Bias // Current

About your avatar

Although often seen as an inconsequential feature of digital technologies, one's self-representation, or avatar, in a virtual environment can affect the user's thoughts, according to research by a University of Texas at Austin communication professor.

In the first study to use avatars to prime negative responses in a desktop virtual setting, Jorge Peña, assistant professor in the College of Communication, demonstrated that the subtext of an avatar's appearance can simultaneously prime negative (or anti-social) thoughts and inhibit positive (or pro-social) thoughts inconsistent with the avatar's appearance. All of this while study participants remained unaware they had been primed. The study, co-written with Cornell University Professor Jeffrey T. Hancock and University of Texas at Austin graduate student Nicholas A. Merola, appears in the December 2009 issue of Communication Research.

In two separate experiments, research participants were randomly assigned a dark- or white-cloaked avatar, or to avatars wearing physician or Ku Klux Klan-like uniforms or a transparent avatar. The participants were assigned tasks including writing a story about a picture, or playing a video game on a virtual team and then coming to consensus on how to deal with infractions.

Consistently, participants represented by an avatar in a dark cloak or a KKK-like uniform demonstrated negative or anti-social behavior in team situations and in individual writing assignments.

Previous studies have demonstrated these uniform types to have negative effects on people's behaviors in face-to-face interactions. For example, Cornell researchers Mark Frank and Tom Gilovich showed that dark uniforms influence professional sports teams to play more aggressively on the playing field and in the laboratory. Peña's research demonstrates how these effects operate in desktop-based video games, and sheds light on the automatic cognitive processes that explain this effect.

"When you step into a virtual environment, you can potentially become 'Mario' or whatever other character you are portraying," said Peña, who studies how humans think, behave and feel online. "Oftentimes, the connotations of our own virtual character will subtly remind us of common stereotypes, such as 'bad guys wear black or dress up in hooded robes.' This association may surreptitiously steer users to think and behave more antisocially, but also inhibit more pro-social thoughts and responses in a virtual environment."

According to Peña, these findings can be particularly useful to video game and combat simulation developers.

"By manipulating the appearance of the avatar, you can augment the probability of people thinking and behaving in predictable ways without raising suspicion," said Peña. "Thus, you can automatically make a virtual encounter more competitive or cooperative by simply changing the connotations of one's avatar."

Source:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110211037.htmAlthough often seen as an inconsequential feature of digital technologies, one's... more

pjacobs51
added this
5 days ago
|
129 comments

More Americans Acknowledge that Fox News is Biased

It took me a simple Google search: 1) I typed in "faux news" 2) I clicked the... more

sunkisthappy
added this
5 days ago
|
13 comments

Congress Rejects Biased Goldstone Report

ADL Praises Moral Stance Of Congress In Rejecting Biased Goldstone Report

New York, NY, November 4, 2009 …The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) welcomed the moral stance taken by the U.S. House of Representatives in passing Resolution 867, which calls on the President and the Secretary of State "to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the 'Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict' in multilateral fora."

The resolution, which passed yesterday by a vote of 344-36, refers to the so-called "Goldstone Report," named for the head of the investigative mission, Justice Richard Goldstone, which was commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council in response to Israel's operation in Gaza in January 2009. The mission was mandated by the council to investigate "Israeli violations" during the war.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

The U.S. House of Representatives took the moral high ground in rejecting the biased conclusions and undue recommendations of the Goldstone Report. If the Goldstone Report's conclusions and recommendations are pursued, it could undermine all states engaged in asymmetrical warfare against terrorist groups operating from within urban areas who use human shields.

The overwrought recommendations and flawed methodology and findings of the Goldstone Report disqualify it as a legitimate basis for action to address human rights violations. By approving a resolution which appropriately labels the report as fundamentally biased, Congress has created a model for action and response for all principled nations. Rejecting the prejudiced Goldstone report sets an example and a standard for other countries to follow. We urge other legislatures around the world to echo the sentiments expressed by the House vote.

ADL expressed appreciation to Reps. Howard Berman, D-CA, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL, for their leadership on this important issue.

thank you, Congress, for once.ADL Praises Moral Stance Of Congress In Rejecting Biased Goldstone Report New... more

plusaf
added this
11 days ago
|
1 comment

Jon Stewart takes Fox News Apart

If you never watch another Daily Show, this clip is a must see:... more

neocongo
added this
17 days ago
|
76 comments

Israel push to change laws of war- AL Jazeera English

Al Jazeera is officially less biased than Fox News.... wow..and we wonder why therest... more

ksutherland27
added this
23 days ago
|
1 comment

Skeptics Guide to 9/11 Bias.

It's not that I don't appreciate the work that SGU does, but on the topic of 9/11 they... more

StewBradley
added this
27 days ago
|
0 comments

Obama's right. It's time to stop taking the network's skewed news seriously.

