimes, depending on the pedestrian traffic, that could mean that I'm holding the door for a few minutes.

Now, I think the reason that some people choose to fly is probably because it lets them identify with superheroes that their behavior would already point to them being if they really had super powers.

[Ironwolf]

Positive reinforcement vs apathy.

If you allow people to show that they can use all of their good nature without fear of being ridiculed, humilated or taken advantage of - people can astound you and themselves.

[V-Mink]

What I'd be interested in, is some kind of quantification of the peoples' personalities beforehand, versus after.  And like most things, there are many, many variables at work (which is why experiments like this use as broad a subject population as possible.)  I'd also like better understanding of the hypothesis they were going into the experiment with.  Like I said, it's a fluff piece; it unfortunately doesn't go into more detail.

[Sajaana]

Yet another reason why games like CoH don't have a very good future, if the MMORPG industry has anything to say about it.  Why?

Because they don't want to encourage "heroic" behavior among their players.  They want to encourage selfish behavior, competitive behavior, and nasty behavior.  They want to keep their players in a state of deprivation and panic, so they'll be more inclined to buy things out of the cash store to alleviate themselves of those feelings.

They don't want "heroes" who fight against iniquity and injustice.  They want people to fully embrace a system where justice and equity is for sale.

[TonyV]

The study showed a difference in subsequent behavior between the people who chose to take the role of the hero and those who chose to take the role of the spectator.

A fine example of how study results tend to be either obvious or false.

...and taxpayers were forced to pay for that.

Okay, I don't know if this is a unicorn post or what, but:

1) The subjects didn't choose their role.  The study was about the effect of media on people's altruism.  Allowing them to choose their role would render it pointless.

2) There's nothing obvious about the role of media on your altruism.  And such a study could eventually help people become better people.

3) Nowhere does it say that this study was paid for using government money.  It was conducted by Stanford University.  The source of the funding could have been a private grant, tuition and fees, or whatever.  No matter where the funding came from, it probably wasn't a very expensive study.  I suspect they already had the VR and sound equipment in their media department, and other than that, you only need some volunteers and some paper to write down the results.  And even if there were some government funding involved, it was used to pay for helping to educate students and add to the body of human knowledge--that is, it was used precisely for what universities are supposed to use funding for.  So what's the problem?  Are you under some misguided impression that you, representing the "taxpayers", have personal ultimate authority over deciding what research is and isn't worthwhile, with veto power over the university's leadership who does this sort of stuff for a living?