The roles that I discussed in the last post can be thought of as roles defined in a bottom up fashion. That is, you do something which indicates a role preference and then get suggestions for other things that maybe be suitable to someone who enjoys that role. But, bottom up role definition has some problems.
Let's say that you are a creative, artistic, imaginative person who has for some reason been steered away from being who you are naturally. Let's say further that you have adopted a serious person complete with a set of interests that are appropriate for that serious persona but not really suitable to who you are. If your serious person reads only nonfiction then it is likely that bottom up approach will only reinforce this mismatch. You order dull books on history and the algorithms suggest more history books. How do you break this cycle?
I think one answer may be virtual world role play. I run into endless people in Second Life who are there because they can behave in ways that feel much more natural and yet would not be acceptable for some reason in real life.
Several months back, I wrote a few posts on a concept called StrengthsFinders which was developed by the Gallup Corporation. The premise of StrengthsFinders is that there are certain things that you are hard wired to do and doing those things are virtually effortless for you. I think this idea can be extended beyond business strengths to roles in general. There are things you can do that are virtually effortless and feel natural. If you do those things life is easier and more satisfying. However, for any number of reasons people often get steered away from roles that are natural for them and into roles that are not natural. Role playing in a virtual world allows you to explore different roles and possibly find roles that are more satisfying for you.
Showing posts with label Second Life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Life. Show all posts
Monday, July 26, 2010
Monday, September 14, 2009
World Building Video Games
World Building Video Games are not technically games although the lines are quite blurry in some cases. Spore, for example, is a world building environment in that you create your own creatures. But it is a game in that you try to have those creatures defeat other creatures and take over the universe. Second Life, on the other hand, is a world building environment which is not a game at all. You can create games in Second Life because it is a world building environment. But the platform itself is not a game. This is a source of endless confusion and frustration to those new to Second Life who come asking "how does this game work?" and "what do you do here?"
Second Life can be viewed as many things, but, in order to understand it, it is best to think of it as a platform for creating three dimensional worlds. These three dimensional worlds can serve any number of purposes. They can be for entertainment, social interaction, education, public relations, information dissemination and so on. My interest in Second Life lies in their potential for business applications.
What does the ability to create three dimensional worlds have to do with business applications? The answer is simple. Three dimensional worlds are likely to be the next major change in computer interfaces. If you are old enough, you may remember that we used to interact with computers through what was called a command line interface. In fact, in the late 1980's and early 1990's as graphical user interfaces began to gain some traction, there was considerable debate over which interface (command line or graphical user interface) was superior. Of course, graphical user interfaces won and today we look back on the command line interface as primative and barbaric.
Each year that passes adds more people to that generational pool who grew up playing video games and interacted with the computers through three dimensional virtual world interfaces. They look at the two dimensional point and click interface that we are all so used to and wonder how anyone can interact with a computer through an interface that is so primative and barbaric. And when it comes to change, there is nothing more powerful than a new generation.
Second Life can be viewed as many things, but, in order to understand it, it is best to think of it as a platform for creating three dimensional worlds. These three dimensional worlds can serve any number of purposes. They can be for entertainment, social interaction, education, public relations, information dissemination and so on. My interest in Second Life lies in their potential for business applications.
What does the ability to create three dimensional worlds have to do with business applications? The answer is simple. Three dimensional worlds are likely to be the next major change in computer interfaces. If you are old enough, you may remember that we used to interact with computers through what was called a command line interface. In fact, in the late 1980's and early 1990's as graphical user interfaces began to gain some traction, there was considerable debate over which interface (command line or graphical user interface) was superior. Of course, graphical user interfaces won and today we look back on the command line interface as primative and barbaric.
Each year that passes adds more people to that generational pool who grew up playing video games and interacted with the computers through three dimensional virtual world interfaces. They look at the two dimensional point and click interface that we are all so used to and wonder how anyone can interact with a computer through an interface that is so primative and barbaric. And when it comes to change, there is nothing more powerful than a new generation.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Video Game Genres
I should point out that when we use the term 'video game' we are refering to a fairly large collection of software programs that run on a variety of different platforms and provide the user/player with a variety of very different experiences. I should also point out that there is a Wikipedia article on Video Game Genres which does not at all agree with what I am about to say. Nonetheless, I would offer the following categories of video games:
1) Games of Skill: These are simple video games such as card games that provide the user with a challenging diversion.
2) Leveled Games of Skill: There are slightly more complicated video games that not only require skill but allow the player to level up showing progress in the game. Some of the classic video games such as Mario, Link, Pac Man and Tetris are of this variety.
3) Sports Games: Sport video games allow the player to engage in a sport such as football, hockey or baseball without leaving the couch. Perhaps the most famous game of this type is John Madden's Football.
4) Memorabilia Games: We often see blockbuster movies or TV shows add to their revenue by producing t-shirts, lunch pails or action figures. Some times they also produce video games. Examples include Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Most people who play these games are extending their movie going experience.
5) First Person Shooter - In this game the player uses a weapon to fight off the bad guys and the point of view is the shooter's. Much has been written about the violence in these games. Examples inlcude Grand Theft Auto and Fallout.
6) Massively Multi-Player Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) - In other video games, you play against the game and the other characters in the game are controled by the game. In an MMORPG you play against other people. World of Warcraft and nearly all of the early virtual world video games such a Everquest and Ultima Online fall into this category.
7) World Building - This is an interesting niche within virtual world games. In these games, people create their own virtual worlds and then interact with others in those virtual worlds. Second Life is the best example in this genre. But an early and better known example would be Sims Online and its follow-on game called Spore.
8) Serious Games - This is a specialized niche in which video game technology is used for serious ends such as education. A subset of serious games, called persuasive games, uses video game technology to influence behavior.
Although I am interested in games in general (see my blog PerspectivesOnVideoGames for some foundation work), I am primarily interested in MMORPGs. MMORPGs have the added dimensions of a social and economic environment which make them a much more complex and hence interesting phenomenon for study. I am also interested in World Building games such as Second Life because of their potential for business applications.
1) Games of Skill: These are simple video games such as card games that provide the user with a challenging diversion.
2) Leveled Games of Skill: There are slightly more complicated video games that not only require skill but allow the player to level up showing progress in the game. Some of the classic video games such as Mario, Link, Pac Man and Tetris are of this variety.
3) Sports Games: Sport video games allow the player to engage in a sport such as football, hockey or baseball without leaving the couch. Perhaps the most famous game of this type is John Madden's Football.
