The Jordan Harbinger Show - 1276: Coltan Scrivner | The Evolutionary Logic of Morbid Curiosity

Episode Date: January 27, 2026

Why do we rubberneck accidents and binge true crime? Behavioral scientist Coltan Scrivner explains the surprising psychology behind our morbid curiosity.Full show notes and resources can be found here: jordanharbinger.com/1276What We Discuss with Coltan Scrivner:Morbid curiosity isn't a character flaw — it's an evolutionary feature. The same instinct that makes us rubberneck at accidents helped our ancestors learn about threats without becoming victims themselves. It's your brain's built-in threat-assessment system, gathering intel from a safe distance.Horror movies work because of a specific formula: an overwhelmingly powerful villain versus a vulnerable protagonist. That imbalance — think Pennywise hunting kids or Jason stalking camp counselors — triggers our threat-detection systems in ways action films simply can't replicate.True crime's massive female audience isn't random. Women face threats primarily from people they know, so their curiosity focuses on spotting danger signals and understanding how predators operate. Men, who historically face violence from strangers, gravitate toward watching combat simulations like UFC.Decades of research and millions of dollars confirm: violent video games don't create violent people. The Mortal Kombat moral panic of the nineties produced the ESRB rating system — but the generation raised on those pixelated fatalities turned out just fine.Engaging with scary play — whether horror films, spooky games, or even childhood tag — actually builds emotional resilience. Kids who experience controlled fear learn to regulate anxiety, giving them psychological tools to handle real-world stress as adults. So don't skip the haunted house.And much more...And if you're still game to support us, please leave a review here — even one sentence helps! Sign up for Six-Minute Networking — our free networking and relationship development mini course — at jordanharbinger.com/course!Subscribe to our once-a-week Wee Bit Wiser newsletter today and start filling your Wednesdays with wisdom!Do you even Reddit, bro? Join us at r/JordanHarbinger!This Episode Is Brought To You By Our Fine Sponsors: HelloFresh: Get $80 off your first order at hellofresh.com/jhs80Bombas: Go to bombas.com/jordan to get 20% off your first orderDeleteMe: 20% off: joindeleteme.com/jordan, code JORDANAudible: Visit audible.com/jhs or text JHS to 500-500Homes.com: Find your home: homes.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jordan here. Before we start this show, I want to let you know this episode contains violence and some explicit themes. So no kids in the car for this one. And if you leave the kids in the car and you still play the episode, don't blame me when they have nightmares. Coming up next on the Jordan Harbinger Show. Darwin, of course, was famous for his theory of evolution. He was a theorist. He heard about this story from a zoologist named Alfred Brim, who gave a story about these monkeys that saw a snake inside of a bag. This was an experiment that he did. A monkey would look inside the bag and scream,

and then another monkey would come up and look inside the bag and scream and run away. The other monkeys had to come up and see it because he survived. That other monkey survived. He was fine, and he signaled danger. So I kind of want to know what that thing is. And that's a very similar thing to, oh, this thing is terrible. You don't want to see it. Now I kind of do.

Welcome to the show. I'm Jordan Harbinger. On the Jordan Harbinger show, we decode the stories, secrets and skills of the world's most fascinating people and turned their wisdom into practical advice that you can use to impact your own life and those around you. Our mission is to help you become a better informed, more critical thinker through long-form conversations

with the variety of amazing folks, from spies to CEOs, athletes, authors, thinkers, and performers, even the occasional drug trafficker, former jihadi, or four-star general. In fact, if you're new to the show or you want to tell your friends about it, and I always appreciate it when you do that, I suggest our episode starter packs. These are collections of our favorite episodes on topics like persuasion and negotiation, psychology, geopolitics, disinformation, China, North Korea, crime and cults, and more. That'll help new listeners get a taste of everything we do here on the show.

Just visit jordanharbinger.com slash start, or search for us in your Spotify app to get started. Today we're talking about why so many of us are drawn to things that are objectively disturbing. Horror movies, true crime, car accidents, we can't stop staring at. Haunted hotels, you swear you'd never pay for, but you still want to hear all of the details. Are horror fans secretly violent? Is morbid curiosity a bug in the human brain, or is it a feature that kept us alive back in the day? And why does Halloween feel cozy to some people, even though it's basically a celebration of morbidity and death?

We're getting into the neuroscience of fear, why scary play works, why empathetic people often love horror, and why enjoying blood and mortal combat doesn't mean you're about to snap, even if Nintendo really wanted you to think so. So if you've ever rubber neck to car crash, binged true crime for research purposes, or felt weirdly relaxed watching something like Saw, you're definitely going to feel extremely seen today. Here we go with Colton Scribner. You were born to be a scientist. You're named after a mineral. Yeah, I didn't know that until later on. It's like a combination mineral, right?

The unfortunate thing is if you search my name, there aren't a lot of people with my name that is spelled, C-O-L-T-A-N. The only other thing in the world that spelled like that is this slave mining that happens in the Congo. Yes, before that was a well-known thing. I met this guy at a club in New York because I was friends of the DJ, and she's like, this is my friend. And I was like, oh, you want to go dance? He's like, I can't dance because we're all going on the dance for it.

And he's like, I can't dance. And I was like, don't worry about it. I'm a terrible dancer. He's like, no, I literally can't because I have. have $30,000 worth of gold strapped to my leg. And I was like, okay, first of all, why? And he's like, well, I just came from the airport, but also I don't want to leave this in my hotel room,

and it only has a really crappy safe. And I just flew in from Sierra Leone or something like that. And I was like, okay, still wondering while you have gold strapped you're like, he's like, places like that, you never know what you're going to need when you're going to need it. If you have to escape a place like that, you don't have time to go back to your house

and get stuff because chances are your house is on fire and has already been raided by a militia. So he's like, I always keep this gold strapped to my leg even when I'm sleeping because I don't want it to get stolen because it's worth like 30 grand, this kilo of gold or whatever it is. And I was like, why do you live there? And he's like, well, I'm mining for Coltan. And I was like, you're mining for Coltan. What is that for? And he explains how it's in cell phones and stuff.

Bear in mind, this is like 2009. So I'd never heard of rare earth minerals or whatever any of these things are, rare earth elements. And he explains out it's in every phone, every electronic device. And I was like, you're a miner that seems like a really bad, unhealthy thing to do. You're like an educated European guy. I don't get it. And he basically explained that he doesn't do the mining. He showed me photos.

He lives in like a shack made out of some sort of local wood and thatch. And he lays around while these guys stand around with machine guns. And then a bunch of other local people dig in watery pools with their bare hands and go down into holes. and they pull out Coltan. And it's like a really good gig. And I said, how did you even find out about that? And he's like, well, I'm friends with the president of the country. And he allows these operations.

