Modern Wisdom - #984 - Colton Scrivner - Why We’re Drawn to Death, Crime, & Danger

Episode Date: August 23, 2025

Coltan Scrivner is a behavioral scientist, an expert on morbid curiosity in horror and true‑crime media, and an author. Why are humans so curious about death? From car accidents to scary stories, roller coasters, and horror movies, some people are fascinated while others are repulsed. What draws us toward the very things we should naturally want to avoid? Expect to learn why humans are drawn to dark or morbid content and the evolutionary logic behind watching something that disturbs us, why there is a gender gap of who is more interested in morbid curiosity, why some people find serial killers fascinating while others are repulsed, the biggest differences between terror and horror & the connection between disgust and fascination, what horror can teach us about emotional self-regulation, and much more… Sponsors: See discounts for all the products I use and recommend: https://chriswillx.com/deals Get a Free Sample Pack of LMNT’s most popular Flavours with your first purchase at https://drinklmnt.com/modernwisdom Get 5 Free Travel Packs, Free Liquid Vitamin D, and more from AG1 at https://ag1.info/modernwisdom Get 60% off an annual plan of Incogni at https:/incogni.com/modernwisdom Timestamps: (0:00) Why are We Drawn to Dark Content? (7:20) The 4 Domains of Morbid Curiosity (15:25) Morbid Curiosity in Evolution (22:51) Individual Difference in Morbid Curiosity (34:05) What is So Attractive About Serial Killers? (37:46) Why are Certain Groups Attracted to Certain Types of Morbid Content? (47:17) The Perfect Ingredients for a Horror Movie (57:14) Why is There Increasing Desensitisation to Morbid Content? (01:02:59) Find Out More About Colton Extra Stuff: Get my free reading list of 100 books to read before you die: https://chriswillx.com/books Try my productivity energy drink Neutonic: https://neutonic.com/modernwisdom Episodes You Might Enjoy: #577 - David Goggins - This Is How To Master Your Life: https://tinyurl.com/43hv6y59 #712 - Dr Jordan Peterson - How To Destroy Your Negative Beliefs: https://tinyurl.com/2rtz7avf #700 - Dr Andrew Huberman - The Secret Tools To Hack Your Brain: https://tinyurl.com/3ccn5vkp - Get In Touch: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact - Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How do you get into studying morbid curiosity? I'm intrigued by what the character arc is that leads you to doing that. You know, a lot of people ask me, did I always want to study scary movies and the psychology of them? And the answer is no. I didn't always know that I wanted to study that. But I have always enjoyed them. I've always kind of like scary things when I was a kid, you know, not because I wasn't scared of them, but because they were scared. And that made them, you know, interesting and fun to me, especially when I could kind of

have them at a distance, right? You can pause the movie or pause the game and kind of collect yourself. But, you know, growing up, I didn't really think I was into archaeology. I thought I was going to be an archaeologist. And then I studied, you know, anthropology, a little bit of biology and undergrad, studied some forensic science for my master's. And then I kind of made the switch into psychology during my PhD. And, you know, like a lot of eager young grad students I was interested in everything under the sun that had to do with human behavior

but that doesn't work in grad school you have to kind of pick something and stick with it and so I remember you know I had a couple of these sort of paradoxes in my mind that humans did and there's lots of paradoxes about humans that strange things they do or at least things that seem strange on the surface

and one of those was that in almost every aspect of life we we think violence is bad. And we try to, we shun it, we punish it. But there are certain circumstances where violence is okay and not only okay, but maybe even revered. They think, you know, like the Coliseum for the Romans, for example, a great example of where violence was, was revered in many ways, and enjoyed by tens of thousands of people. And so I was really interested in how people made sense

of this. So how did people make sense of like, this violence is okay and this violence is not okay? And that kind of got me into the, so that was for my first step into morbid curiosity. And I was like the left foot in. And then the right foot end was, I started thinking about these other interesting related paradoxes. Well, humans also scare themselves for fun. I scare myself for fun sometimes, right?

Like kind of an interesting thing, and it seemed related in some ways. And so I looked up, you know, who, like a quick Google search or Google Scholar search, like who is studying why people like fear? And the answer was almost nobody, And, you know, as a grad student, that's like a gold wine. You find something really interesting that everyone kind of understands at an intuitive level, but nobody is studying. And so I kind of got into it that way. I hooked up with Mattias Klazin, who's the director of the Recreational Fear Lab at Orhus University in Denmark when I was a young grad student.

And he invited me over, and we started doing these haunted house studies. And that really got me into kind of studying fear in the wild. And then over time, those two sort of, those two interests and why humans are interested in violence and why humans scare themselves for fun kind of went into this whirlwind of, well, why are we interested in things that are threatened broadly? And what does that mean about us? Is it good? Is it bad? Can we learn something from it? How has it served us throughout our evolutionary history?

Is it still serving us today? Or is it something we should try to avoid? That's kind of how my, that was the character arc for getting into that. paradox is so interesting that everybody if you get involved in a fight it's a very very small uh cohort of people that think oh this is going to be fun sure and yet true crime uh or the male equivalent of true crime uh which are war stories um UFC yeah every different modern incarnation of that uh police body cam footage uh rubbernecking at a road crashes as we go past.

Yeah. And sometimes we enjoy those things and sometimes we don't, right? Like UFC, people will pay money to watch that. But then there's some things that are very similar to UFC that we're still drawn to, you know, like you said, body cam footage, we're kind of drawn to it. We want to watch it if it's available, but we may not necessarily enjoy it in the same way we enjoy the UFC fight. But materially, they're pretty similar, right? In a lot of ways, they can be.

Very interesting. Okay. after all of this time thinking about it, what have you come to believe about why humans are drawn to dark or morbid content? What's the compulsion? Well, I think, you know, any animal that exists in the world

should know something about potential threats around, right? Humans are no different. The only way that we're different is that we can kind of create stories. We don't have to be there, right? You know, if a zebra wants to learn about a lion or a gazelle wants to learn about a cheetah, which they often do in the wild,

there's some great studies showing that, zebras, under certain circumstances, will kind of watch lions when they're not actively hunting them, or gazelles in particular will just observe. It's called predator inspection. They'll observe cheetahs. And in particular, adolescent gazelles, those who are healthy, who can get away of something that bad happens, that maybe don't have a lot of experience with their sort of local predators. But they have to do that in person, right? They have to be vigilant because it's a real situation. Humans can, tell a story about something that could happen or something that did happen or someone could tell them a story about something that happened to them. And so we can kind of gain the learning benefits of predator inspection without actually being in any danger. And that's really like candy for our minds, right? Like, oh, you're telling me we can reap the benefits of this without having any of the costs. I mean, that's a, that's a no-brainer. Okay. Yeah. So you get to kind of sandbox, scary situations. I'm going to guess, bro science cap is coming on early today.

