Is Apple's new VR a gift of nature or a nail in the coffin for social 'reality'?
In case you missed it, Apple recently unveiled its upcoming Vision Pro: a Virtual Reality (VR) headset that feels simultaneously like something fantastical pulled out of Westworld, and also like something that you could reasonably see the majority of the population adopting within a matter of years.
Image created with Dall-E
I remember getting my first iPod and feeling like I held absolute magic in my palm (even though about 6% of its storage space was eventually filled by Limewire’s classic Bill Clinton track…). The Vision Pro, on first glance, brings me back to this memory. Even though there are other AR/VR headsets available on the market, Apple has a way of making you feel like this is the start of a whole new way of working, connecting, and existing in society. (Admittedly, I’m also someone highly susceptible to hype.)
But, in a world where we are already becoming more and more siloed away from each other, what would it mean to have mass adoption of VR headsets for everyday use? My initial reflections are that this tech could be a) absolutely incredible for the development of health interventions, particularly for some older, less mobile, or more vulnerable populations, and b) potentially quite concerning for the general populations’ social well-being…
Let’s explore.
Making the restorative benefits of nature more accessible
The first thing that excites me about VR is the potential health interventions that it could be used to employ. I think specifically here of older people with dementia, people experiencing mobility issues, and those with conditions that otherwise impact their ability to move about.
Imagine the potential impacts on mental health if every person in an aged care home had access to a VR experience where they could travel to new countries; immerse themselves in panoramic videos reminiscent of their youth; or simply sit in nature without actually leaving their comfortable, known environment.
A general theme in the research is that being in nature has restorative and positive effects. In a 2023 case study of dementia patients, the revamp and introduction of lots of new plants and flowers to a therapeutic garden saw almost half the patients tending to visit the garden more often, positively increasing their socialising behaviours, and engaging more actively in the garden. Other research, also with dementia patients, has found positive links between patient mood and exposure to nature, and a 2014 systematic review on the topic concluded that “there are promising impacts on levels of agitation in care home residents with dementia who spend time in a garden.”
Even looking at nature can be powerful. One study from the 1980s found that hospital patients who had a view of nature through the window of their recovery room had shorter stays than those with views of a brick wall. These patients also took fewer painkillers, and their nurses’ notes contained fewer negative remarks. A more recent randomised control trial didn’t find the addition of pictures of landscapes and music to reduce patient pain scores, but patients did report higher satisfaction with the service and environment.
Imagine, then, how transformative these kinds of immersive VR interventions could be for those recovering from illness; for long stays in hospital; for hospice. If you could capture the restorative effects of nature for those who didn’t have the ability to seek it out in real life. I would also love to see some research on the impact on behaviour and functioning of dementia patients during and after an intervention of immersive VR videos from around the time of their youth, for example.
Of course, funding would presumably be a large hurdle for most of these ideas right now; but conceptually it has incredible future potential.
Loosening incidental social connections and disrupting deep connections
So, VR could bring nature to those who can’t easily access it; it could stimulate minds with memories and beautiful environments and experiences, and elevate happiness in the process. This is incredibly exciting. But socially, what are the potential negative implications of mass-VR adoption?
I have written before about the value of incidental social connections: the benefits to well-being that come with those casual conversations with your barista, fellow commuters on public transport, or the stranger sitting next to you in yoga. In that newsletter, I explored how technology can be a barrier to these important connections:
“One study from 2019 involved an experiment where people were placed in a waiting room either with or without their smartphones. Those with a smartphone were far less likely to smile at other strangers in the waiting room and exhibited fewer proper smiles. Another study conducted in 2013 concluded that the mere presence of a smartphone when two people were engaged in a 10-minute conversation reduced perceived relationship quality and closeness. And, when the designated topic of conversation was more meaningful, perceived empathy was reduced when a phone was visible nearby. (Notably, a recent study from 2021 failed to replicate some of these findings, which perhaps reflects both the complexities of this topic and the ongoing replication crisis.)”
So, what happens when instead of a phone sitting in our hand, we have a literal VR device covering our eyes? Are we setting ourselves up for even more distraction and difficulty focusing on each other - removing ourselves one degree further from the real human beings in our real environment?
A 2019 study found that when two people were maintaining eye contact for a period of 60 seconds, arousal was heightened when both parties were clearly giving and receiving gaze signals, and the exchange wasn’t inhibited by sunglasses. The researchers concluded that sunnies impacted the exchange; “this lack of gaze information could hinder the communicative process by decreasing arousal and in turn reduce attention to, interest in, and excitement for what is being said… …if you wish to engage in riveting social interaction, then perhaps sunglasses should be avoided.”
We know that eye contact is important for social connection and communication. So, what is the future of social connection going to look like if our eye contact is inhibited by the equivalent of a permanent opaque tint via a VR headset? Are incidental social interactions on the way out, and siloed personal worlds on the way in? In a most extreme example, is the future of public transport, offices, bars, cafes, libraries, and other community areas limited to a whole lot of individuals sharing physical spaces… and nothing more?
In a related but different vein, we can consider the excessive energy used over Zoom; an experience so common that it has led to the creation of the term ‘Zoom fatigue’. Some argue that the basis of Zoom fatigue is that when we communicate online, we have to compensate for a lack of natural non-verbal cues online - cues that we would normally process and interpret without much conscious thought in person. Over Zoom, however, we have to work a lot harder to both send and receive these communications.
So.
Apple’s new headset is said to employ machine learning to create realistic avatars that are used for online calls. I’m sure they’ll look incredible and feel really cool, but by adding this new ‘middle man’ to virtual communication, we’re also adding a whole new learning curve and additional processes required to effectively communicate. Put another way, how much fatigue are we going to experience with the removal of even more natural communication cues than current virtual platforms? The concept starts to feel very tiring, and a little bit lonesome.
Exciting times ahead…
I think the nature and social connection arguments I’ve made here are kind of intertwined. The beauty of the nature and immersion interventions is that they might increase access to those who don’t already have it, or heighten the experience for those who do; and the difficulty of the social and communication aspect is that - it seems to me, anyway - the new mechanisms involved might create more barriers to meaningful connection, both in and out of the VR world.
In any case, it’s possible that the Apple Vision Pro headset will not be a resounding success, and will float away from the public consciousness in the coming years. However, it’s also possible that VR headsets will become a commonly used tool to help us focus, communicate, and move about the world.
I’m not a tech guru or anything; many others would have far more legitimate opinions here. My perspective is based only on my interests in human behaviour, and what I’ve seen online so far about the headset. But my initial view is that some uses could be profoundly impactful. VR could change many lives for the better, and, if used well, could be a fantastic tool for elevating focused individual work, creativity and output.
But it could also create new hurdles to real social connection; take us deeper down the path of living as a society of individuals who are focused - quite literally - on our own little worlds rather than the environment and people around us. The literal world becomes just a channel through which we access the virtual one. With even more systemic silo-ing, I think VR brings with it legitimate negative potential implications on attention-spans, loneliness, and social wellbeing. (Oh, and myopia. Surely a whole lot more myopia.) I suspect that we as a society will need a very considered, intentional approach to try and conserve authentic social connection and combat loneliness in this changing environment.
So in short, my first reaction about Apple’s new VR is that I’m excited, curious, and maybe a little bit concerned. What’s yours?