And basically it was like the most crooked, corrupt, like shady thing that I'd ever heard. The shadiest thing you can do. Yes, I was like, okay. So white European guy goes to Africa and is friends with the president and has militia guards around him, but may need to escape at any point in time. And basically has what I'm hoping are not slaves digging for Coltan. the dirt. Yeah, exactly. So, yeah, kept a touch with them for a while, but didn't kind of make the cut after I started finding out about this. Yeah, I feel like I have people in like that of my life where

they do something interesting, but it's so morally opaque. I'm like, I don't know if I can be close to you, but they're like a lens into another part of the world. Yeah, it's like, oh, you run a porn camsite. I want to know about that, then I never want to talk to you again. Exactly. You don't feel warm towards them. You know, you're curious about them, but maybe don't feel to warm towards them. And then it's like, how do you get payment? Cryptocurrency? Oh, so you're basically money laundering slash tax evasion. Oh, that's why you live in another country that has weak rule of law. Okay, so how are you getting away with this? Surely they know about it. Oh, you're bribing the law enforcement. And then it's like, yeah, if I ever go to X, Y, Z country, I will call you because the parties are

going to be off the chain. However, I also don't want anything to do with you and I need to go take a shower now. Anyway, how about we jump on topic? What do you think? So morbid curiosity, this is such an interesting idea. I never would have thought that there was science behind this. I don't know why, of course there is. But I always grew up thinking horror movies were scary. I didn't really like them. Yes, I watched them sometimes, but like on TV, so they're all edited down and they weren't that bad. But then when I saw something like Saw, because a girlfriend of mine was interested in horror movie. I was like, what kind of morally bankrupt people are watching all of this? And what was really creepy about her was she would be knitting while we were watching someone get their head. She's just like

relaxing. Yeah, she's just relaxing and someone's getting their head chainsawed off. And she'd be like, ew, at least. So what's going on here? Well, I thought the same thing when I first started studying this. I thought, oh, of course people are studying this. Because if you talk to anyone on the street or at a bar or wherever, and you just use the phrase, morbid curiosity, you ever been morbidly curious? People give you 100 examples of when they've done that. Maybe they're curious about this shady guy they met at a club who works in the Congo. Yeah. Yeah, with cold sand mining.

I think that's a form of that, right? And so I thought surely people have studied this. And when I started looking into it, there was just no science on this. And this was not that long ago, maybe five, six years ago, seven at the most. So I thought, okay, this is interesting as a grad student, right? Found this thing that everyone knows about, but nobody has studied him. That's a gold mine. Yeah.

So the first thing I had to do was just try to define it, right? We had all these concepts about what morbid curiosity is in popular culture. So film critics talked about it a lot, especially with respect to horror movies. And a lot of the film critics had a similar opinion as you at first, where they said, who watches this morally bankrupt stuff? And that was just the answer is like, well, they watch it because they're morally bankrupt, or they watch it because they lack empathy, or they watch it because they need an adrenaline rush. And I think everyone just kind of accepted that, including psychologists and media researchers.

And I was a little skeptical of that. I thought, okay, that maybe explains some portion of it, but I thought maybe it's really more about the curiosity than it is about needing to see something morally gross because you're morally gross. And so I started looking into it and that's what I started to find was that for most people, this really was a lot like other kinds of curiosity. It just happened to be about something that was dangerous. So I defined morbid curiosity as an interest in or curiosity about things that are dangerous, And that can come in nonfiction forms, like true crime is obviously probably the most popular example of that.

But I think even the news, like honor news is pretty threat-laden. And then it can also come in fictional forms because fiction does a really good job of tailors the story and the characters to be, in the case of horror movies, to be threatening. It's a really good job of kind of pulling on those cognitive strings. And so it attracts us in the same way that real threats, our stories are real threats would. I'm thinking of Stephen King's, and I remember being, like a clown, how scary can that be? And then it's a clown and then it's also sewers and it's also sharp teeth and it's also, I don't know, it goes after kids particularly. Well, that's what makes

it scariest, right? Some of the work that I'm doing now is looking at how do we even define what horror is, right? We have this conception again. If I see a horror movie, I can say, oh, that's a horror movie. But I have a hard time like coming up with a recipe for it. What makes a horror movie? The traditional answer, again, has been, if it scares you. That's kind of a flimsy definition, right? Because what scares me may not scare you or what scares you today may not scare you in 10 years. And then there's this definition of if the creator meant for it to scare you, like their intention was to scare you. And I was like, okay, that's an okay definition. But again, if a director creates something that's not scary to anyone, but they intended it to be scary, does that make it horror? Or if it is scary to everyone and they didn't intend it to, is it still horror? And so I was trained largely in biology, right?

I think about these things as a biologist. And I think, okay, what in like the format of the, of the animal kingdom, what would this look like? So we tell stories where there's a protagonist and an antagonist. That's a pretty typical thing that all animals encounter. There's people they want to ally with and people they want to fight against. And in horror, what I found, and they used LLMs to annotate hundreds of movies, right? So I had summaries of these movies and examples of the characters and what they were like and all these traits. And what I found was that in horror movies, it was distinctly a very powerful bad guy, powerful villain, so Pennywise and It, right?

And that was really unique to horror. It's the only genre where the hero is not very strong, not very capable, or at least is very overwhelmed by the villain. So in the case of it, again, you have powerful villain, supernatural clown thing, shape-shifting clown, but then you also have just regular kids, right? Which are the most vulnerable protagonists you can imagine. And that creates a perfect formula for a horror story. And it triggers our morbid curiosity in an incredible way because it's showing you, like,

if you're this vulnerable, how do you even go about approaching something this terrible and awful? As I prepped this, I also watched the black phone. Have you seen that? Yeah, the first one. Yeah, I watched both, actually, because my wife's out of town and so the in-laws took the kids and I was like, wait, I actually have free time. I need to waste this in the most non-productive way possible. But I sort of justified it by, hey, it's related to this show in prepping. But yeah, I watched both. And it's interesting, right? Because again, it's kids and they get kidnapped by this scary, guy with a Satan mask on who's like just ridiculously crazy and evil and they have to escape or kill him and they're aided by other kids who are basically ghosts I guess you would just say I don't think

I'm spoiling anything I think all of this is in the trailer and you're right it's a unique recipe you don't go watch anything like in the traditional hero genre thor is not a vulnerable character who stands no chance and rambo is not a vulnerable character who stands no chance against the enemy. You know, it's kind of the opposite where they can take out a thousand people just by sheer will, whereas this kid is never going to beat this hatchet-wielding murder. But the formula's always like that, right? It's teenage camp counselors and then Jason or whatever is out there with his hockey mask on chopping them into little pieces. And I started looking at edge cases, right? Because that's where you can really test kind of a theory like this. And so one of the edge cases that I thought was a good one

was the movie Predator. I don't know if you've seen any of the Predator films. The original The original, sure. Yeah, with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yeah. So I thought, okay, Predator is perfect because it's literally in the name, right? You have this incredible, perfect hunting machine. That should be the perfect villain, right? So if horror movies are really about fear and terrible bad guys only, then Predator should be a horror film. But if you watch it, you realize that, yes, they're a little bit taken aback at first because they're caught by surprise by this perfect hunting machine. But they're also a group of Green Berets led by Arnold Schwarzenegger. They're not vulnerable. They have machine guns, for God's sake. Yeah, yeah, they have machine guns. And there's lots of studies showing that specific thing that if you show people a picture of a hand holding like a screwdriver or a hammer, and then you show people another hand holding a handgun. And you ask people, hey, imagine who's holding this, right? What do they look like? How big are they?