I'm going to guess that that also explains at least part of the difference between seeing a street fight occur in front of view and paying to watch the UFC. Is it kind of the degree of control, the fact that there is, we know that there's rules. It's really unlikely we're going to see someone die in the UFC. So is it to do with control, safety, boundaries. Yeah, I think that has a lot to do with it. You know, there's a lot of things that play into that. Some people are more prone to feeling disgust than others, right? And so obviously watching something or hearing about something, reading something, where a threat is attacking a victim, that often involves a lot of disgust elements and involves blood or it involves gore in

many ways. And that can be kind of a turnoff for many people. So, yeah, I think some of it is the amount of control. So, for example, if you're high and disgust sensitivity, you may not watch a horror movie. You might be willing to read a book about the same topic, because you can kind of control how vivid that image is. Whereas in a movie, it's just whatever that director gives to you. Whatever the

movie feeds to you, you kind of, that's your representation of what's going on. And if you don't like it, you have to cover your eyes or pause and turn it off, walk out of the room. But if you're reading a book, you know, you have a little bit more control in some ways about how vivid that is, right?

It's more difficult to make that really vivid, like a, it's not going to look like a Christopher Nolan film, you know, in your mind's eye. That's interesting. Are there different domains of morbid curiosity, the different categories of types? Yeah, I mean, that was one of the first things I did, right? So if you're a psychologist, you're studying this new concept, or at least new to the academics concept, one of the first things you do is, well, how can I easily measure it, right? Well, one way to easily measure something as a psychologist is to have a survey or a questionnaire.

you know, like the Big Five or disgust sensitivity scale or psychopathy scale or any number of ways to measure these different traits. And there really was no scale to measure morbid curiosity. So what I did is I collect a bunch of items from people from different forums, like online forums, from interviews, from sort of your own theoretical grounding about different scenarios that might elicit interest that have a threat involved. and you collect all of those together and you have a bunch of people, much of participants, say how likely they would be to be interested in this thing if it were to happen to them. How likely would they be to look at this thing, learn about this thing, read about this thing?

And then what you get is you can actually see how those questions are answered in similar kinds of ways and they break into different domains as you mentioned. And so one of the first things I found was that there seems to be at least four different kinds of domains of morbid curiosity. So the first one is kind of obvious. It's violence, right? So kind of witnessing violence. That was sort of what intrigued me initially about this.

Why are we so intrigued by violence? Why are we interested in violent conflicts? The second one is one you mentioned, which is kind of the true crime or the interest in people who could be violent, right? Like maybe you're not actually witnessing the violent act, but you're learning about the type of people who would commit that violence or the way that they committed that violence. The third one is kind of the outcome of violence. That would be the bodily injuries or body violation domain. And so this is important in a lot of ways because humans, of course, try to treat and other animals try to treat injuries.

And it's important to know something about an injury if you're going to treat it. It's also important if you come across someone who's wounded, it's important to know what caused that injury, right? And the injury itself can kind of give you some insight into that. you know, if you come across someone in the forest and they have a cut on their arm, you're not really going to be too worried about what caused that cut, right? You come across someone in the forest and their whole arm is missing as a different story, right? That means there's something really large and formidable and dangerous in the environment. And so injuries capture our attention probably for those reasons as well.

And the fourth one, I kind of struggled with it first. It was the supernatural, the paranormal. And I thought, well, like, you know, personally don't believe in ghosts, right? I find them interesting and fun, but I don't believe in them. And so I thought, well, why would the mind have this interest in things that, you know, if I'm right, presumably aren't real? And it turns out there's a lot of reasons why we might have magical beliefs or supernatural beliefs or paranormal beliefs, whether or not there. Like, for example, Ed Hagan, he had a really great paper recently. I think Aaron Leitner was his co-author on that, suggesting that paranormal beliefs kind of help us.

they give us a starting point from which we can start to think about other minds, right? They give us kind of a way to ratchet, a way to take the world of a trillion possibilities and bring them down to, you know, 100,000 possibilities.

It makes it grasp so that we can actually get some traction in understanding other minds. And so I think what the paranormal domain is really tapping into is an interest in things that are dangerous that we don't fully understand. So you find, you know, people's interest in the occult or witches or aliens or cryptids or ghosts, like these things that, you know, with the exception of Casper, most people think ghosts are pretty malicious. Like they're pretty scary. It's as you say at a haunted hotel not to like hang out with the ghosts and have fun, but because it's potentially scary, right? If we think of aliens, we don't think of usually friendly aliens. We think of like, well, what if they are going to harm us? What do they actually want? Why are they coming here? And I think that goes kind of back to this, you know, know, if you see someone, uh, on the street and they're wearing all black and they have

their put up and they're kind of lurking around, why are they trying to hide themselves, right? And I think we ask those same kinds of questions about things like ghosts and aliens and demons and all these entities that we've come up with that don't make themselves fully available to us, but do influence us usually in malicious ways. So I think that's kind of tapping into that. And it gets into a whole bunch of things like infectious disease, you know, before the germ theory of disease, we had supernatural explanations for disease, witches did it or gods did it. It was never like something really natural, right? We didn't have a good explanation for that. So our minds immediately went to, oh, someone with bad intentions probably did this. And they must be powerful

because I didn't see them do. And they did it from way over there. They did it using, you know, magical ingredients. I'm trying to work out what the common thread is between these four, between stuff that's violent, people who commit violence, the impact of violence on the human body and supernatural spooky... Like things that probably will be violent because they're being sneaky. It's kind of similar actually to the...

That's pretty similar to the minds of dangerous people or the true crime on it. There's a lot of overlapping those too in some ways. What's the thread between all of these? I think the threat is... It's threat itself, right? It's what could possibly harm me. And what do I know about it?

Or more importantly, what do I not know about it? So if I'm watching a violent encounter, I'm watching a UFC fight, I'm learning about the canics of the fighting, right? I'm learning about in the moment mechanics of what's happening during the fight. Same thing with the street fight. Same thing with the police body cam. What's happening in that exact scenario? If I'm reading a true crime book, listening to a true crime podcast,

I'm kind of learning about like what leads up to that scenario. What did the victim not see that they should have seen? what did they use to escape if they escaped? Like what trick or tool did they use to escape? There's actually been a study showing that people find that aspect of the true crime story most interesting. The one where like if a victim escapes, what did they do to escape? People find that more interesting than any other part of the story. Similar idea for body violations, right?

Like what caused this injury and how can I make sure it doesn't happen to me? And then for the sort of unknown or paranormal type of dangers, are they real? Why do some people fall victim to them? Why do some people get possessed and some people don't? Why does some people get haunted by ghosts and others don't? Why does some people have aliens probe them and others don't? And how can I avoid these things happening to me? So if I learned something about these, I might be able to identify some similarities in them and then protect itself.