4) Memorabilia Games: We often see blockbuster movies or TV shows add to their revenue by producing t-shirts, lunch pails or action figures. Some times they also produce video games. Examples include Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Most people who play these games are extending their movie going experience.
5) First Person Shooter - In this game the player uses a weapon to fight off the bad guys and the point of view is the shooter's. Much has been written about the violence in these games. Examples inlcude Grand Theft Auto and Fallout.
6) Massively Multi-Player Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) - In other video games, you play against the game and the other characters in the game are controled by the game. In an MMORPG you play against other people. World of Warcraft and nearly all of the early virtual world video games such a Everquest and Ultima Online fall into this category.
7) World Building - This is an interesting niche within virtual world games. In these games, people create their own virtual worlds and then interact with others in those virtual worlds. Second Life is the best example in this genre. But an early and better known example would be Sims Online and its follow-on game called Spore.
8) Serious Games - This is a specialized niche in which video game technology is used for serious ends such as education. A subset of serious games, called persuasive games, uses video game technology to influence behavior.
Although I am interested in games in general (see my blog PerspectivesOnVideoGames for some foundation work), I am primarily interested in MMORPGs. MMORPGs have the added dimensions of a social and economic environment which make them a much more complex and hence interesting phenomenon for study. I am also interested in World Building games such as Second Life because of their potential for business applications.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Will Experience Based Ethics Work in a Virtual World?
I don't think there really is such a thing as experience based ethics. What I have done here is to lump together ethical theories that use past behavior and outcomes to determine appropriate ethical behaviors for the future. The most obvious example of this is consequentialist ethics where the ethical quality of an act is determined by the consequences of that act. However, I would also lump deontological ethics into this group as well. Deontological ethics suggest that we have a basic duty as human beings to behave in certain ways. For example, you should always use of people as an end but not a means. This is certainly an important tenat for preserving human dignity. However, I would say, perhpas with a dash of cynicism that this duty is derived from the fact that it has worked well in the past and thus should work well in the future. So, as I said, I lump it together with experience based ethics. And, I do not beleive that experience based ethics can serve as a moral basis for virtual worlds. Why not?
Marshall McLuhan is attributed with the quote that "looking to the past to understand the future is like driving by looking in the rear view mirror". There seems to be contention over whether he said it or not and I'm not even sure if I got the quote exactly right. But the sentiment is clear. We cannot look to the past to understand the future. And if that is the case then experience based ethics are of limited value. So, let us consider the cases when the past is a good guide and when it is not a good guide.
Using the driving analogy, one can see that as long as you don't drive too fast and the road ahead is as straight as the road behind, then one might get away with driving while looking in the rear view mirror. However, if the car picks up speed or if the road is windy then driving by looking in the rear view mirror will not work. Applying this to the future, when the future is coming at us rapidly and when the future is much different from the past, then looking to the past to understand the future will not work. This is the case, I would argue, with virtual worlds. The technological change is coming at us fast and the future will be very different from the past. So looking to the past, which is what experience based ethics does, will not work. Hence, expereince based ethics will not work in a virtual world. Having ruled out both experience based ethics and character based ethics, is there any thing that will work in a virtual world. I think there is. And you will have to stay tuned for the answer.
Marshall McLuhan is attributed with the quote that "looking to the past to understand the future is like driving by looking in the rear view mirror". There seems to be contention over whether he said it or not and I'm not even sure if I got the quote exactly right. But the sentiment is clear. We cannot look to the past to understand the future. And if that is the case then experience based ethics are of limited value. So, let us consider the cases when the past is a good guide and when it is not a good guide.
Using the driving analogy, one can see that as long as you don't drive too fast and the road ahead is as straight as the road behind, then one might get away with driving while looking in the rear view mirror. However, if the car picks up speed or if the road is windy then driving by looking in the rear view mirror will not work. Applying this to the future, when the future is coming at us rapidly and when the future is much different from the past, then looking to the past to understand the future will not work. This is the case, I would argue, with virtual worlds. The technological change is coming at us fast and the future will be very different from the past. So looking to the past, which is what experience based ethics does, will not work. Hence, expereince based ethics will not work in a virtual world. Having ruled out both experience based ethics and character based ethics, is there any thing that will work in a virtual world. I think there is. And you will have to stay tuned for the answer.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Will Virtue Ethics Work in a Virtual World?
Virtue ethics is a character based ethical theory that claims, simply, that morally developed people cannot do immoral things. At first this sounds a little odd because it seems to give license to immoral behavior. But, if you think of it as good people trying their best to do the right thing it makes a little more sense. After all, what other standard do we have for developing morals. I am a big fan of virtue ethics because it requires moral development rather than rule following; and it helps us figure out what to do in cases where the rules aren't clear or don't exist. We just have good people trying their best to figure out the right thing. In the ethics of technology this is particularly appropriate since technology seems to create new problems for which we don't have rules. In fact, many years ago I presented a paper at a conference suggesting virtue ethics as a basis for computer ethics. Having said that, I am not sure that virtue ethics would be an appropriate basis for ethical decision making in a virtual world. Why is that?
Virtue ethics was developed in Ancient Greece where people were born into a community and indoctrinated into the values of the community. Moral development was achieved by the citizens of the community with respect to those values. When the educational process was successful (I am certain it was not always) then citizens internalized community values. If community values changed or if new situations arose they would be discussed and debated by citizens in an attempt to develop or adjust values as needed. The key elements for this to work is that you need to have a fairly homogeneous community with a relatively stable set of values and an educational process by which new members are developed morally consistent with that set of stable values. None of these elements hold for virtual worlds.
Virtual worlds are a global phenomenon. Residents from all of the world, from a wide variety of moral and religious perspectives and traditions interact. Trying to abstract a homogeneous set of values for the residents of virtual worlds would be like trying to establish a global code of ethics.
Even if it were possible to do this, you would still have the problem of moral development. When people come to the virtual world they already have their values in place. You do not get them young enough in a virtual world nor do you have enough control over them to attempt to develop them morally consistent with those values. Finally, since virtual worlds are a new phenomenon, the ethics of virtual worlds are still evolving. We don't really know what constitutes good behavior in virtual worlds. So, we do not have a stable set of values to use for moral development.
The point here is that while virtue ethics has a lot to be said for it, and although it may have worked well in Ancient Greece, it is probably not the best moral basis for virtual worlds. Perhaps some day. But not now.