How tall are they? How strong are they? Interestingly, they will say that the person holding the gun, they'll imagine them in their mind's eye as larger, stronger, more formidable. and that's because the mind is taking the fact that this person has a gun, that makes them stronger and more dangerous. And the mind maps that onto this very evolutionarily old cognitive mapping of bigger things are stronger. So when you go to imagine it, you imagine it's bigger and stronger, right? So even when we see Arnold Schwarzenegger and then we see him with the machine gun, we're imagining like, oh my God, this guy is not vulnerable at all. And then you tack on to the fact that he has green beret training and he also has a lot of allies.

Now they are in a forest. They're kind of in an unknown place. They're kind of at a disadvantage in that way. But as soon as they get attacked by the predator, they then start planning how to attack back. And in horror movies, you never do that unless you're like truly cornered, just like animals. So prey animals, take a mouse. A mouse is never going to fight back against a cat or squirrel or something right against a dog. Unless it's cornered.

It's like a last resort kind of thing. And that's what you see in horror movies too. You see that it's mostly the antagonist chasing the protagonist for 80 of the 90 minutes. And then in the last 10 minutes, usually the protagonist gets trapped, like a squirrel or a rat. rat might, and it's forced to fight back and it's forced to get creative. And usually, here will find some kind of weakness in the antagonist or they suddenly get allies who come in and that's how they defeat them. But it's not because they're more formidable. It's not because they're smarter. It's not because any of that. It's usually like luck or they get allies that come

in at the last minute. I remember in it back in the 80s, the kid had the silver earrings from his mom or something. I don't know how they figured out that the clown was susceptible to that. They shot it, and of course the first one misses, but the second one, you know, hits him with the slingshot in the head and the light comes out. I just remember that moment where it's like, oh, my God, these kids took out this psycho crazy clown. I wonder if the same thing applies to lifted to lifted with nuts hanging off the back. For sure. Bigger is stronger, right? So whoever can handle that must be bigger and stronger. Right. But the cliche is, wow, small dick energy. Your truck is lifted and you drive it around suburban San Jose, and you literally put nuts on the back.

Like you can't broadcast smaller dick energy than that. And you see that in the animal kingdom, right? You get these ritualistic fights, right? The classic example people could probably think of, or two gorillas like standing up and beating their chest. But you get a lot of examples of these ritualistic fights. And the reason animals do that is because it's cheaper than getting into a real fight. There's less chance of actual damage happening to you.

But you can also fake it, right? If you can make yourself look bigger, look larger, then you're going to have a better chance of scaring off the other people. And so, yeah, humans do that all the time in cultural ways. right. One example is lifting your truck or making it look like you can handle something bigger and larger than what it needs to be. It's easy to conflate somebody who's morbidly curious with somebody who likes the violence or maybe hates women or something like that. It sounds like you disagree with that. And funnily enough, most of the people that I know that love horror movies and kind of

only watch those or mostly only watch those, it's actually all women. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think people are often surprised by that. But if you look at the demographics, women like horror just as much as men. And when it comes to examples of sort of real life or like true crime, they are huge consumers of that, even more so than men. That's what I was going to say is when I think true crime, I think 80 to 90 percent female audience, at least with podcasts. With podcasts, massive. Yeah, with documentaries, it's still more. It's probably 60 to 70 percent. And that's interesting with podcasts because I think men are a little more likely to listen to just podcasts in general, right. Definitely. Yeah, I think podcasting generally is 60, 40 men, women. And if you take out true

crime, it's probably like 70, 30 or 80, 20. And then when you throw true crime in there, it just so heavily weighs everything down. You take out Joe Rogan and you take out true crime. The stats are one way. And then true crime just comes down like a hammer. The first thing that I found when I started looking into the literature on this, okay, nobody has really studied this, but surely people have talked about this. So one of the examples I found was Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, who were two of the most famous film critics of all time. And they had a TV show in the 80s where they would essentially review movies. I remember that. That was sad that show because that meant cartoons were over on Saturday morning and you're stuck watching these two old farts talk about movies you're not allowed to go

see. Yeah, sneak previews was on for, I don't know, a couple seasons at least. And they had dedicated one entire episode to what they called Women in Danger films. They did that because both of them hated slasher films. They liked Halloween, which I think is actually more of a thriller. And I think that's probably why they liked it. The original Halloween they liked. And then everything that came out after as a slasher. They just absolutely hated. And so they dedicated this entire episode called Women in Danger films to all of these like spate of slashers that came out after. And in particular, Friday of the 13th is the one they were targeting the most because it had the widest reach or the broadest reach. And like Gene Siskel, for example, so he wrote for, I think the Tribune,

Ebert wrote for the Sun Times, both in Chicago. And in Siskel's official review of Friday the 13th in the Tribune, which a million or more people at that time read, he spoiled the endings to dissuade people from watching it. And then he did like, an OG version of cancellation where he docks the chairman of, I think it was Paramount that put that out. He published the address of the chairman and encouraged people to send hate mail. And then he published the address of the main actress. Her name was Betsy Palmer, I think was her name. So he published her name and it was like harassed this woman.

That's so unhinged. Yes. And like the address of the chairman and send them hate mail, encourage them not to do things like this again. And in this TV show, they talk about this. And both of them, what I found really interesting was, sure, it's a film critic's. job to hate movies. There's going to be movies they hate. That is their job. But what I thought was interesting is they talked a lot in this episode about the psychology of people who did like the film. So not only did they say, hey, this film sucked because the story sucked and the acting sucked

and the whatever. But if you like it, you're a bad person. Exactly. If you like it, in particular, they thought that people who liked it hated women and were very sick people. And it shocked me because these were two, again, like of the best film critics in the world. And they couldn't separate their personal viewpoint of what they thought of the people who liked the films from just rating and critiquing the film itself. And so I thought, okay, this has to be studied, right? I know one of those guys passed away decades ago. Gene Siskel passed away, I think, before Roger Ebert. And Roger Eber passed away in the past maybe decade or so. I wonder if towards the end of their career, they were like, ah, we overshot the mark a little bit on that one. I get it now. It's a whole thing.