Right. So threat detection, mitigation, being able to plan for the future. Yeah, threat learning, I would say. Yeah, threat mitigation, threat learning is really what it's about. And of course, evolution kind of imbues this positive feeling of curiosity, this approach orientation, because otherwise we would just avoid those things, right? It's natural to avoid things that are dangerous. But if you counteract that with a bit of curiosity, in particular in situations where you're not in dangerous, if your mind senses, okay, here's a potential threat, but I'm not in danger. That's a really valuable learning opportunity. So you kind of do have to have this push and pull of like pull away so I don't get injured, but approach and push forward so I can learn something about it and actually

makes me better prepared in the future. Watch the UFC fight, but from this side of the ring, the octagon. There's two ways to learn about fighting, right? You can learn about it in the ring or you can learn about it on the ring side. And one of them is a little safer than you. Now, you do learn a little more if you're in the ring, right? There is an incremental gain and kind of what you're learning, but it may not be worth the cost, right?

This episode is brought to you by Element. Summer hits different when you're actually hydrated. That tired, foggy, muscle, crampy feeling most people chalk up to heat or exhaustion. It might be electrolytes and plain water alone won't fix it, which is why Element is such a game changer. It's a zero-sugar electrolyte drink mixed with sodium, potassium and magnesium in the exact ratio your body needs.

No sugar, no food dyes, no artificial junk. this summer they've dropped something new lemonade salt it's like a lemon popsicle grew up got its life together and started supporting your adrenal system and your hydration and best of all there's no questions asked refund policy so you can buy it try it for as long as you want and if you don't like it they'll give you your money back and you don't even need to return the box that's how confident they are that you'll love it plus they offer free shipping in the US right now you can get a free sample pack of all eight flavors with your first box by going to the link in the description below are heading to drink l mntccom slash modern wisdom. That's drinklmnt.com slash modern wisdom.

I'm interested in the sort of adaptive story of morbid curiosity or maybe the evolutionary examples of this because I'm trying to think there's a big difference between being able to read a book, being able to watch a UFC fight, being able to watch body cam footage or a true crime podcast or a true crime documentary or a horror film, I'm wondering what morbid curiosity would have looked like ancestrally. Yeah. Well, we can ask what it looks like in non-humans, right? And that gives us a sense maybe of what it looks like.

You know, I mentioned earlier the gazelles and cheetahs. There's a really great study. It was like a two-year safari study where the zoologist actually went out and just observe gazelles in their natural environment and kind of how they interacted with their natural predators, which are the cheetahs. And what she found were that they don't always run away when they see a cheetah.

What they sometimes do is they stop and they actually observe the cheetah. And there are some things that influence the likelihood of that, right? One of those is if you're an adolescent gazelle, you're much more likely to observe the cheetah than run away or do something else. if you are in a large group I think if you were in a large group

you were more likely to observe the cheetah if you were further away from the cheetah if you were some distance from the cheetah you would observe it and that makes sense right because you can't always run away when you see a predator you would always be on the savannah

you would always be running right because you live amongst your predators right lions and zebras live amongst each other gazelles and cheetahs live amongst each other the gazelles are lions and cheetahs aren't always hungry right cats do a lot of like lasing around like 22 hours a day they lay around and so if you see a lion laying around it's not good if you're a prey to actually run away every single time because then you're going to deplete all your caloric resources um and so one of the uh answers to that problem is to learn something

about them so that you know when they're hungry when they're hunting what they even look like right what they look like when they're trying to pray upon you versus when they're laying around. And you can see the same thing in hunter-gatherer societies where they don't have television, they don't have written language, but they do have oral storytelling, right? And if you look at folklore, predators are one of the most common themes

cross-culturally in folklore. They show up in all different kinds of. of stories and not always scary stories, but predators do show up in all different kinds of stories across the world, across time, different languages. And I think one other piece of evidence for this that I didn't initially come to until I started writing the book was that they show up a lot in our dreams. And there's this really great theory that, you know, everybody wants to know, what do my dreams mean, right? Like the one question a psychologist should be able to answer is, what do my dreams mean? At least that's what?

people think. And I never had really thought much about dreams. You know, I just, they're hard to study because how do you tell what somebody is actually experiencing when they're dreaming? But as I started writing this book and I started thinking more about threats and how they show up in different aspects of our lives and, you know, the way that we remember them or talk about them, I started reading about dreams a lot. And what I found was that one of the most influential and empirically backed theories for why dreaming, like the capability for dreaming exists is that it's really good at rehearsing threats when you're sort of offline. So again, you can learn about something when it's not costing you energy. It's not taking the place of foraging or mating or social status building or whatever else

you might be doing during the day. Then that's a really valuable thing that you can take, right? So that's not to say that dreams only simulate threats, but dreaming itself is a pretty high investment activity. It takes quite a bit of work to dream something up and to hallucinate it because your body actually responds. You're paralyzed, ideally, you're paralyzed when you dream, right? Otherwise, you're sleepwalking. But if you, you know, hook up electrodes to animals or people, you can actually see that a lot of the muscles involved in locomotion are being activated or being sent signals but aren't actually, because you're paralyzed, they're not actually moving, but they're being sent

signals. So they're sort of, your body itself is simulating some sort of event, not just your mind. And, you know, you can do this with, there was a study in the, I think it was the 60s with cats where they, you know, severed a particular connection that caused them to be paralyzed when they sleep. So they got up and moved around when they were dreaming. And what they found is that cats almost always got up and moved around in these sort of either predatorial types of ways or prey types of ways, whether they were hunted. So they were hunting or being hunted when they were asleep. At least they were acting those out physically. So yeah, and there's a lot of evidence that threats show up in our dreams, not just in our nightmares, right?

So if you talk about scary dreams or threats and dreams, people tend to think about nightmares. But nightmares are really a little different, I would say, than threats showing up. It's kind of like the difference between, you know, a horror movie has a bad guy, but so does an action movie. So it is a thriller. So it is a drama even many times. So you can think about the nightmare as the horror movie, but there are many other kinds of dreams where there's a bad guy, where the threat shows up, and where we learn something and we interact with them. We learn something about them.

But it's not terrifying, per se. When you wake up, you're not afraid. but there was some sort of danger in your dream and those tend to be the kinds of things we remember better but without going on too much

of a tangent I mean I talk about an example in my book where there's an anthropologist Thomas Greger who he studies I think it's a mehinaku is how you say their name

people and one thing that's interesting about the Mahanaku people is that they reliably recount their dreams when they wake up to like people around them to their friends

and to their family and so it makes them a great case study for learning about dreams because they reliably regurgitate their dreams. And so he did a great analysis of like all the different kinds of things that they talk about in their dreams. And one thing that consistently comes up are threats. So men would talk about things they might encounter in the jungle. So jaguars or snakes, women would often talk about like, I think it was like poisonous insects or things that they're sort of unable to defend themselves against. I had a Rahul Jandiel on the show yesterday.

