 |
|
|
|||||
Empathy is not just a nice-to-have soft skillit is a foundation of how children and adults regulate emotions, build friendships, and learn from one another. Between the ages of 6 and 9, children begin shifting from being self-centered to noticing the emotions and perspectives of others. This makes early childhood one of the most important periods for developing empathy and other social-emotional skills. Traditionally, pretend play has been a natural way to practice empathy. Many adults can remember acting out scenes as doctor and patient, or using sticks and leaves as imaginary currency. Those playful moments were not just entertainmentthey were early lessons in empathy and taking someone elses perspective. But as children spend more time with technology and less in pretend play, these opportunities are shrinking. Some educators worry that technology is hindering social-emotional learning. Yet research in affective computingdigital systems that recognize emotions, simulate them or bothsuggests that technology can also become part of the solution. Virtual reality, in particular, can create immersive environments where children interact with characters who display emotions as vividly as real humans. Im a human-computer interaction scientist who studies social-emotional learning in the context of how people use technology. Used thoughtfully, the combination of VR and artificial intelligence could help reshape social-emotional learning practices and serve as a new kind of empathy classroom or emotional regulation simulator. Game of emotions As a part of my doctoral studies at the University of Florida, in 2017 I began developing a VR Empathy Game framework that combines insights from developmental psychology, affective computing and participatory design with children. At the Human-Computer Interaction Lab at the University of Maryland, I worked with their KidsTeam program, where children of 7-11 served as design partners, helping us to imagine what an empathy-focused VR game should feel like. In 2018, 15 masters students at the Florida Interactive Entertainment Academy at the University of Central Florida and I created the first game prototype, Why Did Baba Yaga Take My Brother? This game is based on a Russian folktale and introduces four characters, each representing a core emotion: Baba Yaga embodies anger, Goose represents fear, the Older Sister shows happiness and the Younger Sister expresses sadness. The VR game Why Did Baba Yaga Take My Brother? is designed to help kids develop empathy. Unlike most games, it does not reward players with points or badges. Instead, children can progress in the game only by getting to know the characters, listening to their stories and practicing empathic actions. For example, they can look at the games world through a characters glasses, revisit their memories or even hug Baba Yaga to comfort her. This design choice reflects a core idea of social-emotional learning: Empathy is not about external rewards but about pausing, reflecting and responding to the needs of others. My colleagues and I have been refining the game since then and using it to study children and empathy. Different paths to empathy We tested the game with elementary school children individually. After asking general questions and giving an empathy survey, we invited children to play the game. We observed their behavior while they were playing and discussed their experience afterward. Our most important discovery was that children interacted with the VR characters following the main empathic patterns humans usually follow while interacting with each other. Some children displayed cognitive empathy, meaning they had an understanding of the characters emotional states. They listened thoughtfully to characters, tapped their shoulders to get their attention, and attempted to help them. At the same time, they were not completely absorbed in the VR characters feelings. Others expressed emotional contagion, directly mirroring characters emotions, sometimes becoming so distressed by fear or sadness that it made them stop the game. In addition, a few other children did not connect with the characters at all, focusing mainly on exploring the virtual environment. All three behaviors can happen in real life as well when children interact with their peers. These findings highlight both the promise and the challenge. VR can indeed evoke powerful empathic responses, but it also raises questions about how to design experiences that support children with different temperamentssome need more stimulation, and others need gentler pacing. AI eye on emotions The current big question for us is how to effectively incorporate this type of empathy game into everyday life. In classrooms, VR will not replace real conversations or traditional role-play, but it can enrich them. A teacher might use a short VR scenario to spark discussion, encouraging students to reflect on what they felt and how it connects to their real friendships. In this way, VR becomes a springboard for dialogue, not a stand-alone tool. We are also exploring adaptive VR systems that respond to a childs emotional state in real time. A headset might detect if a child is anxious or scared through facial expressions, heart rate, or gazeand adjust the experience by scaling down the characters expressiveness or offering supportive prompts. Such a responsive empathy classroom could give children safe opportunities to gradually strengthen their emotional regulation skills. This is where AI becomes essential. AI systems can make sense of the data collected by VR headsets, such as eye gaze, facial expressions, heart rate, or body movement, and use it to adjust the experience in real time. For example, if a child looks anxious or avoids eye contact with a sad character, the AI could gently slow down the story, provide encouraging prompts or reduce the emotional intensity of the scene. On the other hand, if the child appears calm and engaged, the AI might introduce a more complex scenario to deepen ther