Virtue ethics was developed in Ancient Greece where people were born into a community and indoctrinated into the values of the community. Moral development was achieved by the citizens of the community with respect to those values. When the educational process was successful (I am certain it was not always) then citizens internalized community values. If community values changed or if new situations arose they would be discussed and debated by citizens in an attempt to develop or adjust values as needed. The key elements for this to work is that you need to have a fairly homogeneous community with a relatively stable set of values and an educational process by which new members are developed morally consistent with that set of stable values. None of these elements hold for virtual worlds.
Virtual worlds are a global phenomenon. Residents from all of the world, from a wide variety of moral and religious perspectives and traditions interact. Trying to abstract a homogeneous set of values for the residents of virtual worlds would be like trying to establish a global code of ethics.
Even if it were possible to do this, you would still have the problem of moral development. When people come to the virtual world they already have their values in place. You do not get them young enough in a virtual world nor do you have enough control over them to attempt to develop them morally consistent with those values. Finally, since virtual worlds are a new phenomenon, the ethics of virtual worlds are still evolving. We don't really know what constitutes good behavior in virtual worlds. So, we do not have a stable set of values to use for moral development.
The point here is that while virtue ethics has a lot to be said for it, and although it may have worked well in Ancient Greece, it is probably not the best moral basis for virtual worlds. Perhaps some day. But not now.
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Moral Basis for Ethical Decision Making in a Virtual World
So far, in our exploration of the ethics of virtual worlds, we have addressed avatar attachment, anonymity, and regulation. I don't mean to imply that this covers the full set of issues. I only mean to say that these are the largest issues that occur to me at the moment. The final one of these issues that I promised to address back when I started this threat was the moral basis of ethical decision making in a virtual world. That is to say, which theories of moral behavior provide the best guidance for ethical decisions?
At the risk of having professional ethicists gnashing their their teeth, I am going to dismiss descriptive theories such as ethical relativism and egoism. They claim to tell us how things are and are of limited value in determining how things should be. I am going to focus on prescriptive theories that tell us how things should be. I do this because virtual world technology is currently evolving and we can have great influence on how they evolve. Consequently, we should focus on how things should be.
Again, at the risk of offending the pros, I am going to group prescriptive ethical theories into two groups: character based and experience based. This is not too far from standard treatments and provides an economical scheme for the argument I wish to make here. Over the next few posts, I will argue that both character based moral theories and experience based moral theories have limitations that may inhibit their usefulness in providing a moral basis for ethical decision making in a virtual world. Then, I will wrap up this thread with a moral perspective that, I believe, overcomes these limitations. It will take, as Colridge said "a willing suspension of disbelief" as we journey into the morality of virtual worlds. But, come along with an open mind and I will try to make it worth your while.
At the risk of having professional ethicists gnashing their their teeth, I am going to dismiss descriptive theories such as ethical relativism and egoism. They claim to tell us how things are and are of limited value in determining how things should be. I am going to focus on prescriptive theories that tell us how things should be. I do this because virtual world technology is currently evolving and we can have great influence on how they evolve. Consequently, we should focus on how things should be.
Again, at the risk of offending the pros, I am going to group prescriptive ethical theories into two groups: character based and experience based. This is not too far from standard treatments and provides an economical scheme for the argument I wish to make here. Over the next few posts, I will argue that both character based moral theories and experience based moral theories have limitations that may inhibit their usefulness in providing a moral basis for ethical decision making in a virtual world. Then, I will wrap up this thread with a moral perspective that, I believe, overcomes these limitations. It will take, as Colridge said "a willing suspension of disbelief" as we journey into the morality of virtual worlds. But, come along with an open mind and I will try to make it worth your while.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Zoning? In a Virtual World?
The past two posts have sketched out the cases for and against regulation. On one hand we need regulation in virtual worlds to provide the orderly and predictable environments in which commerce and education can be pursued. On the other hand, regulation seriously inhibits the potential of virtual worlds as a medium of self expression and exploration. Can these two conflicting potentials of virtual worlds both be achieved? Or will one have to give way to the other?
I think they can both be achieved via virtual world segmentation or in more common terms zoning. Zoning can be achieved fairly easily. Each simulator or virtual location should have a set of attributes associated with it indicating its regulations. For example, it may require visitors to be over a certain age and may require user authentication. Another simulator may allow anonymity but require visitors to adhere to role playing rules. Anonymity may require some refinement. For example it is one thing to be anonymous to the land owner and another thing to be anonymous to the other visitors.
It may take some time to get a standard set of attributes that simulations will set, but careful zoning takes careful planning. Further, if the zoning attributes are selected carefully it will be possible to group simulators into parallel virtual worlds. These parallel worlds might emphasize commerce, education, tourism, art, socializing, self expression, or any other thematic attributes.
In addition, each avatar would have similar attributes. These may include age, anonymity, credit worthiness, and social or moral restrictions. Again, these attributes would have to be carefully thought out. And just like today where vendors target certain market segments, virtual world developers would target a specific segment of the visitor population.
This attribution would allow a wide range of opportunities for sef expression while preventing someone from inadvertently landing up in an undesirable neighborhood. At the same time it would allow land owners to restrict undesirable visitors. If this all sounds a little too confining, don't forget that you can always have multiple avatars, some well documented and some anonymous. So, it seems to me, that it solves the problem of reguation. Hey, maybe we should start doing this in RL as well.
I think they can both be achieved via virtual world segmentation or in more common terms zoning. Zoning can be achieved fairly easily. Each simulator or virtual location should have a set of attributes associated with it indicating its regulations. For example, it may require visitors to be over a certain age and may require user authentication. Another simulator may allow anonymity but require visitors to adhere to role playing rules. Anonymity may require some refinement. For example it is one thing to be anonymous to the land owner and another thing to be anonymous to the other visitors.
It may take some time to get a standard set of attributes that simulations will set, but careful zoning takes careful planning. Further, if the zoning attributes are selected carefully it will be possible to group simulators into parallel virtual worlds. These parallel worlds might emphasize commerce, education, tourism, art, socializing, self expression, or any other thematic attributes.
In addition, each avatar would have similar attributes. These may include age, anonymity, credit worthiness, and social or moral restrictions. Again, these attributes would have to be carefully thought out. And just like today where vendors target certain market segments, virtual world developers would target a specific segment of the visitor population.