He wrote a book about dreaming. And I think he identified the difference between nightmares and bad dreams. As nightmares are things that usually calls you to wake up. They actually disrupt your sleep and have a greater chance of bleeding over and ruining your next day. That's a good way to describe a nightmare. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Well, it seems so far that the main thing that we're doing is preparing for threats, right? That we need to get some sort of adaptive explanation for why morbid curiosities are. Typically these things would be invoking of fear or disgust, but curiosity balances the scales so that we can learn from this experience. It encourages us to overcome our disgust response or our fear and to lean in a little bit, but not too much, and it sort of tolerates that accelerator back and forth. Okay, that's a, I think it's a nice, a nice explanation. I'm particularly interested in how, where individual differences in morbid curiosity

come from, what's a predictor that somebody is more likely or less likely, personality differences, gender, background, upbringing, stuff like that? What are the big contributors there? Yeah, that was one of the first studies I did, right? So I had the scale now. What's the next thing you do? Well, the next thing you should do is make sure that you're measuring something that is distinct from other things, right? It should be correlated with some things, right?

There should be some predictors and some things that, you know, shouldn't predict it at all. But there shouldn't be an complete overlap in variance where if I give somebody, let's say, a big five, it doesn't explain away all the variance in morbid curiosity. So I ran this big personality study where I gave people every kind of test I could think of that might be related to morbid curiosity. So they took the morbid curiosity test. They took a hexaco, which is like big five with honesty, humility in it, right? That's kind of your main domains of personality that explain a lot of attitudes and behaviors in daily life. They took a disgust sensitivity scale. They took a psychopathy scale that had one of Lillianfelds that has multiple subscales in it.

I asked, you know, their age, their sex, their, I think income. threw in a lot of different things that it was kind of just like a pot or I threw in all these different personality tests to try to see can I explain away morbid curiosity if I have enough data? And the answer was no.

The closest I got... That's a good thing. That's a good thing. For me it was, anyway. The closest I got when I included all of the significant predictors was about 50%. So I could explain about 50%

of people's scores and morbid curiosity if I looked at disgust and psychopathy and Big Five and sex and age and all these different things. However, there were a few things that were much more strongly correlated with morbid curiosity than other things. So psychopathy was one of them, which is interesting. We can talk a little bit about, I have my own sort of thoughts on psychopathy and what it's really measuring. But psychopathy was one of them, and this is subclinical psychopathy, so not clinically, you know, no clinical diagnosis. Another one was, oh, I also, I used the five dimensions of curiosity from Todd Kaston

because I wanted to see maybe if it could be explained by other dimensions of curiosity. The answer there was no, just generally curious. Yeah, and there were some positive correlations, but they were small. They were 0.2 to 0.3 or maybe 4 on one of them, right? So the variance there would be, you know, 10 to 30% at the most explained away by other dimensions of curiosity. there was I think psychopathy and in particular

in psychopathy it was the rebelliousness subscale that was the one that was most strongly correlated that was like the single thing

I measured that was most strongly correlated with Morby curiosity by itself there wasn't a lot of difference between men and women

there were some differences in the subscales men tend to be more interested in violence women tend to be more interested in the minds of dangerous people the other two

were kind of a wash I don't think there were any significant differences there. Even in other studies I've done, it tends to be pretty close. Age, younger people, who are definitely more morbidly curious than older people, which kind of makes sense, because if it's about learning, do you're learning when you're young,

you're not going to do your learning when you're older, right? You should be less interested in the things that you've already learned about. The morbid curiosity looks like it decreases on average with age, and that aligns up with animal literature on the gazelles, for example, right? The adolescents were the ones that did the most predator inspection. But there weren't a lot of other major, like, disgust. You would think disgust would be highly correlated.

I thought it would be, right? I thought disgust sensitivity surely would be highly correlated, negatively correlated with morbid curiosity. And it was a little bit, like some of the subscales, I think, you know, maybe explaining 10% of the variance, but it wasn't much. and I was really interested in why it didn't explain away the body violations, because I thought that, you know, surely how easily you're disgusted by something should be strongly negatively correlated with how interested you are in learning about a bodily injury, right? But it turns out, I think what's happening is that there's two different kinds of body injuries, right? There are infectious body injuries and there are non-infectious body injuries. I talk about this in the chapter on, on, bodily violations in the book where there was a really cool study done several years ago by Tom Kupfer where he set up these like fake dressings for injuries like bandages for injuries and he said you know this one was caused by and he would say some sort of infection right and this one was caused by you know a fish hook or something a knife something that's not infectious but does

cause a lot of blood and gore and other things and he asked people like how much, how comfortable would you be touching this dressing versus this dressing? If you had to pick up this bandage, you know, how comfortable would you be with it? And how disgusting is it? And what he found is that he even asked people to like, okay, reach your hand in with some gloves on and pick it up. And people were much more likely to pick up the ones that were non-infectious. So if it's a bandage from a knife wound, people were way more likely to pick that up than they are a bandage from an eye infection or something. And that makes sense to us, no, because we know what infections are, right?

But I think that's important because we're make, our minds are making a distinction in how dangerous something is, or at least how dangerous it is to interact with something. And disgust sensitivity, if it works like we think it does, should tap into infections, not other kinds of bodily injuries, not broken bones, not knife cuts, not, you know, other kinds of injuries that wouldn't be infectious. And so when we have enough information, we actually make that distinction. So I think what's going on is disgust sensitivity is driving us away. from things that are infectious, right? It is making us avoid those. But there's a lot of other kind of injuries out there. And those tend to be the ones that we're morbidly curious about

are the ones that are not about infection. They're about injuries from typically violence or accidents. Yeah, I mean, that's so interesting. People would, I'm just trying to think about examples. People would be maybe interested in documentaries about the black death, but it's so long ago that they feel like they're protected. Whereas if we look at the amount of discomfort and psychological distress that lots of people went through when they lived through COVID and they were hearing about

this and it's the sort of thing that's out there and it could get you. I imagine that there's lots of people who would have been both incredibly scared of COVID and also massive fans of true crime at the same time. Yeah, probably so. Square that circle for me. Yeah. Well, I think, you know, and it's not to say

that we wouldn't be interested in things, like a documentary, like the example you gave. I think, you know, it's not that morbidly curious people would be more interested in a non-infectious documentary than an infectious documentary

necessarily. I think what it is is that disgust sensitivity just modifies that interest much less in the non-infectious. Yeah, so if you're watching a documentary about the Black Death, and it's showing examples of what

blubonic plague looks like on someone. The person would discuss sensitivity is going to shy away from that a little more than they would from, say, other kinds of bodily injury documents. But yeah, you know, I, when COVID was announced as a national pandemic or a world pandemic back in March of 2020, like every other scientists in the world who wasn't studying

viruses, I had to kind of stop what I was doing. our labs closed down. And I was really bummed because I had this really fun study planned where I had this cabinet of curiosities I had curated and some of them were morbid and some of them weren't. And I was going to do this really great eye tracking study with it. And all of that had to get shut down. So I thought, okay, how can I shift some of this online? Because that was the only way we could continue studying things was online. And I thought, well, most people, probably everyone alive today has never lived through a global pandemic like this, right? The last big thing like that would have been like Spanish flu probably.

