this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
528 points (95.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

9985 readers
2253 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mirshafie@europe.pub 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Talking about neurology doesn't automatically validate their method though. I'm not an expert in this field but my impression is that the researchers make a lot of assumptions that I'd describe as shortcuts; gloss over the differences that they found between the experimental and control groups; and then reach a lot with their conclusion.

One thing that stands out to me is the identification of feelings of disgust and anger to support that the VR setting can be used to elicit social change. This implies that the participants would not have felt disgust or anger had their avatar been male; or if it was a normal videogame; or if this wasn't a game at all but a film instead; or if this wasn't audiovisual but a book instead...

I don't think they did anything to substantiate that line of thinking, and I'm not convinced by the various psychological scales that they used to support the connection they made. As far as I'm concerned these same men could have responded with disgust just by hearing a retelling of a similar event by a random stranger. The study at least does nothing to lead me to assume otherwise.

The disgust, fear and anger responses are at the core of the argument to support their central thesis that "first-person virtual embodiment of a female target of catcalling is a useful method for eliciting morally salient negative emotions in male participants". But my understanding of their methodology leaves me unimpressed and unconvinced.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 1 points 43 minutes ago* (last edited 24 minutes ago)

Why don't you trust their metrics? If you don't think the tests were accurate measurements, what would work better?

They used neurolinguistics and neural pathway mapping, there's a whole section on it.

Testing one thing by no means implies any other method wouldn't have proven the same thing. That's... that's not how studies work. They're testing the efficacy of their methods.

That's the hypothesis, not a thesis.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

One thing that stands out to me is the identification of feelings of disgust and anger to support that the VR setting can be used to elicit social change. This implies that the participants would not have felt disgust or anger had their avatar been male; or if it was a normal videogame; or if this wasn’t a game at all but a film instead; or if this wasn’t audiovisual but a book instead…

Genuinely, I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion from reading the paper, it's very much not what the authors say. It never makes the claim that they wouldn't have also felt that disgust and anger in an altered situation (male avatar etc.), only that there was a difference between the control group and the catcalled group, and that the difference was observable using their novel (and really cool) VR+AI methodology. That's quite explicitly their entire thesis. They don't investigate other scenarios, presumably because it was outside the scope of the research.

The conclusion from the paper:

Our study demonstrates that first-person virtual embodiment of a female target of catcalling is a useful method for eliciting morally salient negative emotions in male participants. Our findings indicate that this simulated experience goes beyond mere observation, inducing significant increases in disgust and anger – emotions intrinsically linked to moral evaluation and behavioral change. The study not only validates virtual reality as a tool for perspective-taking, but also introduces a novel computational approach to quantify the nuanced, implicit dimensions of this experience.

Our findings contribute to cognitive and methodological advancements as much as for promoting social safety. Employing virtual embodiment to enhance emotional sensitivity in men holds promise for both clinical and educational applications. In clinical settings, it may serve as an intervention to increase emotional awareness and empathy among individuals who have engaged in harassment, with the aim of modifying their behavior. In educational contexts, VR can be employed to simulate ecological environments that vividly illustrate the negative impact of street harassment, such as catcalling, by enabling participants to directly experience the emotional distress caused by such situations. Unlike real-world harassment, Virtual Reality simulation can be immediately terminated if distress becomes excessive, and it is able to offer embodiment experiences impossible through traditional methods.

They don't say this can be used to fix catcalling or improve society on it's own, just that the results seem to indicate there is a basis to believe that VR can elicit varying emotional responses between different scenarios and that we can measure the differences in reaction.

[–] mirshafie@europe.pub -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Here's how I came to that conclusion.

We hypothesize that this embodied experience will elicit morally salient emotions like disgust and anger. By inducing this moral discomfort, the intervention aims to foster self-awareness and encourage a reconsideration of the behavior's impact, serving as a potential strategy to promote behavioral change.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] mirshafie@europe.pub -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Ok lol not sure where this is going, but we're done.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

It speaks to a truly fundemental lack of understanding of the scientific method, given you're criticizing them for their hypothesis and presenting it like it's their conclusion. That's just not how science works.

[–] mirshafie@europe.pub 1 points 34 minutes ago

This is you:

Genuinely, I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion from reading the paper, [...]

So you're talking about my reading on the paper, not the paper's conclusion.

You continued to to make this claim:

They don’t say this can be used to fix catcalling or improve society on it’s own

Which is exactly what they in fact said in their hypothesis.

Oh and your disrespectful tone doesn't do you any favors. Lack of understanding of the scientific method my balls, try learning how language works.