This attribution would allow a wide range of opportunities for sef expression while preventing someone from inadvertently landing up in an undesirable neighborhood. At the same time it would allow land owners to restrict undesirable visitors. If this all sounds a little too confining, don't forget that you can always have multiple avatars, some well documented and some anonymous. So, it seems to me, that it solves the problem of reguation. Hey, maybe we should start doing this in RL as well.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
The Argument for Regulation
In this post and the next I plan to make the arguments for and against regulation of virtual worlds. The argument for regulation is the easiest and the least compelling so I will address it first. The argument for regulation of virtual worlds is basically the same as the argument for regulation in any sphere. People need a predictable environment in which to conduct their businesses and social affairs. Without some sort of regulatory structure short term gains by opportunists will lead to long term losses in the system as a whole. This is not to say that there is anything inherently wrong with short term opportunists. In fact, there is much to be said in favor of them. Them make the system more efficient. But the line between efficient and predatory is often very finely drawn. And a predatory environment cannot flourish over the long term.
To put this into more pragmatic terms, if I cannot trust an environment in which I am operating, I am unlikely to take risks in that environment. If the environment needs people to take risks in order for the environment to flourish, then the people must be able to trust the environment and the environment much meet the expectations of those risk takers.
To put this into even more concrete terms, if I do not trust a virtual world environment I will be unlikely to start a business, sell a product, offer a service, teach a class, hold a meeting, or any of the other activities that the virtual world needs me to do in order to reach its full potential. So, regulation is necessary if a virtual world is going to become a place of commerce, education or socializing.
In the early days of web technologies, people were reluctant to buy products that they could not touch and even more reluctant to give their credit card number to some unknown entity in cyberspace. Companies like Amazon.com offered excellent return policies and promised to protect their customers private information, such as credit card numbers. This was a form of self regulation and, in the case of the web, it was all the regulation that was necessary.
I don't think that this would be enough regulation for a virtual world. On a web site, you don't have people from some other web sites coming to where you are and harassing you. And if you find yourself on some undesirable website, you can merely close your browser. You don't have to worry about leaving your avatar there until you log in again. So, virtual worlds present difficulties that do not exist on web sites.
I would view a virtual world more like a shopping mall, maybe even a town. Even though the individuals in that mall or town may be behaving within the boundaries placed on them as individuals, a few more restrictions are probably necessary so that everyone can get along and prosper. So virtual worlds will require some level of regulation to thrive and the question is - how much? Too much regulation has its down sides as well. And we will get to that next.
To put this into more pragmatic terms, if I cannot trust an environment in which I am operating, I am unlikely to take risks in that environment. If the environment needs people to take risks in order for the environment to flourish, then the people must be able to trust the environment and the environment much meet the expectations of those risk takers.
To put this into even more concrete terms, if I do not trust a virtual world environment I will be unlikely to start a business, sell a product, offer a service, teach a class, hold a meeting, or any of the other activities that the virtual world needs me to do in order to reach its full potential. So, regulation is necessary if a virtual world is going to become a place of commerce, education or socializing.
In the early days of web technologies, people were reluctant to buy products that they could not touch and even more reluctant to give their credit card number to some unknown entity in cyberspace. Companies like Amazon.com offered excellent return policies and promised to protect their customers private information, such as credit card numbers. This was a form of self regulation and, in the case of the web, it was all the regulation that was necessary.
I don't think that this would be enough regulation for a virtual world. On a web site, you don't have people from some other web sites coming to where you are and harassing you. And if you find yourself on some undesirable website, you can merely close your browser. You don't have to worry about leaving your avatar there until you log in again. So, virtual worlds present difficulties that do not exist on web sites.
I would view a virtual world more like a shopping mall, maybe even a town. Even though the individuals in that mall or town may be behaving within the boundaries placed on them as individuals, a few more restrictions are probably necessary so that everyone can get along and prosper. So virtual worlds will require some level of regulation to thrive and the question is - how much? Too much regulation has its down sides as well. And we will get to that next.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Should Virtual Worlds Be Regulated?
Should virtual worlds be regulated? The simple answer is - yes, of course they should be. This is, as they say, a no brainer. Everything in civilized life is regulated. The important questions are how much and what kind of regulation are appropriate. And that is where it gets tricky. What we strive for in ethics is to find a balance between individual empowerment and social harmony. Virtual worlds provide amazing opportunities for individual empowerment and that should be encouraged. However, empowered individuals can be a major threat to social harmony and that needs to be curtailed.
One way to approach the idea of regulation in a virtual world is to ask which of these two desirable goals (individual empowerment and social harmony) is more fundamental. In the real world we usually take social harmony as more fundamental, allowing individuals to find ways to express their individuality as long as it does not seriously impact social harmony. So, should virtual worlds follow the same priority scheme and balance that we find in the real world? Perhaps, yes. Perhaps, no. And despite indications to the contrary, we are making progress.
If we see virtual worlds as an extension of the real world, then our priorities with regard to the real world should carry into virtual worlds. If we see virtual worlds as a thing apart from the real world then perhaps it may make sense to change the priorities. Let's consider two examples; one in which virtual worlds are an extension of the real world and one in which virtual worlds are a thing apart. Perhaps we can then extrapolate from those to cases and make some progress on this issue. And we will do that. But that will begin with the next entry.
One way to approach the idea of regulation in a virtual world is to ask which of these two desirable goals (individual empowerment and social harmony) is more fundamental. In the real world we usually take social harmony as more fundamental, allowing individuals to find ways to express their individuality as long as it does not seriously impact social harmony. So, should virtual worlds follow the same priority scheme and balance that we find in the real world? Perhaps, yes. Perhaps, no. And despite indications to the contrary, we are making progress.
If we see virtual worlds as an extension of the real world, then our priorities with regard to the real world should carry into virtual worlds. If we see virtual worlds as a thing apart from the real world then perhaps it may make sense to change the priorities. Let's consider two examples; one in which virtual worlds are an extension of the real world and one in which virtual worlds are a thing apart. Perhaps we can then extrapolate from those to cases and make some progress on this issue. And we will do that. But that will begin with the next entry.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Persona Attatchment
It is easy enough to say that people who experience life through their avatars really just need to get a real life. This kind of simplistic dismissive thinking is not unusual in complex ethical situations where people would rather avoid having to think about the complexity of the issue by dismissing it as silly. And, to be fair, there are probably a lot of people who experience life through their avatars who really do need to get a life. But, the extreme cases are easy and don't get us anywhere. At the other extreme, someone who does not have any kind of an alter ego, whatsoever, might be colorless and boring. We might say, about that person as well, that they really need to get a life. The hard part is that vast territory between the extremes. So, in order to make avatar attachment seem a little less bizarre, I am going to compare with another similar kind of attachment that we are all comfortable with. That is persona attachment.