I thought the same kind of thing, like maybe times have changed. That was like four years ago, right? That was the rise of the women's movement. And maybe they thought, okay, maybe this is a counter to that. I think if they had put a little more thought into their expertise as film critics, they would have realized that most of those early slasher's in particular, what is the biggest trope of the 80s slasher's? The final girl. That is a woman who is severely outmatched and yet she still finds a way through her smarts or her endurance to overcome these really terrible things. That's like the most feminist thing I can think of. Right. And she usually has some sort of badass hosta-la-vista baby moment too where she's about to drive a wooden stake up the guy's keister. And she's like, suck on this or whatever and jam something down his throat and you're like yeah the whole audience is like clapping because she lights the jason on fire and you're like wah right yeah you're right it's like the most feminist thing ever maybe watch the ending next time ibert yes i was surprised because i was like surely these guys saw the whole movie right they understand it like what the trope is in these you know i saw when the movie spiral came out that was like the ninth installment in the saw franchise there was another

well-known film critic who published a scathing review which is fine but again he didn't just critique the film, he had thoughts about the psychology of the people who liked the film. And he called them depraved lunatics. He should not be around most people or other living things. At what point are you kind of like, but there's nine of them? It's different if it's like, hey, we tried this new thing. Look, this is not working for you. That's like going to Fast and Furious and you're just like, you know what? Too many cars. This isn't going to work. And you're like, people don't like this. Scoreboard, we have 18 of these and there's plans for 25 more with pretty much the same crew until they die and we have to make them out of AI. And maybe you don't like cars,

but that's kind of a you problem, pal. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah. When I give talks on this, I talk about that and then I show a chart of the saw films and how much money they grossed over a billion dollars worldwide. It's like, well, that means there's a lot of psychopaths running around out there if that's true, right? So again, I thought, okay, this really needs to be studied because this is not just the past, you know, thing. Psychopaths just sitting there next to me knitting in the theater talking about Michigan football over the dialogue because they know it's irrelevant. She turned out to be a serial killer, but I'm sure that's an exception to the rule. It says an exception to the rule.

Yeah, absolutely. Sorry, Megan. I'm kidding about that. I'm sure she's a successful attorney. So you mentioned that for some people, Halloween, and I assume you mean the holiday and not the movie, gives them a cozy feeling. What's that Danish or Norwegian word where it means hugue. Hugue. Yeah, it means cozy.

That's kind of the same thing, I would say, is I don't think Halloween, ooh, it's going to be scary. It's, oh, fake goblins and there's a Yoda and there's. There's, oh, here's a couple princesses, and it's a fun kids thing, and it's almost diet Christmas with a spooky theme in many ways. And so I get that Hugga feeling, especially growing up in Michigan, it's a little different in California when it's 70 degrees in Halloween, but the kids are wearing their costumes and they don't want to wear a coat, and they want to come in and show it to you, and all the neighbors are socializing because they're all out on the street with each other's kids.

Like, it's a whole thing. I don't really know if that qualifies. That doesn't seem like the same morbid curiosity, but is that a different, angle on the whole thing because it's not really like death and intestines and gore. It's a princess and the latest Disney. It's K-pop demon hunters, but it's everyone and their mother. Yeah, yeah. I would say it depends, right? So for the kids, it probably is a little scarier, right? We put up some great Halloween decorations given what I do. And we live in a very Halloween-centric town and I organize some of the big Halloween events here. And so we have a good

Halloween setup. We have a leather face, like a six-foot-six, animatronic leather face. Texas chainsaw? Okay. Yeah. The leather face. Yeah, with the leather face. Yeah, and the chainsaw. And he, like, raises it up and yells.

And I'm always worried that's going to scare the little kids. And they're always cautious around it, but they want to see what he does. So they're like, can you turn him on? Can you make him yell and do the thing? I think for some of the kids, it is actually kind of like a horror movie would be for an adult or even a teenager. And so I think it is a type of morbid curiosity for the kids. The ones who dress up as gross terrible villains, they're playing that role. And the others who dress up as the princess, they're still out there seeing the gross,

terrible villains and all the scary decorations. For the adults, it's a time of year where it's not seen as weird to go to a haunted house or watch a scary movie. That's just seen as what you're supposed to do. And so I think it gives a cozy feeling because if you like horror movies or you like spooky stuff, you're morbidly curious. This is like the time of year where your personality is not seen as obscure or weird or strange or morally wrong.

It's seen as totally normal and acceptable. I think you're right. The only thing that's really scary on Halloween is the doorbell ringing at 9.30 and you look through the hole and it's two six foot tall 13. year olds wearing ski masks. And you're like, is this still Halloween or are we in the purge now? Right. I don't know if I should open the door. Sorry, out of candy, but I have some bullets if you want him. Get off my property. You just play the Home Alone clip. That's right. Yeah, that's right. You give you eight seconds to get your no good rat ass off my property. One, two, ten. And then you got to crank the

volume. That's right. God, that's such a funny scene. So Home Alone's funny because somebody asked me one time, they said, well, given your definition of horror, wouldn't Home Alone be a horror movie? And I said, well, that's a good point. You're thinking about it the right way. I said, but if you think about it, Kevin is like really clever. And he has all of this stuff at his disposal. And the two villains are just like comically horrible. Like they're terrible villains.

They don't work together well. They're idiots. Yes. And they're just totally incompetent as burglars. And so really, Kevin kind of is outmatching them in some ways, right? I mean, that's the purpose of the movie is that he does outmatch them. He's a smart ass, right? You're done or you're thirsty for more?

Right. He's dishing it out. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So if you had competent burglars, that would be a horror movie. You're right. But if you had the black phone guy come into his door, that would be a horror movie. But it's not because they're incompetent.

The villains aren't strong enough. And the protagonist is somewhat, you know, when you use the phrase, formitability, there's a lot of things that play into that. Like the core of that is, how big and strong are you? That's how our brain processes it. But there are things that make you more formidable, right? If you have a gun, if you're really smart, you have a lot of allies. These are all things that increase your perceived permittability, right?

So Kevin is smart. He's got a lot of resources. He's not very big and strong. But neither are the burglars and they're really dumb and they don't have a lot of resources. They don't work well together. So their formidability goes down. They're getting wrecked by Christmas ornaments, micro machines or whatever. And it takes place during Christmas and they made it just a knockout Christmas movie.