Take a look at Fox's own Web story on the episode. It begins by quoting a Fox News senior vice president named Michael Clemente, who says: "It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming. It seems self-serving on their part." Then it quotes David Gergen, the gravelly voice of Washington's conventional wisdom, who says the attack diminishes President Obama and works to Fox's benefit. Then we hear from Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary and a frequent Fox contributor, who agrees that criticizing Fox makes no sense: "Fox has an audience of not just conservatives. They've got liberals and moderates who watch too." Then a White House correspondent for Politico echoes the claim that the controversy will boost Fox's ratings. Then comes an old quote from Fox anchor Chris Wallace, who calls Obama's team "the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington." Then the story's anonymous author cites a joke Obama made at the White House Correspondents Dinner as evidence "that Fox News has gotten under his skin." Finally, the piece cites a Pew study that suggested that while Fox was equally negative about John McCain and Obama during the last six weeks of the 2008 campaign, CNN was more negative about McCain.

Let's do a quick study of our own. Five people are quoted in this article. Two of them work for Fox. All of them assert that administration officials are either wrong in substance or politically foolish to criticize the network. No one is cited supporting Dunn's criticisms or saying that it could make sense, morally or politically, for Obama to challenge the network's power. It's a textbook example of a biased news story.

If you were watching Fox News Channel, you saw the familiar roster of platinum pundettes and anchor androids reciting the same sound bites: criticizing Fox was Obama's version of Nixon's enemies list, the rest of the news media are in Obama's corner, Obama should get back to governing, Fox opinion shows are different from its news shows, it's always dumb to go after the press. On The O'Reilly Factor on Oct. 13, the evanescent Alan Colmes, the network's weak, battered house liberal, mumbled semi-agreement while "Doctor" Monica Crowley and Bill O'Reilly lit up the scoreboard with the familiar talking points.

Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity and take pains not to load the dice in its own favor. At any other network, accusation of bias might even lead to some soul-searching and behavioral adjustment. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" and "proof," which when presented is brushed off and ignored.Take a look at Fox's own Web story on the episode. It begins by quoting a Fox News... more

atomiclegion
added this
29 days ago
|
41 comments

Foxnews.com readers react to Carter's statements!

Foxnews.com is certainly known for swinging to the right, but have you ever read the... more

Manuel_Trujillo
added this
2 months ago
|
0 comments

Student Fined 300 Euros for Displaying Israeli Flag in Germany

The Germans are consistent in their decadence and moral bankruptcy.Could anyone imagine the German police going into a private home to remove a Hamas flag?

A local district court in the West German city of Bochum fined a student 300 Euros on Wednesday for displaying an Israel flag at a demonstration organized by Muslim organizations against the IDF Operation Cast Lead in January. According to Der Westen, a regional paper in Bochum, the public prosecutor termed the Israeli flag as "provoking" within a special situation.

The 30-year-old student, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she fears for her safety due to "massive problems with Nazis", told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that the "Israeli flag is a provocation for the anti-Semites." She asked rhetorically, "What is provocative about an Israel flag?" The public prosecutor in Bochum was not available for an immediate comment on the case.
According to Der Westen, the local district court judge deemed the protest of the five activists expressing solidarity with Israel as a "dangerous situation."
A spokesman for the district court, Volker Talarowski, told the Post that there was a "violation of the right to assembly" and the court's decision was issued "independent of a political motivation." Talarowski added that the pro-Israel demonstrators failed to register their protest 48 hours before the event.
Yet the student, who is appealing the fine, said a special regulation permits "spontaneous" demonstrations without a pre-registration. In response to a hardcore anti-Israeli demonstration in Bochum attended by 1,600 protesters on January 17, the student, along with four pro-Israeli activists, displayed a banner stating "Against anti-Semitism and fascism: Solidarity with Israel" as well as the Israel flag. She told the Post that pro-Palestinian supporters "compared Israel with Nazi Germany." Chants of "children murderer Israel" and "Israel terrorist" filled the protest as well as a banner reading "stop the Holocaust in Gaza."
"There is no basis" to draw a parallel between Nazi Germany and Israel, she said. "A Holocaust did not take place in Gaza. Israel defended its territory from rocket fire" emanating from Hamas, added the student. She termed the argument comparing the Israeli military operation in Gaza with the Holocaust as anti-Semitic.
In the Der Westen news report, the student said there is a "confusion of perpetrator and victim. You can only call that anti-Semitism." She told the Post that the protestors in Bochum designated Israelis as Nazis and the Palestinians in Gaza as Jews during the Third Reich.
During Operation Cast Lead over 100,000 mainly German Muslims protested across German cities and frequently compared Israel with the Hitler movement. The European Union's working definition of anti-Semitism defines such comparisons between the Nazis and the Jewish state as a modern manifestation of anti-Semitism, largely because the parallel delegitimizes Israel's right to exist.The Germans are consistent in their decadence and moral bankruptcy.Could anyone... more

bielski
added this
2 months ago
|
52 comments

White House Press Corps Stand for Obama not Bush

Can we please stop pretending there is not a left leaning bias in the media?

CommonCents
added this
7 months ago
|
2 comments

Scrubbed! CNN yanking tea party 'embarrassment'

Cable television news network CNN has attempted to block a video on YouTube.com that... more

AlexBush
added this
7 months ago
|
2 comments

TV more enjoyable with commercials?