Everybody has a persona. It is the version of yourself that you present to the world. You may even have different persona that you present in different situations. You may, for example, have one persona on dates while another persona at work. You may not think you have a persona, but when is the last time you got out of bed and went straight to work? When is the last time you farted, picked your nose, or belched loudly in front of other people? When is the last time you talked to a friend the same way you talk to your cat? Yes, like it not, you have a persona.
Your persona is not real. It is a construct you created through which you interact with the world.... not unlike an avatar. And if somebody injures your persona in some way, you probably take it very seriously. Some public figures have very highly developed persona. For example, celebrities and politicians often have a public presence that may be quite different from their private presence. You often see this dichotomy in behind the scenes stories that attempt to tell what a given person is really like. And if you damage someone's public persona they may be quite hurt or offended. In fact, you may even get sued.
We consider harm to the persona as seriously as we consider harm to the person. In fact, in many cases it is only the persona that is harmed and the person is not really harmed at all. In other cases causing harm to the persona causes harm to the person as well. So, we are comfortable with the idea of having a fantasy construct representing us in the world. And we are comfortable with the fact that, if you attack the construct, the person behind it may very well attack back.
My question is - how is this any different from an avatar? People say that an avatar is just pixels on a screen. And, as some level, that is true. However, pixels on a screen have a more real presence than the persona we present to the world. At lease you can point to or recognize an avatar. A persona has an entirely ethereal existence and yet we are comfortable being attached to a persona while we think avatar attachment is a little weird. Go figure. Maybe we are used to one so it doesn't seem bizarre, while we are not used to the other so it does.
Everybody has a persona. It is the version of yourself that you present to the world. You may even have different persona that you present in different situations. You may, for example, have one persona on dates while another persona at work. You may not think you have a persona, but when is the last time you got out of bed and went straight to work? When is the last time you farted, picked your nose, or belched loudly in front of other people? When is the last time you talked to a friend the same way you talk to your cat? Yes, like it not, you have a persona.
Your persona is not real. It is a construct you created through which you interact with the world.... not unlike an avatar. And if somebody injures your persona in some way, you probably take it very seriously. Some public figures have very highly developed persona. For example, celebrities and politicians often have a public presence that may be quite different from their private presence. You often see this dichotomy in behind the scenes stories that attempt to tell what a given person is really like. And if you damage someone's public persona they may be quite hurt or offended. In fact, you may even get sued.
We consider harm to the persona as seriously as we consider harm to the person. In fact, in many cases it is only the persona that is harmed and the person is not really harmed at all. In other cases causing harm to the persona causes harm to the person as well. So, we are comfortable with the idea of having a fantasy construct representing us in the world. And we are comfortable with the fact that, if you attack the construct, the person behind it may very well attack back.
My question is - how is this any different from an avatar? People say that an avatar is just pixels on a screen. And, as some level, that is true. However, pixels on a screen have a more real presence than the persona we present to the world. At lease you can point to or recognize an avatar. A persona has an entirely ethereal existence and yet we are comfortable being attached to a persona while we think avatar attachment is a little weird. Go figure. Maybe we are used to one so it doesn't seem bizarre, while we are not used to the other so it does.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Avatar Attachment
Yes, people actually do begin to experience life through their avatar. I think most people who have spent any amount of time in a virtual world would agree with this statement without question because it agrees with their own subjective experience. However, for people who have not spent an appreciable amount of time in a virtual world, its sounds bizarre. And yet, by examining a few analogous situations, it becomes much more plausible, if not entirely clear.
First consider compassion. Let's say that something bad happens to somebody you don't even know. You feel badly for this person. Nothing has happened to you. Your world has not changed. You don't even know the person to whom the tragedy occurred. And yet you still feel bad. You are experiencing woe by proxy. So, the idea of feeling 'for' or 'through' another person even when nothing actually happened to you is not an alien concept.
Next consider empathy. A close friend of your has a personal problem of some kind. They hate their boss or just broke up with a significant other. You feel, to some extent, what they feel even though nothing happened to you. You are, once again, feeling by proxy. Now lets say that this personal problem occurred to someone very close to you, say a relative or a child. The feelings can become quite intense. In fact, your empathic feelings may be more intense, in some cases, than if the thing had occurred to you. Just how intense can these feeling by proxy become? They can become quite intense as the next example will show.
I don't want to get too graphic here but a more shocking example is necessary to make a point. Let's say your cat runs out of the door while you are getting the morning paper. It runs into the street and it immediately obliterated by a passing car. You are in shock! The emotional impact on you is incredible. And yet, nothing actually happened to you. You mights say that you are feeling pain for the cat. But the fact is that it all happened so quickly that the poor cat probably did not feel anything. And yet your attachment to your pet causes you great emotional strife.
You may try to counter at this point by saying that a cat is a living being while your avatar is just pixels on the screen. This is true but it is only a temporary respite. Let's say that you just bought a new car. You saved up a long time and got exactly the car you want. It expresses your inner being like no other car could. And as you come out to get in your car one evening you notice that somebody left an ugly door bang on your driver's side door. You are in agony. Even though you can easily have it repaired and the car did not feel any damage, you feel as though you were scratched.
Because people attach to other people, pets, and even property we have endless ethical views on behaviors that affect others through these attachments. So, if people attach to their avatars shouldn't there be ethical positions on how avatars are treated? The answer is probably yes. But that doesn't get us very far. Should avatars be treated the same as the person behind the avatar? Or does the avatar provide a level of buffering that would reduce some of that obligation? Somehow answers to ethical questions just seem to lead to more questions.
First consider compassion. Let's say that something bad happens to somebody you don't even know. You feel badly for this person. Nothing has happened to you. Your world has not changed. You don't even know the person to whom the tragedy occurred. And yet you still feel bad. You are experiencing woe by proxy. So, the idea of feeling 'for' or 'through' another person even when nothing actually happened to you is not an alien concept.
Next consider empathy. A close friend of your has a personal problem of some kind. They hate their boss or just broke up with a significant other. You feel, to some extent, what they feel even though nothing happened to you. You are, once again, feeling by proxy. Now lets say that this personal problem occurred to someone very close to you, say a relative or a child. The feelings can become quite intense. In fact, your empathic feelings may be more intense, in some cases, than if the thing had occurred to you. Just how intense can these feeling by proxy become? They can become quite intense as the next example will show.