learning. In our current research, we are investigating how AI can measure empathy itselftracking moment-to-moment emotional responses during gameplay to provide educators with better insight into how empathy develops. Future work and collaboration As promising as I believe this work is, it raises big questions. Should VR characters express emotions at full intensity, or should we tone them down for sensitive children? If children treat VR characters as real, how do we make sure those lessons carry to the playground or dinner table? And with headsets still costly, how do we ensure empathy technology doesnt widen digital divides? These are not just research puzzles but ethical responsibilities. This vision requires collaboration among educators, researchers, designers, parents, and children themselves. Computer scientists design the technology, psychologists ensure the experiences are emotionally healthy, teachers adapt them for the curriculum, and children co-create the games to make them engaging and meaningful. Together, we can shape technologies that not only entertain but also nurture empathy, emotional regulation, and deeper connection in the next generation. Ekaterina Muravevskaia is an assistant professor of human-centered computing at Indiana University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
As top congressional Republican and Democratic leaders dig in their heelsa signal that the ongoing federal government shutdown may continue for a whilemany older Americans are wondering if they will still get their Social Security checks, and questioning how a prolonged showdown will affect their future benefits. Currently, thousands of federal employees are working without pay and President Donald Trump is threatening mass federal layoffs. During the shutdown, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is continuing to issue retirement and disability benefits, but is furloughing 12% of its staff, per USA Today. Medicare and Medicaid payments also continue for now. However, the furlough could delay the SSA’s announcement, scheduled for next week on October 15, on how much Social Security checks will increase in 2026 as a result of cost-of-living adjustments, or COLA. That increase is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) inflation numbers for September, due to come out October 15. The problem is all of that bureaus 2,055 employees, except one person, have been furloughed, and according to the Labor Department’s shutdown plans, that report will likely be delayed if the lapse is prolonged, USA Today reported. Without the BLS crunching the numbers and releasing September’s inflation report, COLA can’t be calculated. Social Security checks are estimated to increase by about 2.7%, according to the Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a nonpartisan senior groupwhich, on an average retirement check of $2,007, would mean another $54 per month. The White House has said mass layoffs of federal workers will start if President Donald Trump decides negotiations are “absolutely going nowhere.” That would be a way to force the hand of congressional Democrats, by threatening American government workers’ jobs and benefits. Meanwhile, the Senate is currently battling it out to advance a bill that would fund the government to stay open through November 21.
Category:
E-Commerce
Below, Tim Higgins shares five key insights from his new book, iWar: Fortnite, Elon Musk, Spotify, WeChat, and Laying Siege to Apples Empire. Tim is a business columnist for the Wall Street Journal, where he covers Silicon Valley and writes about the worlds most influential business leaders. He is also a frequent contributor to CNBC and has previously written for Bloomberg News. Whats the big idea? Those who operate in the digital world accessed by the iPhone have no choice but to operate by Apples rulesor do they? Objections that Apple has overstepped fair play in the app economy resulted in pushbacks, including one of the biggest antitrust battles of the last century. The highlight reel of this great corporate drama features fascinating fights between Apple and its rivals, including Spotify and Epic Games. 1. Its easier to win when you make the rules. Almost 20 years ago, Apple followed up the iPhone with the App Storea new way for software developers to sell their offerings to smartphone users. Instead of going to a physical store, software could be acquired through the internet. It was basically free for developers, unless they charged users. If so, then Apple would take as much as 30 percent. The genesis of the fee was simple enough: Apple would claim a royalty on digital goods consumed on its devices (like video games), but not goods purchased through the app and used in the real world (like sneakers). The early days were something of the Wild West as entrepreneurs rushed to see what they could sell. At first, the rules seemed simple enough: no scams, no porn, etc. As time went on, however, Apple realized policing its digital realm was going to take a lot of effort. Apple co-founder Steve Jobs wanted to ensure that Apple users were safe. Eventually, big businesses began to emerge in the App Economy. Facebook had to redo its web-based business for mobile computing. Spotify, the streaming music service, saw huge adoption. Epic Games, maker of expensive video games, started tinkering with smaller iPhone offerings. As those companies executives saw what was possible in the new iPhone world, they grew concerned about the control Apple held over it. They felt Apple was taxing them and controlling access to their users. But they had little recourse. Very quickly, the mobile computing world boiled down to basically the iPhone and smartphones running on Googles Android operating system. Apple controlled its own hardware and software, while, for the most part, Google controlled its own software and depended on phone makers, such as Samsung, to use its operating system. Google would try to match Apples ecosystem as best as it could, collecting its own 30 percent. 