A new study shows that viewers find TV more pleasurable when they watch commercials.... more

pinkerbelle
added this
10 months ago
|
7 comments

Has this ever happened to Gaza supporters before?

Hi Tim, First of all, let me offer an apology to you for this mishap. It should not... more

timcatblues2be
added this
10 months ago
|
4 comments

Is the BBC biased?

So maybe the BBC aren't biased after all? The BBC has been receiving lots of... more

ksimpson
added this
10 months ago
|
19 comments

Balancing passion with reason

Photo by Brittany G: http://flickr.com/photos/brittanyg/1469611810/ Hey there,... more

mario_a
added this
10 months ago
|
29 comments

Pro-Israel "Ad" from International Fellowship of Christians and Jews

I saw this last night during MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" and shook my... more

huntre
added this
10 months ago
|
18 comments

Hamas responsible for civilian casualties in Gaza

Israel cares more about the Palestinian people in Gaza than Hamas does. Yes, I know this statement will get jeered and mocked by those who support the Palestinians, but, in my view, the facts bear out my assertion.

Hamas made the decision to fire rockets at Israeli civilians on a daily basis, even after Israel completely pulled out of Gaza (and violently uprooted some of its own citizens in doing so). It is ludicrous to believe that Israel would sit back and accept the daily attacks on its civilians without reacting. It seems clear that Hamas's rocket fire was intended to bring upon an Israeli offensive, a strategic decision to draw the Israelis into Gaza so that the Israelis could suffer casualties and, more importantly, to push international opinion and pressure against Israel. Further, Hamas has used mosques, schools, private residences and even hospitals as locations to manufacture, store and launch weapons at Israel and hide its leaders. By placing what are obvious military targets in civilian areas, Hamas put its own people at risk. By choosing tactical advantages over the safety of its citizens, the terrorist organization chose its military goals over the safety of its fellow Palestinians in Gaza.

Hamas is clearly far more interested in self-preservation and doing the bidding of its sponsor, Iran, than it is in actually making the lives of its people any better. Surely a peaceful settlement to the conflict with Israel and the creation of two side-by-side states would be the quickest path for Palestinians to improve their day-to-day lives. The post-Oslo period represented a high point for Palestinian civilians, both in their economic development and their aspirations for their own independent state. But Hamas isn't interested in such a result. Rather, Hamas is single-mindedly focused on destroying Israel, no matter the effect on Palestinian civilians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Follow the link to read the entire post.

Does Hamas bear some responsibility for civilian casualties?Israel cares more about the Palestinian people in Gaza than Hamas does. Yes, I know... more

unimatrix0
added this
11 months ago
|
30 comments

In this museum, U.S. is the bad guy in Korean War

The museum of the War to Resist American Aggression and Aid Korea in a provincial city on the North Korean border tells a version of the Korean War that casts U.S. foreign policy and military tactics in a decidedly negative light. Hundreds of historical photographs and exhibits present a pro-Beijing side of a conflict that saw Chinese forces rush to the aid of the North.

The war started when northern soldiers in a divided Korea entered the south on June 25, 1950. Under the aegis of the United Nations, the U.S. and its allies intervened in behalf of South Korea.

After South Korea made rapid advances in a counterattack, Chinese forces intervened in behalf of communist ally North Korea, shifting the balance of the war and leading to an armistice on July 27, 1953, which approximately restored the original boundaries between North and South Korea along the 38th parallel.

Many Chinese academics now adopt a softer stance toward America's agenda during the bloody skirmish.

"Most scholars don't refer to the museum by its formal name," said Shen Zhihua, a professor at the Center for Cold War Studies at East China Normal University. "We now know North Korea stirred up the whole thing. We know who fired the first gun. The Americans entered the war authorized by the U.N. It was a legal war."

Museum officials say the tone of the displays is set by the central government, which prefers the harder-line rhetoric. Director Zhao Yejun said the museum in 2004 tried to soften the commentaries. The phrase "American imperialism," for example, is not used unless in a direct quote.

"We no longer use the phrases 'our side' and 'the enemy,' " he said. "Now, we just say the U.S. Army." The museum once featured a marble plaque that included the phrase "Defeat wolf-hearted America!" but Zhao said it no longer existed.

Still, the museum's name won't be changed, he added, because it is a quote from Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung.

Shi Yinhong, a professor of international politics at Beijing's Renmin University, said there are reasons the government doesn't temper the museum's rhetoric.

"For one, Dandong is far from Beijing and so few Chinese or foreign guests visit there," he said. "If this museum was in a big city, there's a greater possibility officials would modernize the language."

But there are less practical reasons as well.

"Some authorities think we should keep this past perception of the war," Shi said. "If they changed it too much, people would criticize them, because some still believe America was wrong."

Some Western analysts say all museums carry their own bias. "Our version of history is also one-sided," said Leon V. Sigal, author of "Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy With North Korea." "We don't have exhibits showing the egregious viciousness of the Chinese, but I'll bet that in some VFW halls there are some pretty horrific things."The museum of the War to Resist American Aggression and Aid Korea in a provincial city... more