I don't want to get too graphic here but a more shocking example is necessary to make a point. Let's say your cat runs out of the door while you are getting the morning paper. It runs into the street and it immediately obliterated by a passing car. You are in shock! The emotional impact on you is incredible. And yet, nothing actually happened to you. You mights say that you are feeling pain for the cat. But the fact is that it all happened so quickly that the poor cat probably did not feel anything. And yet your attachment to your pet causes you great emotional strife.
You may try to counter at this point by saying that a cat is a living being while your avatar is just pixels on the screen. This is true but it is only a temporary respite. Let's say that you just bought a new car. You saved up a long time and got exactly the car you want. It expresses your inner being like no other car could. And as you come out to get in your car one evening you notice that somebody left an ugly door bang on your driver's side door. You are in agony. Even though you can easily have it repaired and the car did not feel any damage, you feel as though you were scratched.
Because people attach to other people, pets, and even property we have endless ethical views on behaviors that affect others through these attachments. So, if people attach to their avatars shouldn't there be ethical positions on how avatars are treated? The answer is probably yes. But that doesn't get us very far. Should avatars be treated the same as the person behind the avatar? Or does the avatar provide a level of buffering that would reduce some of that obligation? Somehow answers to ethical questions just seem to lead to more questions.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Your Avatar and You (Or Your Avatar Is You)
People come into the virtual world of Second Life by creating an account and selecting a default avatar. The avatar is a little person who represents the user 'in world' just as a nickname or screen name might represent you in a chat room. Initially, the avatar is selected from a set of default avatars, but people begin, quite early, to customize and personalize their avatars. There are a wide variety of ways to do this. There is an Appearance Editor which you can use to change the appearance of your avatar. This is done by changing the shape, skin, hair, eyes and so on. Eventually, most people buy shapes and skins created by professional artists using more sophisticated software than the Appearance Editor. People will choose new cloths, shoes, jewelry, tattoos, and hair styles to further customize their appearance. They will join groups indicating their interests, list favorite places, and write blurbs in their profile further defining their character.
Over time their avatar will begin to develop a personality and now we begin to move into a tricky area of psychology that is not very well understood by most people. Some people will make heroic efforts to have their avatars look and behave in a way that is consistent with who they are; or at least who they think they are. They will say that their avatar looks like them in real life and acts they way they do in real life. Both of these claims are highly questionable. But they are firmly held beliefs by a lot of people.
For other people, their avatar takes on a look and personality quite different from how they are in real life. The avatar may represent who they would like to be. Or it may be an experiment into another life style, personality, or social class. Creating an avatar is a little like 'dressing up'. You get to create a novel impression, on that diverges from the every day you.
And yet others will have a whole cadre of avatars. Each with a different appearance and personality. Having multiple avatars with different personalities is hard for many people to understand until you consider a simple analogy. When a writer write a piece of fiction, they create characters to carry out the story. Each of the characters has it's own look, behaviors and personality. If the story is long or intense, the writer may get to know these characters quite well and say things like "character x would never do that" or "I tried to evolve character y into a new role but just couldn't do it". This is exactly what happens when one creates multiple avatars. They take on a life of their own just as fictional characters tend to do. And the writer/creator's job becomes one of getting to know the character more than it is of defining the character.
As the avatar evolves an even more perplexing psychological phenomenon begins to occur. The person at the keyboard actually begins to experience life through the avatar. This complex and very poorly understood phenomenon is called 'avatar attachment'. It is way to big of a topic to begin in this entry. So, I will leave the description of this phenomenon for the next post.
Over time their avatar will begin to develop a personality and now we begin to move into a tricky area of psychology that is not very well understood by most people. Some people will make heroic efforts to have their avatars look and behave in a way that is consistent with who they are; or at least who they think they are. They will say that their avatar looks like them in real life and acts they way they do in real life. Both of these claims are highly questionable. But they are firmly held beliefs by a lot of people.
For other people, their avatar takes on a look and personality quite different from how they are in real life. The avatar may represent who they would like to be. Or it may be an experiment into another life style, personality, or social class. Creating an avatar is a little like 'dressing up'. You get to create a novel impression, on that diverges from the every day you.
And yet others will have a whole cadre of avatars. Each with a different appearance and personality. Having multiple avatars with different personalities is hard for many people to understand until you consider a simple analogy. When a writer write a piece of fiction, they create characters to carry out the story. Each of the characters has it's own look, behaviors and personality. If the story is long or intense, the writer may get to know these characters quite well and say things like "character x would never do that" or "I tried to evolve character y into a new role but just couldn't do it". This is exactly what happens when one creates multiple avatars. They take on a life of their own just as fictional characters tend to do. And the writer/creator's job becomes one of getting to know the character more than it is of defining the character.
As the avatar evolves an even more perplexing psychological phenomenon begins to occur. The person at the keyboard actually begins to experience life through the avatar. This complex and very poorly understood phenomenon is called 'avatar attachment'. It is way to big of a topic to begin in this entry. So, I will leave the description of this phenomenon for the next post.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
The Business Cost of Anonymity
Many people, including myself, have seen the potential of Second Life technology to be the next generation of the web, or the 3D web. At some point in the future we will look back at the two dimensional, point and click, web pages of today and wonder how we ever got buy with them, much as we would look at command line interfaces today and wonder how we ever managed to work with them. But, alas, this dream of the 3D web has been slow to materialize. Numerous vendors have come in to Second Life only to find disappointing results. In fact, there have been numerous news stories about vendors pulling out of Second Life due to disappointing results.
There are numerous reasons for this and I don't want to place too much of the blame on anonymity. But it is a factor both practically and symbolically. From a practical perspective, people who are doing business want to know who they are doing business with. Granted you can buy a product from a store without having to know much about the vendor or the product developer. However, if you wish to hire an application developer, an attorney or a councilor, it make a lot more difference. If you are going to try to get a degree at a virtual university or rent a conference center for an important meeting, you want to know who you are dealing with. And anonymity makes this difficult if not impossible. Dealing with anonymous vendors feels a lot like buying something from a guy on a street corner who has various products hidden in his raincoat. And as long as Second Life chooses to support anonymity, it will not achieve its potential as a 3D web.
However, a large issue is the symbolic implications of anonymity. Is Second Life a shady place where people get to live out there fantasies and do things they would be embarrassed for their friends to know about? Or is Second Life a well lit place where people go to conduct business? This is to say, is it the sleazy side of town where sneak to in order to indulge their secret longings or is it the local family mall?