There were certainly other pandemics between now and then, but that was probably the last like major thing that kind of shut down the way the world operates, right? And it didn't happen at the same scale because we weren't as connected. We couldn't fly across the planet in six hours, right? We had to, in 1918, it just wasn't like that. And so I thought, well, that's probably pretty scary for a lot of people. It was, you know, like, we didn't know what was going on because there was this virus. We don't know how dangerous it is.

But on top of that, like, our entire way of life is changing. We don't know when we can continue to go outside, when things will go back to normal, if our family, our older family members will be okay. And so I thought, well, this is a really good way to study whether or not people who are morbidly curious are actually feeling more prepared for this. Like, this is actually working. This is kind of a natural experiment. So that's what I did is I studied, you know, are people who are more interested in true crime, are they dealing with the pandemic better, right? Are they people who are horror fans? Are they dealing with the pandemic better? Are they feeling less anxious about it? And again, here I tried to control for, when I did the study, I tried to control for factors that would influence that, your Big Five personality, your income, especially during COVID, you could kind of, you know, seclude yourself a little more if you were wealthy. You maybe didn't, you weren't a necessary worker that had to still go in. to work. I included age. I included a bunch of other personality facets and asked the question, are people who are more really curious, more resilient in these early months? I did this study in

April of 2020. And the answer was yes, even controlling for all those other factors that influence, you know, how you respond to this novel situation, people who are morbidly curious were reporting a greater level of psychological resilience. They were feeling optimistic about the future, experiencing, you know, lower levels of anxiety, lower levels of depression, compared to pre-pandemic levels than non-morbidly curious people. A quick aside, I've been drinking AG1 every morning for years now, and it just got even better. Ag1 NextGen keeps the same simplicity, one scoop, once a day, but now comes with four clinical trials backing it. In those trials, AG1 NextGen was clinically shown to fill common nutrient gaps, improve key nutrient levels within three months, and increase

healthy gut bacteria by 10 times even in healthy adults. Basically, they've upgraded the formula with better probiotics, more bioavailable nutrients and clinical validation. And it's still NSF certified for sport so you know that the quality is legit. Age 1 genuinely care about holistic health, which is why I've got my mum to take it, my dad to take it, and tons of my friends too, and why I put it inside of my body every single day. And if I found something better, I would switch, but I haven't, which is why I still use it. And if you're still unsure, they've got a 90-day money-back guarantee. So you can buy it and try it. it for three months. If you don't like it, I'll just give you your money back. Right now, you can

get a yours free supply of vitamin D3K2 and 5 free AG1 travel packs plus that 90 day money back guarantee by going to the link in the description below or heading to drinkag1.com slash modern wisdom. That's drinkag1.com slash modern wisdom. All right, we need to dee into this. Why does some women want to date serial killers? If there's no sex difference, it's only slight, it's not that predictive. blah, blah, blah. I'm not familiar with that many guys sending love letters to

female serial killers or angels of mercy or whatever they're called are these nurses that get caught having killed a ton of babies. The reverse, some chicks love a serial killer. What's going on there? Even serial killers that would not be interested in them,

like Dahmer, got tons of fan mail from women that presumably he was not very interested in. And he was not a particularly good-looking guy either. Yeah, this was a question that I've been getting for a long time. And finally, I had a study that kind of addressed this. I think what's going on, and it makes a lot of sense in light of what we've been discussing, is that if you take a very dangerous man, Ted Bundy, you know, someone who, if you're a woman, would be a prime prey for him, right?

if you take someone like Ted Bundy and you put him in prison where he can't hurt anyone including you he can't influence your life in any kind of way but you can still interact with him you can write him letters you can go visit him in jail behind the safety of shackles that's an incredible way to learn about someone firsthand

right it's an incredible way to learn about you maybe what is one of the most dangerous people on the planet as a young female. Now, I don't know if I can explain the, like, sexual attraction. I mean, Ted Bundy was a decent looking guy, but I don't know if I can explain, like, the affective attraction or the feelings of warmth people have towards them.

But I have done some research with some researchers here at the University of Arkansas, where we saw that women who were higher in morbid curiosity were much more interested in men who had dark personality traits, psychopathy, sadism, Machiavellianism, the bad boys right like those traits are associated with being like a bad boy and but what was interesting is there is a distinction

so you were morbidly curious you were you were behaviorally interested in these guys but you didn't necessarily feel like warm and cozy around them right but you would say like oh yes I would love to like talk to this person or learn more about them so we've made up these like fake dating profiles where you know the profile depicted a man who was high in the dark triad or

in the reverse depicted a man who was not a high in the dark triad and yeah morbidly curious women were much more likely to swipe on the man

who was high in the dark triad but when they were asked about it there was a distinction between why they swiped or why they would have been interested or said yes to this person and it was that they were really just interested

in learning about them it's interesting that cross over into the sexual attraction thing. I suppose, you know, if we get real speculative, you could say it's the highest status, most dangerous guy in the tribe. This is somebody who it is significantly better

to be an ally of than an enemy of. And one way that women could ally a very powerful man is to use their sexuality in order to get him on side. Yeah. You know, a dangerous person is only dangerous to you if they don't like you, right? a dangerous person likes you, then they become a huge asset to you, especially if you're not a high-formitability person, right?

Looking at some more of the sort of group differences here, do certain cohorts prefer different types, different categories? I certainly know, at least I've heard, that true crime, true crime podcasts lean female, I'm going to guess. The UFC leans very, very heavily male. yeah um i do have this theory that real world war stories are just true crime for dudes they are true crime for dudes absolutely so what's going on here have you thought about the taxonomy of different types of content and why certain people are interested in it kind of i think um yeah so we i've i've

looked at uh the true crime and women thing because it's again something i get asked all the time are women actually more interested in true crime than men the answer seems to be resounding yes, right? And whatever modality it is, podcasts, books, whatever, right? I haven't looked at men in war stories, but I would imagine that that is true for the same reasons, right? That's, you know, historically, what kind of violence is a man likely to encounter? Well, violence from another man, right? And probably in the context of a war or a battle or some sort of dispute. What kind of violence is a woman most likely to encounter? or probably that from a man as well, right?