I mean, it's up there with diehard in my opinion as a Christmas movie. So you have four categories of is it morbidly curious people? I would say four types of morbid curiosity. So you have morbid curiosity is like this overall trait that you have. that's your total interest in things that are dangerous, right? And then there's different ways you can express that out in the world. So one of those is minds of dangerous people, which we talked about. So that would tap into this interest in understanding who's dangerous, how can you spot them? People come to your door. How do I know if they're really trick-or-treaters or if they're actually

people who are trying to purge me? True crime would obviously be the perfect fit into this category. And this one's interesting because I think there's a good specific evolutionary reason why we're interested in this as humans. Yeah, so there's a really popular book that came out, I think two years ago, written by Richard Rangham. So he's a biological anthropologist. He spent his whole life studying apes and trying to understand human evolution through apes and our closest ancestors. It's called the goodness paradox. And in it, he puts forward this new theory of why humans are uniquely what he calls proactively aggressive. So there's two kinds of aggression in the world, right? So you have reactive aggression, which you can probably imagine what that means. It means you

react aggressively when someone transgresses you. So this is how like most animals engage in aggression. So if you imagine a chimp troop, you have an alpha chimp and you have this hierarchy of chumps below him. And the alpha chimp goes and he takes the fruity wants or the mates you want or whatever he wants. And if someone tries to take that from him, another chimp tries to take that from him, he's going to react aggressively. He's going to bear his fangs.

He's probably going to bite them. He's going to push him around. He's going to scream. He's going to do things that look like reactive aggression. And he does that to signal to the chimp that's transgressing him and to the other chimp's around that, hey, don't try to take that from me. I'm still the alpha chimp. I'm still this big and strong. And that's the way that almost every animal engages in aggression or deals with aggression when it comes to members of their own species.

Humans are different. So we still do that. There's still bar fights. There's still things like that happen in humans. But we do it to a significantly less degree than our closest primate relatives. So instead, humans engage in a lot of what's called pro-activity. aggressive aggression. So this means that they sit back and they plan their aggression. Zero killers are a good example of this, but even like battles, like wartime battles, almost none of that is reactively

aggressive unless you're defending yourself. Most of it is you are planning and plotting on how you will attack another group of people. This is the origins of conspiracies as well. I mean, the classic conspiracy in the Roman Forum with Caesar, it was people who plotted to kill powerful figure because he was powerful. Individually, they couldn't do it themselves. So they had conspired to kill Caesar. Rangham argues that when language evolves, so let's say roughly 300,000 years ago, there's obviously quite a big error bar on either side of that, but let's say 300 or so thousand years ago, humans had this new ability to plot and plan and then share those plans with other people. And that's something no other animal obviously has is like sharing plans

with someone and then planning to do something in the future. And what that allowed humans to do is actually shift their social hierarchy, is how their social structures were organized. Because now, let's say the second ranking and third ranking and fifth ranking chimp or human rather could plan together to overthrow the person who's at the top because maybe he's bad for the group maybe it's not a selfish thing it's just he's bad for the group nobody likes them let's overthrow him and we can do it together here's how we're going to do it and that completely shifted it made the human hierarchy more egalitarian than say a chimp hierarchy that was a good thing right that ended up being a good thing But what it did is it selected for humans who were good at planning, who had control over their aggression, who were aggressive, but they could control it, right?

And who were good at thinking into the future. And those are all good things as long as that person is on your side, as long as that person is moral in the way that you understand morality. Occasionally, you would get an antisocial person who also had those abilities. And so what do they become? They become someone who, a parasite, someone who, if they're extra violent, could be a serial killer. And so humans had this whole new type of aggression that no other species had encountered, and they were entirely unprepared cognitively to predict this. Again, in the past with reactive aggression, the reactively aggressive person or animal is telling you, I'm going to hurt you if you try this, right? There was no question about it.

With proactively aggressive people, they sit back and they let those thoughts kind of fester. And then they plot and they plant. And when they see you, they're not going to give you any indication that they're going to try to hurt you because that would lower their turn. chances of success. And so what's the only way to learn about somebody who's proactively aggressive? It's to learn about their story after they did the thing. So after they committed the crime, how did they do it? Why didn't we know this person was going to do that? What cues did they miss that they could have picked up on? Why didn't Caesar know that the senators were conspiring against him? That's the essence of the true crime story, right? That's why true crime stories mostly focus on the

aggressor. It's not because the stories themselves are morally bankrupt or the people who were telling them are morally bankrupt. It's because the thing people are most interested in is, who is this person, why didn't we know that they were going to do this, and what would have caused them to do this? And how can I spot people like this in the world? And that's what they're most interested in. While you're busy fantasizing about killing your boss using the most gruesome methods possible, let's hear about the murderously good deals on the fine products and services that support this show. We'll be right back. Manufacturing is never simple, but Epicure makes it easier. Our industry-built ERP and AI tools help you

increase throughput, reduce downtime, and improve cash flow without adding complexity. If you're ready to run a smarter, more efficient factory, visit epicor.com. Don't forget about our newsletter We BitWiser. It's a two-minute read every Wednesday. It's highly practical. A lot of feedback on these every single time because you can hit reply and reach us right away. It's a great companion to the show, and Jordan Harbinger.com slash news is where you can find it. Now, back to Colton Scrivener. You do have that aside in the book about why humans are less aggressive than chimps. Chimps defend social hierarchy with violence. Humans don't really do that. Maybe we killed off the very aggressive males over generations. And ironically, we used violence to make society less violent. But we did that

because a bunch of guys who just live a normal life were like, we have to kill this guy who randomly starts snapping people's necks. And yes, he's just a bad person. I can be left in camp with your wife and kids and you come back and they're still there. We leave him alone and he kills everyone. It's we can't have this guy around. So we get rid of people like that over generations. But yeah, you're right. The human mind evolved to be prepared for threats. So it follows that learning about those threats as much as possible, it incurs a survival advantage. And that does support the theory about true crime, right? I've said this on the show before. People, especially women, they love true crime. It's like kind of murder porn in a way. Yeah, a little bit. I mean, I'm exaggerating,

of course. But a lot of the people who watch true crime, I'll ask them, hey, what do you like about this? and they're like, I just feel like I could kick a serial killer's ass now because I know all these red flags and I will know in advance and I will have my escape plan and I carry my mace and then I've got my sharp pen and I'm going to jab them in the eye because that worked for this one lady who got away when she was getting attacked in a national park or something and you're like, okay. Look, true crime obsessed ladies who listen to the show. I'm curious if you think that listening to true crime gives you a survival advantage, real or imagined. It doesn't matter if it actually does. I want to know if you feel empowered afterwards. It doesn't matter if in the back of your head you're still worried about it. What do you think afterwards?

And I really do think that people probably feel that way. This does not, however, explain why I might rubberneck at a car accident and try and see a dead body, which I know is going to be gross and it doesn't have any value for me. It's almost like, all right, I haven't seen a dead body in a long time. Maybe I should try to catch a glimpse of this one because it's so rare. But that's the most charitable interpretation of me doing this gross thing that slows down traffic. Well, I think the other thing is usually when you're driving by a car wreck, you are in a car. And so you're in the same position that this person on the side of the road was 10 minutes ago.

