Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site calgary.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!greenberg
From: greenberg@calgary.UUCP (Saul Greenberg)
Newsgroups: net.cog-eng
Subject: Psychology and morality: more on the game-based office.
Message-ID: <577@calgary.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Nov-85 12:35:25 EST
Article-I.D.: calgary.577
Posted: Sun Nov 24 12:35:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Nov-85 01:45:07 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
Lines: 27

After Roy Masrani and I submitting a highly tongue-in-cheek abstract titled 
"Iconic interfaces for office systems based on video-games", a serious reply
was posted asking the question: "Is it appropriate to increase a
user's emotional involvement with a model filled with conflict?"

According to principles of human factors research, the answer would be
yes. Psychological experimentation is highly pragmatic - people's
reactions to stimuli are measured, not their morality. As an example, one
study looked at individual differences between male and female reaction
to video games. The findings suggest that while males react strongly to
a "shoot-em down" game, female reaction is generally negative. The
result - develop a "female-oriented" game.

I suggest that experimental psychology has no morality. If a
conflict-filled metaphor is an efficient one, then its use can be
justified psychologically. The morality of the metaphor is a
philosophical question which is answered in terms of good taste and
judgement. Unfortunately, the demands of the marketplace usually takes
precedence. This is simple to prove - advertisements use a wealth of
psychological knowledge to manipulate the masses, which I personally
find repugnant.

As scientists, we have a quest for knowledge. History suggests that this
knowledge is rarely used for the lofty ideals it was intended for.
Saul Greenberg
Dept of Computer Science
University of Calgary, Canada