But not in the context of a war, but in the context of a personal relationship. So those are the types of stories that are most relevant to those demographics, right? The type of story, when it comes to threats for women that is most relevant as close personal relationships in like most domestic abuse cases, right?

Or kind of by definition, like violence against women tends to be men they know. Among men, it's kind of just other men, right? And historically, it's been other men who are not part of your group. And that translates pretty directly into a war story. I suppose playing with war as well, that makes complete sense. Like, guys are prepping for war.

That's why, you know, if you get kindergartners and you look at the games that girls play and the games that boys play, this is before they've been socialized, social learning, social roles theory stuff, girls will be caring for something, keeping something alive. they're playing nurse, they've got a bunny rabbit, the guys, the little boys, cowboys versus aliens versus, you know, monsters or whatever they come up with, right? Yeah, one is doing sort of nurturing and care and the other is doing war and battle. Yeah. Yeah, I think, I would love to have, I mean, I don't, I don't know that there's, there's probably data on this somewhere, but, you know, like a cross-cultural analysis of that, I assume would show up the same thing. Like, it doesn't matter if, you're in a horticulturalist tribe or a hunter-gatherer tribe or L.A. or Austin or New York or

rural Maine, that's probably true, right? Like if you're hanging out with other, like a little boys hanging out with other little boys, they're going to play somewhat more violent games and rural are going to play somewhat less violent games, right? Again, direct violence versus kind of learning about someone who's maybe dangerous. I mean, I saw this when I was in my master's program. I worked as a mad scientist, which is the coolest job title. And all it meant was that I would go around and I would do science shows and camps for kids. It was like a cheap version of Bill Nye. And one of the camps, one of the first camps I did was a summer camp. And I had, I don't know, 15 or so kids that ranged from ages, I want to say like five to nine generally.

And I was a young 20-something, didn't have kids, didn't really know how to like, I mean, I played with kids, but didn't really know how to like teach a group of kids something, right? And what you quickly learn is that kids have very short attention spans and they require a lot of free time, which I should know is someone who's, I guess, written about that a little bit, but of course, they need free time, they need time to play, they need time to explore. And, you know, unfortunately, when I was doing this camp, it was in the middle of summer in Oklahoma, it was 100 and whatever. degrees outside. And so they couldn't play outside that long. It was just like, it was too hot. And so we had to find like games for them to play inside during their break time. And I didn't really know a lot of like group games for kids. I mean, every now and then we had access to a gym and we would play like Red Rover, capture the flag or something like that. But many times there wasn't a gym. It was like just the room that we were in. We couldn't play these more like

physical games. And so the one game that came to mind was this game called Mafia. or a werewolf, if you've ever heard of it. I've played Weirwolf many times, yes. Yeah, yeah. Mafia is the same exact thing, but it's instead of a werewolf, it's a mafia member, but it's the same structure, same everything. And I thought, okay, that's a pretty, like, simple, because I need something simple that kids could learn quickly

and they wouldn't get bored with rules, right? And I was like, okay, this is very simple, imaginative, they get to play, like, let's try this. And, you know, the basic premise is there's a narrator who at first was me, and then all the kids are part of this, like, fake town and they get these secret identities for these little pieces of paper with a secret identity written on it. And I mean, the first challenge was that some of the kids couldn't read

very well so they had to help them know what their identity was. But once we got all of that sorted, most of them, you know, are townspeople. Two of them were mafia members. One of them was a doctor and could heal people and one was a sheriff who could arrest people. And the basic premise is the narrator tells the story about how the town goes to sleep at night and in the middle of the night, the mafia or the bad guys come out and they attack someone. And the doctor, you know, can wake up and try to heal them and the sheriff has to figure out who did it, right? But the crux of this is that when they wake up, the town has to vote. They have to vote on like who they think did it and who they're going to, in this case, like hang for the mafia members, right?

Who are they going to hang in like an old west style hanging? And I tried to keep it very tame because I was like, okay, these are like five to nine year olds. I don't want them going home to their parents. like I killed my friend at at science camp today because he was a member of the mafia or something. I kept the narration very tame. It was so-and-so died last night at the hands of the mafia. Eventually, once the kids started to learn how to play, I let them be the narrates, right?

So I would let one of them try a narration. And it became this, like, awful scene of, like, out of the worst horror movie. I mean, the descriptions of, like, what happened to the people who were murdered by the mafia became bloody and, violent and their entrails, you know, their guts were thrown out and their heads were cut off. It was like this horribly violent thing. So without me provoking them, and in fact, I was trying

to keep them from being overly violent, the kids had this desire to, and in particular with little boys, had this desire to like tell these awful stories of what happened and how they need to get justice for it and they have to hang someone. And they were so excited about hanging someone for doing this. Yeah, I think kids are super morbidly curious, but it shows up in their pretend play a lot, where they have control over how that feels to them. What about when it comes to car crashes, gory films,

I guess there's a growing creator economy as well for police body cam footage, too. Really? Yeah, I mean, the freedom of information requests or whatever, there's entire channels that are just built from asking to get access to this thing, which, I mean, I don't know where the freedom of information thing came in with police body cam footage. What they probably didn't think was that, wow, in future we're going to be fueling an entire YouTube ecosystem of people that just like narrate mad shit

happening to police officers. But yeah, is this just the people are injured? I want to see how they're injured, how to fix it, how to avoid it? Or is there more going on there? Yeah, I think with police body cams, uh, in particular, you know, that's like a situation you could find yourself in as interacting with a police officer, right? And I think there's a certain, you know, when, when police stories make the news,

it's only the bad stories, right? And those can be a very small fraction of what happens, but it's like the ones that are the worst, the most awful, um, usually the most ambiguous as well. Those are the ones that make the news. Those are the ones that people are most interested in. And a lot of times, especially if it's an ambiguous thing, like, oh, did they have a weapon or did they not have a weapon where they really being aggressive or not being aggressive, you can learn something really important from that. Like, how do you look from the police officer's point of view? Like, what are they doing that is making them a target or making them seem like an aggressor to the police officer?