And look how they ended up, right? And so it also reinforces, I think, the dangers that come along with what you're currently doing in the place that you're doing it. Most people, when they turn to look at the car wreck, they're not hoping that there's somebody injured. But if there is, you don't want to miss out on that information because how often are you going to come across that? It produces mixed feelings in a lot of people when you drive by the car wreck. If you do end up seeing something, you feel disgusted and you're like, man, why did I look at that? And that's pretty typical of a morbidly curious experience, especially one that involves bodily injuries. That would be a good example of curiosity about what happens to the body when you engage with something dangerous, whether it's an accident or intentional, you know, the result of violence.

That's the bodily injuries interest. And this one's interesting, too, because I think there are actually multiple pressures on interest. in bodily injuries. I think that's one of them. You get a good taste of like, okay, how dangerous is this thing I'm doing? What are the consequences of it? The other thing is it gives you, in the case of something dangerous, like a predator or a dangerous person, if you see a crime scene, for example, of a break-in. If you see what happened to the body, it gives you a pretty good indication of how dangerous that person or that predator is. If you're walking through the forest, you come across a body and it's got like a few cuts on it, but nothing really major. You're not going to be that concerned. I'm like, man,

and what happened to this person. You might call the police, of course, but you're not going to be too concerned about your own safety. You're walking through the forest and you come across somebody whose head is missing. You're going to immediately be more concerned, right? You're going to be more afraid. Why is that, right? Why would you be more afraid? Both people are dead. They both had the same outcome. The reason you're more afraid is because it's a thing that caused the person's head to disappear or be smashed or whatever is obviously more powerful, probably more aggressive. And you get a cue from that because it takes a lot of power to remove someone's head or smash someone's head. It takes a lot of aggression to do that. that. And so you do get cues about how dangerous something is from bodily injuries and not just predators or villains, but even diseases, right? Like even medical curiosities, I think, would fall into this. Doctors and nurses have to have some morbid curiosity about how the body works and how things go wrong in order to be interested in their job. I know I have a show fan, at least one, who does autopsy pathology for a living, and she posts stuff on Instagram, and it's always autopsy pathology 1G and backup. And I'm like, what's going to? It sounds so clinical, right? Yeah. Yeah, but it's also like, hey, what's this?

I thought I was following you. And she's like, my account got deleted again. Because it's actually really interesting stuff. And she loves the science, but it's, here's an arm that was severed in a lathe. And you're like, and Instagram's like, oh, it's gratuitous violence. And she's like, yeah, but it's kind of also science. It just happens to be kind of gross. So she, like, has to tow this weird line where she's like, if you want to see the other

photos of this, you have to go to this website. And it's like such a pain to do that. Yeah. I used to work at Meta and I worked in that realm. and because of my background. I tried to enact some changes that ended up not happening with that, you know, about showing gross stuff and like how you censor certain words. And I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be the case that if you type in horror,

like on Facebook or Instagram, you would get a pop up and interstitial that says, hey, is everything okay? And I was like, you can't do that to people who are not actively suicidal because you can push someone to become that way if they're not and they're just looking for like a horror group or something, you know, a horror Facebook page or something. Is everything okay? Yeah. I kind of want to find out where other horror movie fans are talking about soft.

11. Oh, are you sure? But if you're telling me I'm not okay. Only gross, horrifically sick people. Watch this. It's that same kind of thing, right? Yeah. And I think it comes from a good place. It's, okay, we're trying to prevent people who are suicidal or might harm themselves from

seeing things that might influence. I think it does come from a good place. It was just done with such a broad brush and without knowledge of like, oh, not everyone who does this has something wrong. It just shows, again, that people have this intuition that if you're searching for something like that, there must be something wrong with you, right? Yeah. The morbid curiosity really does seem like nature.

nature's way of putting us in a position to learn something about the dangers around us. And you see it in fables. The example you give in the book is Little Red Riding Hood, right? The wolf and then they identify what a wolf looks like in the woods. Tell me a little bit about that. Yeah, yeah. Well, that sounds silly, right? If I asked you like, do you think Little Red Riding Hood teaches anyone or anything? You're going to be like, no, not really. Maybe don't go in the woods. Maybe that's the lesson. But if you think, okay, if you're a kid living a thousand years ago, right, somewhere in medieval Europe, You can't read. There's no writing anyway, I guess, but can't read. You don't have internet. You don't have television. You don't have picture books. Nothing like that. How do you know what a wolf looks like? How do you know you should even avoid one? Of course, the way you learn that as a kid is you hear a story about a wolf. Kids are really afraid of things like that's going to do. That's probably just going to scare them. And like, it's not really, they're not going to be that interested in it. So what you do is you soften it a little bit. You make it a story that's a little more engaging where the protagonist, is someone who is like the kid, a naive young child who's wandering through the forest alone,

exactly the kind of person who would be prey to a wolf. And then you describe what the wolf is like by describing the antagonist. When she goes to meet her grandmother, who's the wolf, of course, dress in sheep's clothing or whatever. Spoiler alert, if you have not read Little Red Riding Hood. The grandma doesn't make it. The grandma doesn't make it. She's not there. You know, he says, what big arms do you have? And she says, well, all the better to hug you with. Of course, wolves and canines in particular use their front hind legs to grasp prey, which is a little different. actually than how like big cats. Yeah, big cats will jump and they'll go straight for the jugular with her teeth. Wolves do more of like a grasping thing and bite at the legs. And they don't really bite at the juggler immediately in the same way that big cats do.

And she says, what big legs do you have? And of course, she says, all the better to run with. Wolves are of course, very fast, right? What big ears and eyes you have? And she says, all the better to see you with and hear you with. Well, wolves are great trackers, right? They're really good at finding people, finding prey. And then, of course, finally, what big teeth you have, all the better to eat you with. It's a silly way to teach kids. It's a silly way to teach kids. is like, hey, a wolf is a thing. It's not going to just present itself to you. It's probably going to try to hunt you, right? It's going to be sneaky. You're going to find it in the woods, especially if you're alone. And I think if you didn't have that story, the kids would never know what a wolf really look like or acted like or where you would find one. And importantly, we've had domesticated dogs for what, 30, 40,000 years. I don't know. A long time, yeah. And so the only thing that a kid would see that had looked or sounded like a wolf, even resembled

a wolf would be their domesticated dog, which would give them the wrong idea about how friendly wolves are. Again, I think it's a mixture of like pedagogy and just entertaining stories. But humans tell a lot of stories that have a piece of learning in it, even modern films, even outside of horror, we always try to attach like a moral lesson to a film or we have like a moral point that we're trying to make in most stories. And I think just in the past, there was definitely moral point, but there were also some practical ones about just what you're likely to run into in your local environment. Because we had a much smaller world back in the day. It was like your world was too, people you knew really well and a few square miles of land that you knew really well. And so it's