I should say, in fairness, that I have no problem with people indulging their secret longings. I have no problem with personal expressiveness no matter how strange it may seem to others. I just think there is a time and a place for everything, and having an adult movie store next to a kids ice cream parlor would never fly in real life and doesn't work very well in Second Life either.
Next time we turn to the issue of avatar attachment. If people experience the world through their avatars, do we need to be concerned with how we treat avatars, or do they just need to get a real life?
There are numerous reasons for this and I don't want to place too much of the blame on anonymity. But it is a factor both practically and symbolically. From a practical perspective, people who are doing business want to know who they are doing business with. Granted you can buy a product from a store without having to know much about the vendor or the product developer. However, if you wish to hire an application developer, an attorney or a councilor, it make a lot more difference. If you are going to try to get a degree at a virtual university or rent a conference center for an important meeting, you want to know who you are dealing with. And anonymity makes this difficult if not impossible. Dealing with anonymous vendors feels a lot like buying something from a guy on a street corner who has various products hidden in his raincoat. And as long as Second Life chooses to support anonymity, it will not achieve its potential as a 3D web.
However, a large issue is the symbolic implications of anonymity. Is Second Life a shady place where people get to live out there fantasies and do things they would be embarrassed for their friends to know about? Or is Second Life a well lit place where people go to conduct business? This is to say, is it the sleazy side of town where sneak to in order to indulge their secret longings or is it the local family mall?
I should say, in fairness, that I have no problem with people indulging their secret longings. I have no problem with personal expressiveness no matter how strange it may seem to others. I just think there is a time and a place for everything, and having an adult movie store next to a kids ice cream parlor would never fly in real life and doesn't work very well in Second Life either.
Next time we turn to the issue of avatar attachment. If people experience the world through their avatars, do we need to be concerned with how we treat avatars, or do they just need to get a real life?
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The Down Side of Anonymity
If people are anonymous in Second Life, then how do you know who you are dealing with? How do you stop thirteen year old boys from coming on and harassing everyone at a Welcome Area? How do you stop sexual predators from seeking out vulnerable victims? How can you develop a friendship, perhaps even a romantic relationship with someone about whom you know nothing?
In the story of Cyrano de Bergerac a woman falls in love with a man through his letters without regard to his looks. It is a romantic reflection on what really matters in love. It is the character of the person not the person's looks.
Of course, Cyrano's flaw is that he has a big nose. But, what if his flaw was that he was a well spoken sexual predator or a serial killer? Would that matter? Of course it would. And while anonymity protects innocent people from recriminations regarding there personal expressions, it also protect maladjusted, sociopathic people from being discovered.
As hard as it is to believe, there are people who will engage in relationships solely for the purpose of upsetting the other person. It is hard to believe that somebody could be that badly bent. But anonymity protect the bent along with the normal. And often the normal suffer at the hands of the bent.
But, putting personal risks aside, there is a whole other cost to anonymity. And that is the business cost.
In the story of Cyrano de Bergerac a woman falls in love with a man through his letters without regard to his looks. It is a romantic reflection on what really matters in love. It is the character of the person not the person's looks.
Of course, Cyrano's flaw is that he has a big nose. But, what if his flaw was that he was a well spoken sexual predator or a serial killer? Would that matter? Of course it would. And while anonymity protects innocent people from recriminations regarding there personal expressions, it also protect maladjusted, sociopathic people from being discovered.
As hard as it is to believe, there are people who will engage in relationships solely for the purpose of upsetting the other person. It is hard to believe that somebody could be that badly bent. But anonymity protect the bent along with the normal. And often the normal suffer at the hands of the bent.
But, putting personal risks aside, there is a whole other cost to anonymity. And that is the business cost.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Anonymity in Virtual Worlds
Anonymity in a virtual world means that a person can appear as an avatar without any connection to the real person. Currently, in Second Life, users have a wide variety of options regarding the amount of anonymity they would like to have. Each avatar has a profile accessible to other avatars where they can provide information. In fact, there is a section in the profile titled 1st Life where they can provide information regarding who the are in real life. But, in fact, almost no one provides any information there. There is also a web page tab where you can provide a link to your web page. However, most people leave that blank or provide a link to a YouTube video of their favorite band. Clearly, most people like the anonymity the Second Life provides.
There are good reasons for enjoying this anonymity. If you don't like your height, weight, gender, looks, race, age or social class, you can try being some thing else in Second Life. If you wish to experiment with bisexuality or master/slave relationships, you can do so without fear of reprisals. And, as some friends have commented to me, if you screw up your relationships, you can create a new avatar and start over. Anonymity provides a great deal of personal, expressive and creative freedom. Second Life would simply not be the same without it. Any yet, as with everything there is also a down side to anonymity. And that will be the topic of the next post.
considers the trade off between a person's right to privacy as they conduct themselves in a virtual world and that person's responsibility to be who they claim to be.
Certainly anonymity allows a person to be things or to do things in a virtual world that they may not do in the real world. This freedom of self expression may be important but must be weighed against the impacts that these behaviors have on other people.
There are good reasons for enjoying this anonymity. If you don't like your height, weight, gender, looks, race, age or social class, you can try being some thing else in Second Life. If you wish to experiment with bisexuality or master/slave relationships, you can do so without fear of reprisals. And, as some friends have commented to me, if you screw up your relationships, you can create a new avatar and start over. Anonymity provides a great deal of personal, expressive and creative freedom. Second Life would simply not be the same without it. Any yet, as with everything there is also a down side to anonymity. And that will be the topic of the next post.
considers the trade off between a person's right to privacy as they conduct themselves in a virtual world and that person's responsibility to be who they claim to be.
Certainly anonymity allows a person to be things or to do things in a virtual world that they may not do in the real world. This freedom of self expression may be important but must be weighed against the impacts that these behaviors have on other people.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Ethical Issues in Virtual Worlds
Having pondered this a bit, it seems to me that ethical issues in virtual worlds fall into four categories: anonymity, attachment, regulation, and the moral basis for ethical decisions. There are almost certainly more. But these are the ones I came up with for now.
Anonymity considers the trade off between a person's right to privacy as they conduct themselves in a virtual world and that person's responsibility to be who they claim to be. Certainly anonymity allows a person to be things or to do things in a virtual world that they may not do in the real world. This freedom of self expression may be important but must be weighed against the impacts that these behaviors have on other people.