I think in particular those really violent, ambiguous police videos are what really get. people paying attention because, you know, there's different interpretations of what could happen and different interpretations of like, how would I interpret that or how would I act in a situation? Well, I wouldn't have done this. I would have just put my hands up or I would have done this or that. But yeah, I think the ambiguity really fuels that, the ambiguity of like what's happening. This episode is brought you by Incogni. If you've ever typed your name into Google and found your info on some weird website that you've never heard of, that's not a fluke. Data brokers and people search sites collect your personal information like your name, address, phone number, buying

habits, your income, your medical history, and they sell it without your consent. And there are hundreds of them, which is why I partnered with incognity. It finds these bad actors and gets your info removed from their databases automatically. You don't have to email anyone, fill out forms or jump through hoops. They handle the entire process for you and keep going as new brokers pop up. Best of all, you can cancel it any time, and they offer a 30-day money back guarantee. So you can buy it completely risk-free, use it for 29 days. If you don't like it for any reason, they'll just give you your money back. Right now, you can get a 60% discount on an annual plan by going to the link in the description below

are heading to incogny.com slash modern wisdom and using the code modern wisdom at checkout. That's I-N-C-O-G-N-I dot com slash modern wisdom and modern wisdom at checkout. Yeah, that makes complete sense. When it comes to

creating horror as it's sort of shown on TV, I'm not a cinematographer or a director, but I have to assume that there's a formula for how that's put together. What does that look like when it's sort of deconstructed? What is horror?

What's the difference between terror and horror? How does all of this fit together? Well, I mean, this is something actually that I've been thinking a lot about recently is, you know, people tend to agree when they watch a film, like, oh, this is a horror film. It's just like one of those things you know it when you see it. If you watch a film, you're like, oh, that's kind of a horror film. and so as someone who's interested in why people are interested in scary things obviously I'm very interested in horror movies and horror games and stories

because those are the ways that we talk about these scary things and in fictional settings and so I became really interested in how do we define the horror genre like what is it about that movie that makes me say aha that's a horror movie and so this is something that I've been coming up with recently I just wrote a paper with a colleague of mine on this I think what's going on in horror movies in particular is that you have a really powerful bad guy

you've got a really strong antagonist strong villain very formidable and you have a very vulnerable protagonist and if you think about it that doesn't really happen in any other genre movie. It's like historically people have tried to define the horror genre as you know the way that the audience feels

like for example they feel afraid. It's like if it scares you it's a horror movie. Well that's not a very good definition because what scares me may not scare you or may scare someone else may scare me today but not in 10 years um that doesn't change what the story is right doesn't change like what that story is meant to be um other people have said well it's it's about the intention of the writer so if the writer is trying to scare you that's a horror story and i didn't really sit right with me either because um somebody can try to do something and not do it very well right or

they can try to do one thing but actually it ends up looking like another thing um so i thought about, I started thinking about this as kind of a biologist and thinking about the characters involved and like their relationship to one or not. Well, it seems like in horror movies, and empirically so, we did this study on like 600 different films, horror movies feature very vulnerable protagonists, very formidable antagonists. And I think that's a really archetypal type of story where you're the underdog, right? Or in this case, the person you're empathizing with the protagonist is the underdog. And there's nothing they can do really to get out of this situation. And yet they still somehow usually make it out. And I think that's really

attractive information for people who are high and morbid curiosity. That's interesting. What about zombie movies? What's the appeal of those? Because that's a specific type. That's a weird one, right? Yeah. It's kind of horror, but by design is fantastical. Yeah. Yeah. I think zombies are interesting because they tap into all four domains of Morby Curiosity. And I think they're probably one of the only horror stories that reliably do that. So if you think about what a zombie is, it's it was a human, right? It still looks human, still kind of acts human in some ways and has bad intentions, right? It wants to eat you. That kind of taps into the

minds of dangerous people. What's really going on? Is there anything left in the zombie's mind. Is there still a human in there? Is it just a monster? So it taps into that domain. They're obviously very violent if they catch you. If they catch you, they want to eat you, right? So there's a lot of violence in zombie films that taps into the violence domain. There's also usually warring sort of survivor groups, right? There's a lot of like intergroup violence in zombie movies, it's usually. They're also kind of supernatural, right? They're alive, but not really, or are they dead? You know, it's unclear like what their status is. Are they alive or dead? Can they? Can they?

be brought back. Are they gone forever? Why do they keep coming when I shoot them? They do all of these things that are sort of tapping into the paranormal danger, the uncertain danger. And of course, the last one, body violations. I mean, they're like walking body violations, right? They have horrible injuries all over them. If they catch people, they tend to create horrible injuries, whether that's bites or scratches or ripping off their arms. And so I think zombie movies sort of reliably tap into all four domains of morbid curiosity. Which makes them really appealing in it. You know, those tend to be the highest grossing, like horror TV shows or movies.

If you think of like World War Z is like an action zombie movie. I mean, that's the perfect combination. I'm legend. Yeah, I am legend. Walking Dead for TV shows, right? I mean, those are the ones that if you do them right, you can really capture a broad audience. It's funny that your different categories of elements of morbid curiosity, that you can kind of reverse engineer that and use it to explain those.

I'd never even considered that. Are you familiar with this monster enters left tactic? Have you heard of this? What is it? Monster enters left. So it's a filmmaking trope, I suppose. Apparently horror filmmakers know that the human eye has a tendency to drift slightly to the right of the screen when they're viewing a movie. So on average, shocks and surprises come from the left side.

Really? This is this guy, Will Mushroom. He's a composer and a writer. Horror cinematography seems to sort of exploit negative empty space, right? That's how it builds tension and primes view is for something to emerge. But it often comes from the left, where attention is weakest. So it uses the imbalance to heighten the impact, jump scares and sort of the way that it's integrated into the broader atmospheric heightened tension. And we've got this cognitive asymmetry that favors right brain surprise.

People tend to scan screens in one way. And then an appearance on the left, it hits faster. Even though our eyes drift to the right, we tend to scan from left to right, which means that a left-sided sudden appearance hits the brain more quickly. And it processes more quickly. And perhaps that's a reason why sort of misdirection works when, yeah, you're trying to work out what's going on on the screen. Oh, that's so cool.

Yeah, and I imagine, I guess the left to right thing is just an artifact of us reading left or right. Is that the idea? I'm not sure. I mean, it's getting. Perhaps, perhaps it's trained. I would be interested to know whether this would be correct in different cultures that have different kinds of ways that they put there.