important to know everything you could about that. And if that included wolves, then you would probably have folklore about wolves. If it included jaguars, you'd have folklore about jaguars. You see that all across the world. So don't go into that gingerbread house in the forest because you'll get baked in the oven. Yeah, or don't hang out with old women who live in the woods. Yeah. Is that a concern? Are there old women that live in the woods that eat children? That's probably a good transition into the supernatural domain. So almost every culture on earth at one point or another has had some kind of belief in witches, witches are just like the most common bad guy in cultures around the world. And witches can come in a lot of forms, right? We have our own sort of modern

idea of what a witch is, but witches can look like all kinds of things. They don't even necessarily have to be women. But what does the witch do? A witch is someone who is a bit of a social outcast who can harm you from a distance without you, knowing about it. Sounds a lot like a virus or bacteria or other kind of infectious disease. And I think what's happening here is the domain I call paranormal danger. It has nothing to do with whether you believe in ghosts or even if ghosts are real or aliens or anything like that. What it has to do with is humans have this unique interest in things that they don't quite understand that are dangerous or misfortune. And what they tend to do is they tend to ascribe those actions to

something with agency. So if a bad thing happens to me, if I fall sick or my family member falls sick, especially before the scientific revolution, we need an explanation for that. You can't just be like, well, that's just how it is. You look for an explanation because that is actually the more adaptive thing to do is to try to find an explanation for an event that is misfortune to you. Now, humans have this. We're super social creatures. Most things that happen to us because other people make them happen or are involved in the event. So of course, we have a bias for thinking like, the bad thing happened, probably a person was involved or some kind of person-like thing was involved.

Sometimes that's gods, sometimes that's witches, sometimes in modern times it's aliens, oftentimes it's ghosts or ancient ancestors or spirits or demons or whatever you want to call it. Always some kind of thing that you can't see that is really powerful and malicious. And that just happens to often take the form of a witch who has curses. I give an example in the book of Gottlieb was her name.

She's an anthropologist, and she was a... in Papua New Guinea or somewhere, and there was a really bad outbreak of guinea worm. And guinea worm is really nasty parasite you can get from nasty drinking water. And she knew that there was a guinea worm outbreak. So she was boiling her water to kill the parasites, kill the eggs, kill whatever, right? And she was trying to convince the people she was studying, like, hey, you should boil your water because there's an outbreak of guinea worms. And they look in the water and they go, I don't see any worms in there. And she says, well, there's microscopic.

You can't see them. And they're like, how do you know they're there then? And she said because my scientists tell me they are. Again, some wise practitioner is telling you that something you can't see is causing harm to you. This woman didn't make it, did she? She definitely wasn't convincing to them because they would say it's not worms, it's witches. The witches who are cursing the water because we did this thing. I thought you were going to tell me they ate her because Papua New Guinea like,

oh, this is the one who knows why we are all getting sick and she's not getting sick. That would have been a great movie. That would work well for the movie. Yeah, and so she tried to convince them. And she finally did. She said, look, there really are worms in here. And they're like, fine. Maybe there's worms.

But even if we take the worms out, that won't stop the witches. Even with diseases, it maps on to our intuitions about there's something small that I can't see or something invisible that I can't see that is affecting me negatively. If you don't have science, usually you then ascribe that to someone else who's doing it. Yeah, that's how we ascribe bad environmental things like volcanic eruptions or pandemics or diseases or all kinds of climactic or weather events that are terrible, but also anything misfortune that just happens to us. We tend to think another bad person doesn't. Sure. Something I thought was interesting in the book, prey animals and predators live in close proximity, and they're

often within each other's line of sight. For example, lions and zebras are often chilling near the same watering hole all day long, and it's no big deal until the zebras detect cues that the lion is hungry or hunting. And this was crazy to me, because the human equivalent is like sitting at a coffee shop and a bunch of alligators roll in and you're like, it's fine. I saw him eat a live chicken outside. He's not hungry. He's not even hungry. Look at him. I'm not staying in that coffee shop and taking your word for it, even if I saw him eat the chicken. Yeah. The zebras don't really have a choice. In much of nature, you live near your predators, right? That's just how it works because predators want to eat you. And so of course, they follow you

around and they live near you, right? So you might imagine a zebra should always run every time it sees a lion because that would be the obvious thing to do, right? But if they did that, they would just be running all the time and they would exhaust all their caloric resources. They wouldn't have time to mate. They wouldn't have energy to mate. They wouldn't be able to eat and sustain energy. Of course, that's exactly what the lion would want, just for that zebra to run all the time and

then be exhausted because then when it gets hungry, it can just catch it with no problem. So zebras then are incentivized from an evolutionary perspective. They're incentivized to understand or try to understand when their predator is actually dangerous. So when it's hungry in the case of a lion, or when it's motivated to hunt. If you have a cat at home, you probably know that cats spend about 20 or so hours a day sleeping. It's like what they do most of their life. There was a cat behind you for the first half of the show. Yeah. Cat, yeah. Hey, what was he doing? He was sleeping, right? Yeah, I didn't even know if it was real. I was like, is that a Zoom screen of the fake cat? He's of a cat pillow? And then it got down and

was like, I'm sick of this interview. Now it's sleeping in another room. Yeah. He's like, I've heard this conversation before. I'm going to go somewhere else. Yeah, so big cats is the same way. Lion's sleep 18 or 20 hours a day. And so it's, again, when the zebra notices that the lion does not look hungry or does not look like it's motivated to hunt and it's in a safe position to observe it, it'll do that because gathering information about it is a good thing. It can recognize how many lions are out there. Does it look like he's actually hungry? Is he actually hunting? Is he really just laying around? So they're assessing their landscape of danger, the landscape of threat. And zebras are not alone here. Gazelles do this with cheetahs. Minnows do this with pikes and

water, bodies of water. It's a pretty common instinct for prey animals to, under certain conditions, inspect predators. Now, humans are really unique because the rest of the animal kingdom, the only way to learn about your predator is to stop and look at it. You can't learn about it from your peers, because they can't really speak to you in the same kind of way. You don't have books or, you know, transmissible culture in any kind of way. You can't learn about it like that. Humans, of course, have stories. We can tell true stories, but we can also create versions of stories that are realistic, where we can essentially have an unlimited number of ways that you could interact with something dangerous. And so it's very cheap for us to learn about danger because we can tell

it in the form of a story where you really are in no danger when you're learning about it. And that makes us incredibly morbidly curious compared to other animals. I read that men and women have fantasized vividly about killing someone. Most men and women have done this. But the murder rate is low. So I guess most of us don't act on these desires. I just thought that was kind of interesting that most people had thought, I want to kill that person. I don't know. Thought I was alone, but I guess not. I thought that was just me. Yeah, that was a study that David Bust did with some colleagues. I forget how many different countries. It was like thousands of people, though, men and women. It was a little more common with men, but it was like 80 to 90 percent of people or something had

fantasized about killing someone. So, of course, you asked the question, well, why haven't they done it? Because there are consequences to killing someone, of course. Yeah, that's mainly what's keeping me back. Pesky prison and laws and law enforcement just keeping me from murdering everybody who gets in my way. Yeah, and of course, you have other psychological detractors that motivate you not to murder people. What that study says that's really interesting is that the sort of cognitive machinery is there to plot and plan and be ready to kill someone if you really had to. I think that's what that thing is showing. And so I guess we could talk about that fourth dimension now.