Attachment addresses the phenomenon that occurs when people begin to experience the virtual through the experiences of their avatar. If you insult their avatar or treat it badly, they may feel as through they have been insulted or treated badly in real life. If this is the case do we need to establish boundaries on acceptable behavior in the virtual world or do the people who are experiencing the world through their avatar just need to get a real life?
The third question is the extent to which the virtual world should be regulated. Since nobody can really get hurt in a virtual world the most harm somebody can achieve is to be annoying. But with attachment and real money things are not so simple. On the other hand, virtual worlds are great places for creativity and self expression. Unnecessary regulation can inhibit that.
Finally, what is the moral basis for ethical decision making in a virtual world? Do we make decisions as we would in the real world or does the fact that a virtual world is a simulation have any influence on the moral basis.
These questions will be examined in more detail in upcoming posts.
Anonymity considers the trade off between a person's right to privacy as they conduct themselves in a virtual world and that person's responsibility to be who they claim to be. Certainly anonymity allows a person to be things or to do things in a virtual world that they may not do in the real world. This freedom of self expression may be important but must be weighed against the impacts that these behaviors have on other people.
Attachment addresses the phenomenon that occurs when people begin to experience the virtual through the experiences of their avatar. If you insult their avatar or treat it badly, they may feel as through they have been insulted or treated badly in real life. If this is the case do we need to establish boundaries on acceptable behavior in the virtual world or do the people who are experiencing the world through their avatar just need to get a real life?
The third question is the extent to which the virtual world should be regulated. Since nobody can really get hurt in a virtual world the most harm somebody can achieve is to be annoying. But with attachment and real money things are not so simple. On the other hand, virtual worlds are great places for creativity and self expression. Unnecessary regulation can inhibit that.
Finally, what is the moral basis for ethical decision making in a virtual world? Do we make decisions as we would in the real world or does the fact that a virtual world is a simulation have any influence on the moral basis.
These questions will be examined in more detail in upcoming posts.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
An Important Skill
The ability to create interesting characters is important even if you never plan to write a single line of fiction. I mentioned, in the last post, that this ability can be used in Second Life as well. I have dozens and dozens of unique characters that I have created as avatars in Second Life. This is great fun. It is good practice. And I have learned a great deal in the process. Where else, but in a virtual world, can you be some body else and see how some body else might experience the world. I have one character, for example, named Lowlife, who, as you might expect, comes from the lower end of the socio-economic ladder. His dress, boots, long hair, groups and profile comments all enhance his believability. The startling thing is that people talk to a guy named Lowlife in an entirely different way than they talk to a guy named Doctor. It is an extraordinary glimpse into the variety of experiences that different people have. If you find your way into Second Life, visit the third floor of Cosmos Academy and see a small subset of the many characters I have created.
However, this ability to create characters goes far beyond fiction and virtual worlds. You can also create characters in order to make a narrative argument. We saw a good example of this just recently in the presidential debates. "Joe the Plumber" was a fictional construct created to make a narrative argument about the effect of the two candidate's tax plans on the middle class. Unfortunately, for the McCain campaign, they were exposed because they tried to claim the fictional construct was real and the press exposed them. Had they just put him forth as an archetype character they may have gotten a lot more mileage out of it.
But, we can take this even further. You may want to sit down for this. YOU are a fictional construct also. People like to think they are 'real' or 'natural'. But, unless you are standing there naked and growling when you get hungry, you are a construct. We do not present ourselves to the world in our natural state. We construct persona and interact with the world through those constructed persona. What you decide to wear in the morning is part of that constructed persona. How you behave around friends is part of the image you are trying to create. The fact that you may behave differently around friends than you would around co-workers suggests that your construct is fairly complex. If you are not the person you want to be, or if you don't have enough friends, or if you are not interesting enough perhaps you need to work on the skill of creating interesting characters.
However, this ability to create characters goes far beyond fiction and virtual worlds. You can also create characters in order to make a narrative argument. We saw a good example of this just recently in the presidential debates. "Joe the Plumber" was a fictional construct created to make a narrative argument about the effect of the two candidate's tax plans on the middle class. Unfortunately, for the McCain campaign, they were exposed because they tried to claim the fictional construct was real and the press exposed them. Had they just put him forth as an archetype character they may have gotten a lot more mileage out of it.
But, we can take this even further. You may want to sit down for this. YOU are a fictional construct also. People like to think they are 'real' or 'natural'. But, unless you are standing there naked and growling when you get hungry, you are a construct. We do not present ourselves to the world in our natural state. We construct persona and interact with the world through those constructed persona. What you decide to wear in the morning is part of that constructed persona. How you behave around friends is part of the image you are trying to create. The fact that you may behave differently around friends than you would around co-workers suggests that your construct is fairly complex. If you are not the person you want to be, or if you don't have enough friends, or if you are not interesting enough perhaps you need to work on the skill of creating interesting characters.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Virtual Worlds
I have spent an incredible amount of time over the past two years in a virtual world called Second Life. I am convinced that the next stage of our technological evolution lies in virtual worlds although I am not at all convinced that Second Life will be the product that makes it happen. The means by which this will occur is not at all clear to me at the moment. I can only see where we are likely to end up, not the path through which we will get there. Web technologies made the question “Where is the information located?” irrelevant. Information can be located anywhere in the world and we can access it via web technologies. Virtual world technologies will make the question “Where is the person located?” irrelevant. We will enter virtual worlds through our desktop computers, represented by an avatar and interact with the avatar representations of other people. Thing of all the things you do today where your location matters. You ‘go’ to work. You ‘go’ to class. You ‘go’ to a conference. You ‘go’ to a movie. You ‘go’ out on a date. Anything in which location matters will change with virtual worlds. Before the web came along, if you wanted to buy something, you were restricted to the products that were available in the stores within a reasonable driving distance. With web technologies, the entire world marketplace was opened up to anyone with a computer and internet access. That opened up a lot of possibilities. Today, the job you have, the classes you take and the people you interact with are limited largely by your location. Granted you can always move. But moving can be a big effort and once you move, you are once again restricted by the new location. With virtual world technologies, the entire world of possibilities is open up to anyone with a desktop computer and an internet connection. You could work with a group of people in California, attend classes in a European university, and hang out Australians. The problem of not finding the book you were looking for at your local bookstore went away with web technologies. The problem of not finding the right opportunities in your home town will go away with virtual world technologies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)