Exactly. Yeah, the ancient Egyptians. we'll put it from the bottom I just this is something that needs a little bit more I've done a bit of research on it and I wanted to talk to you about it today but I don't know how just quite how much truth there is in it

what would be lovely would be to do a an assessment of jump scares in movies and work out which side of the screen they come from yeah yeah I think and that would be a hard one to do because you would have I think you would have to like in this that I mentioned, we used large language, language models to describe plots and describe characters in the plots, right? And you can do that with like chat, GPT. If you have the right

kind of prompts, you can say, like, you know, rate this antagonist in this movie on all these different features that we think tap into formidability, right? Oh, this is interesting. I've just done a little bit of digging there. So you've got this thing called pseudo-neglect, which is linked to right hemisphere dominance for spatial awareness. That paradoxically results in leftward attention bias in some visual search tasks, but during screen watching, attentional drift to the right is commonly observed, likely due to learn scanning patterns. So, yeah, going that way. Sudden movement or emergence on the left side of the screen can be more startling because it taps into the right hemisphere. So we cross over, right? Sort of right goes to left, left goes to

right. Taps into the right hemisphere, which is more reactive to emotion, novelty, and spatial alertness and the viewer's attention is often not focused on the left during buildup sequences because of this drift to the right. This misdirection taxes cognitive resources, meaning that we're less able to anticipate a threat when it comes from an unexpected place. So that's the left-hand side. So it's sort of like a one-two punch. It's like it surprises you more and it activates the better than a brain more that's more likely to respond. That's so cool. Was there a name for this? What was the name for this phenomenon? Monster enters left.

It's monster enter, okay, I'll look that up, which is an interesting one, psychological and cinematic principle, somewhat unexplored formally in peer-reviewed research. Well, that stinks. That stinks of a blue ocean for you too. It's almost like everything I study, I feel like, you know, it's nice when that something is not, somebody's not looked into it because then you're like, oh, I can do that and I can kind of be the one to discover this. But the downside is you don't have the time or the money or the energy.

to do all the studies, and so you kind of hope that, like, other people will do some of these interesting things so that I can actually just read about it and enjoy it and learn from it. Yeah, I'm not surprised to hear that, you know, the empirical research is lacking. I buy it, though. I think that makes a lot of sense, especially the scanning left to right, the drift, the surprise factor. I think that makes a lot of sense, but I'd never heard of that. Look, we're learning everything today. Have you looked at any correlations between the fact that people, especially at younger ages, are more exposed to horrific images. Is this increasing morbid curiosity? Is it desensitizing people? Lots of violent media being shown to people at a young age,

sensitive developmental stages. I'm interested in whether that's changing people's morbid curiosity. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, you know, again, developmental studies are, like, true developmental studies are hard because they have to be longitudinal, right? You have to look at the same people. over time for several years. And you can get some like cohort data, but cohort data is hard because technology is changing so fast.

Like as you mentioned, you know, a five-year-old now might have a smartphone where they can see this stuff for us when you and I were five, like it was much harder to see something graphic like that, right?

And so the cohort analysis is actually really hard to do. You kind of have to do a longitudinal study. So I haven't done it and I don't know anyone who has. I will say that two things. One is that, you know,

we obviously live in, like, I would say the least violent in the U.S. Like, we live in like the least violent time that we can imagine for humans. You know, human life has been much more awful and violent for most of its history than it is in 2025 for the average American. Now, we can witness, on the same coin, we can more easily witness horrific violence because we can look it up online, right? So I don't know if that's kind of a wash or if it's actually worse because we're seeing it, but we can't do anything about it, if it's better because it's,

not actually impacting us. I know that, you know, one of the concerns that people have is, as you mentioned, are we becoming desensitized to it? So do we stop caring about it? Does it make us less aesthetic? I actually did a study on this looking at, because one of the main critiques of horror films, turns out, I think is unfounded, but one of the main critiques is that they, one of two things, either one, only people with low empathy watch them or two, if you watch them, you will get

low empathy, right? You're doomed either way. And so I actually looked into this and did a couple of studies on it and found that, you know, there's no relationship between empathy levels in horror fans or people who really dislike horror. And it kind of makes sense because, you know, if you, if horror is interesting to you, it's interesting to you, mostly because you're empathizing with the protagonist who is in danger. right and that elicit some sort of emotional reaction in you usually fear or disgust or dread if you weren't empathizing with that protagonist or if you were not afraid of what was going on you wouldn't really enjoy the movie that's like the most common criticism of a horror movie is like it wasn't scary or I didn't you know the very thing that it was supposed to deliver it didn't manage to deliver yes and so in order for that to deliver reliably like you kind of have to empathize with

the protagonist and you have to be a little bit afraid. So, you know, looking back on it, it's like, well, that kind of makes sense that they're not lower in empathy. But it was one of the studies I did as part of this package of studies was to see if people had that impression. So, like, if I ask people, I say, hey, here's Chris, he's this age, and his favorite movie genre is horror. And then I come up with a bunch of those different little bios.

I switch out the name and the sex and the age. and the, or you can keep those the same, rather, and change out the favorite movie genre. What I found was that when I asked people, well, how empathetic do you think Chris is? How compassionate do you think Chris is? How, you know, all these different traits. People rated horror fans as less empathetic, less compassionate.

They expected them to be less empathetic and compassionate. And I always have a fill in the blank, you know, at the end of my surveys or into my studies to get people's real thoughts, just their button-clicking thoughts. And some people explicitly told me, like, well, I rated him as less compassionate because he said he liked horror movies. It's like people have this intuition that you should, you know, have lower empathy if you

can enjoy these kinds of things. But if he's able to do it, he is distancing himself from it. He is because he's got low empathy. If he was empathetic, he would simply not be able to do it. Whereas what it appears is the whole reason that you're interested is because of your empathy. That's the precise mechanism that it's working on. Now, there's, there's one caveat to that, which is that let's say you're like a, like a totally cold, like a Jeffrey Dahmer, just totally cold, serial killer, interested in

you can still be interested in violence because it's sort of a way for you to not get caught, but experience those really violent urges. So there are those like rare instances where, yes, like a serial killer might actually enjoy a horror movie. But for different reasons than 99.9% of the population. Yeah, exactly. It's a different kind of training, right? They're training with the predator or not with the prey. Oh, so interesting. Yeah, well, I guess, you know, you just roll in the dice. Someone says that their favorite genre of movies is horror. Maybe they're highly empathetic person. Maybe they're serial killer. Yeah, maybe, maybe. You never know. I think it probably airs on one side of the other,

but you can never be too careful. Well, but actually is a little bit like a, of a, I mean, I guess a meta approach to this, which is that, well, people are concerned about people that like horror movies because some of them might be serial killers, right? So your threat detection is going off on the horror movie fans because some of them might be dangerous. Beautiful. Colton Scrivener, ladies and gentlemen, Colton, your stuff's great. Your substack is awesome. Your book's awesome. Everyone should go and check it out. Where should they go? I mean, for the book, you can order it from whatever bookstore you tend to go to. So, you know, you can get it on Pingu and Rana. house or Amazon or bookshop or your local bookstore starting October 7th.

And then for my other writing that didn't make it into the book, my substack, morbidly curious thoughts.com. I can't. Colton, I appreciate you. Thank you, man. Yeah. Thanks for the fun conversation.