2. Execute, execute, execute. Apples digital world became known as a Walled Garden because its App Store was essentially the only entrance. Users digital lives grew deeply rooted in that garden. Text messages with non-Apple users would show up as green bubbles instead of blue bubbles. In the abstract, such a subtle difference might seem trivial. But with time, the blue bubbles became a status symbol, another reason to stay inside the Walled Garden. Nobody wanted to go green. Blue bubble envy was a powerful selling tool. Some inside Apple discussed offering its popular messaging system to Android users, essentially making its iMessage a rival to WhatsApp. But the idea was continually shot down. Blue bubble envy was a powerful selling tool. As one senior Apple executive argued to his colleagues in an email: In the absence of a strategy to become the primary messaging service for [the] bulk of cell phone users, I am concerned the iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones. Apple was creating a world where consumers wanted to live, and other companies had to operate if they wanted to reach those deep-pocketed users. 3. Trust no one. Apple prided itself on the idea that it didnt cut special deals with developers to be on the App Store, while Google did, in part, because it wanted to ensure that the hot new games and apps were available in its app store. It also had a disadvantage to Apples Walled Garden. In theory, a user could download software onto an Android device outside of the Google App Store. Though users rarely did because it was so complicated. Tim Sweeney, the founder of Epic Games, grew convinced that the taxes charged by Apple and Google were unfair. The success of his wildly popular video game Fortnite created an opening, he thought, to change how the app economy worked. He wanted to create his own store outside the reach of Apple and Google. To much fanfare, he attempted to do that for Android phones but eventually found too many barriers to making such a gambit work. In part, other game makers werent rushing to join him. Behind the scenes, Google was offering lucrative deals to game makers to stay in its store. It seemed that Sweeneys idea was great negotiating leverage for other game makers to get a better deal from Google. Frustrated, Sweeney concluded he needed to challenge the legality of both Apples and Googles control over the app economy, triggering costly court battles that would drag on for many years. Fortnite was also kicked out of the app stores, cut off from the app economy entirely. 4. Sail close to the wind. Many companies choose the easy way. They settle legal disputes to avoid costly litigation, reputational harm, and the unknown risks associated with public fights. Not Apple. Apple fights. A former top lawyer at Apple once talked about Apples willingness to embrace legal risk as an advantage in fighting rivals. Not Apple. Apple fights. Bruce Sewell, who was armed with an annual budget approaching $1 billion, compared his approach to sailing close to the wind. You want to get to the point where you can use risk as a competitive advantagethats the point at which law actually becomes a commercial asset to the company, he once said. During his time, Apple fought against U.S. government claims that it improperly colluded with book publishers and against European regulators unhappy with its tax deal in Ireland. Ultimately, Apple would lose both battles. But how many other fights did it avoid by scaring off others? Like Epic Games, Spotify was unhappy with the control Apple held over its streaming business, especially after Apple CEO Tim Cook launched a rival music service that was undercutting Spotifys prices. Instead of challenging Apple in U.S. court, Spotify plotted another path that took it to Europe, where its headquarters was located. It worked with European regulators to develop a case against Apples control, specifically an App Store rule that prohibited developers, such as Spotify, from directing users outside of their app to purchase services not covered by Apples fees. In Brussels, the home of the European Union, Spotify found a receptive audience, especially among officials who had battled Apple over its tax case and felt like te U.S. tech giant was overreaching. The European Commission would ultimately rule in Spotifys favor against Apple and subsequently pass new laws aimed to weakening Apples control over the App Store. 5. Losing by winning. Back in the U.S., Apple would mostly win its case against Epics Sweeney. One area that a judge found fault with Apple was its rules prohibiting developers from providing links outside of apps to alternative payment methods. Apple was ordered to stop that practice. At the time, it seemed like a small thing. But Apple didnt simply allow Epic or Spotify or anyone else to do whatever they wanted. What followed was a complicated effort to make it so burdensome for developers to link out that they would ultimately just stick with Apples own payment system and continue to pay that 30 percent commission. The issue was a matter of principle. Fuming, Sweeney sought more help from the court. That would take many more months of fighting before a judge would ultimately find that Apple had violated her order. It was a stunning rebukeone that Apple would appeal. Nevertheless, very quickly, Sweeneys Fortnite was back in the App Store. And Spotify was offering links to outside payment methods. Sweeney would say the fight would cost his company more than $1 billion in legal fees and lost revenue. But for him, the issue was a matter of principle. It was a matter of principle for Apple as well. Cook and his executives felt like they had done nothing wrong. To them, it was Sweeney, Spotify, and others who wanted special deals and didnt want to pay their fair share. In the end, the years-long fight ranks as one of the biggest antitrust battles of the past century. And threatens to remake Apples business. This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||