Violence is kind of the center of all of this, right? It's all about not becoming a victim of violence in whatever fashion, whether that's an accident or a predator or a dangerous person or someone you think is dangerous like a witch or other person. It's all about not becoming a victim of violence. That's really what morbid curiosity is about. But there's still a distinct domain within morbid curiosity that is about violence because there are a lot of ways to learn about violence. So we talked about three of them. One is learning about it by learning about the minds of other people, predicting who's going to be dangerous and when and why. Another one is learning about the outcomes of violence. That's the bodily injuries one. The third one, the supernatural one, is actually very

similar to the minds of dangerous people, but it's about things or people we can't see your access. We have to learn about these people who we just don't have any access to, right? The ghosts, the aliens, the gods, the whatever. The violence domain is about just witnessing violence itself and seeing how that unfolds. We talked about women with true crime and how they're feeling more prepared maybe now that they've listened to this true crime podcast, they carry mace with them or they carry a pen with them or whatever. They know what they're going to do if somebody tries to capture them. I think men do something similar with boxing or UFC. So you watch a UFC fight, right?

What are you doing? Well, you might enjoy the sport or you enjoy the competition nature of it. Maybe you have a favorite fighter. But you're also just watching simulations. I mean, they're real fights. Of course, people are injured, but they're boundaries, right? There's a ref who stops it if it goes too far. There are a few rules.

So when I call it a simulation, I just mean that it's not an all-out fight. But you're watching the closest thing you can see to an all-out fight and you're seeing what is successful and what is unsuccessful. and who is successful and who is unsuccessful and how does that unfold? And I think men do that to a much greater degree than women. Women tend to do the pre-planning thing. They tend to plan, okay, who's even going to be dangerous? Who can I predict that would be dangerous?

And men are a little more interested in the act of violence itself. And I think that maps onto the kinds of violence that men and women are subject to, right? Men are killed more than women by far in any kind of violence. But women, if they are going to be harmed, tend to be harmed by someone to know really well, which is usually in the case of a true crime story, it's like a partner or a romantic interest or someone who's trying to get close to them. Men tend to get killed by people they don't know at all. So they tend to get killed by strangers. And that's true historically as well.

Battles and wars and bar fights today. You tend to get injured or killed by someone you don't know. That tends to be how fights are, right? It's not someone you're like living with or someone you're best friends with. It's like a rival or a stranger. And so I think it simulates something that men historically have had to face, which is the danger. of an unknown person, right, an unknown man. In the case of that, also face-to-face violence,

as opposed to proactive violence. Yeah, I do want to talk about video games and violent video games, because I remember when Mortal Kombat came out, and it was just crazy, and it was like, all right, you have Street Fighter, which is a cartoon guy's fighting, but no, now this looks kind of real, even though they're ninjas or whatever,

and they're doing supernatural things, but, like, you can throw a spear out of your sleeve and spear this guy and pull him in, and then you give them an uppercut, and he flies in the air, there's blood everywhere. And then it came out for Nintendo and Sega, and it was like the Nintendo version had just some kind of white slop that looked like, whatever.

And then if you put in the blood code on Sega Genesis, it had blood and spikes and everything. People were buying Sega just to get Mortal Kombat on there because they're like, I'm not playing this Nintendo version with sweat. Get out of here. Yeah, I looked into that story because I kind of knew about Mortal Kombat and the fuss it kicked up when it came out on home platforms. It was similar to what happened when slasher movies came out.

Slasher movies came out in the 80s, but they also coincided with the release of widespread use of VHS and homes. So people were not just concerned about teens sneaking into a slasher movie. They were like, now they can have it at home. It's going to pollute the minds of children at home, and there's nothing we can do to protect them. When video games started coming onto consoles, there was a similar sort of moral panic of, oh, my God,

now not only do we have to keep them out of the arcades, we have to make sure that they're not getting these things and playing them at home. What if they're playing Pac-Man at night while I'm a, sleep thinking that they're also in bed. Yeah. So, yeah, when Mortal Kombat came out, it came out on these two platforms, the Sega Genesis and the Super Nintendo. And Super Nintendo was way more popular, right?

I don't know what the statistic was. I don't even remember if I cited in the book, but it's just like significantly more popular in U.S. households. When it came out, Nintendo was like, we're kind of a family-friendly video game company, but we don't want to miss out on the money. We don't want to miss out on, you know, the success we know this is going to have. So how about we just turned the blood into sweat? this gray, goopy stuff.

We don't let Sub-Zero rip your spine out and show it to the audience. Maybe we toned down some of the finishing moves. And then Sega was like, nah, we'll just do the whole thing. Yeah, no more fatalities. Now it's just a finisher and the guy falls down and you're like, this is so unsatisfying. Yes. What happened was when the game came out,

the Sega Genesis version outsold Nintendo 5 to 1 despite being way underrepresented in U.S. households. Dude, it would have been 20 to 1 if you could get your parents to buy a new system. But people are like, I'm not spending $300 or whatever, $100 on a new system for one game. So, yeah, it would have been 50 to one, man, if people didn't already commit. Exactly. Yeah, and that concerned people.

So there was a U.S. Senate hearing on this about, hang on, we got to figure this out. And that's how the ESRB is a games rating board where you see like teen or mature or whatever that came from that. Yeah, I thought that was a great example of, again, just another moral panic of, oh, what's going to happen if our kids are playing these violent video games, these pixelated video games where they rip a pixelated spine out of a pixelated man and there's red pixel. People are going to start getting violent. Kids are going to start ripping each other's spines out and throwing spears at each other. People truly thought that. Look, I'm actually sympathetic to the common view that if you play violent video games or you love horror movies, maybe there's something psychological little off at you. I'm sympathetic to that. But that's just not what the data shows. It's not what the data has shown for decades. With violent video games, I mean, there were millions of dollars spent between the early 90s when that happened up until the mid-2000s or 2010. Millions and millions of dollars spent. And the outcome of that was just that violent video games don't seem to really have an effect on real-world violence. Yes, kids who are incredibly violent, a lot of them also like violent video games, but they were already violent. Right. I've played a lot of grand theft auto, man.

I have yet to carjack anybody and throw them out of a moving vehicle yet. No, it's not that I don't want to. Again, these pesky laws are getting the way of all my fun. These consequences and like intellectualizing all of these consequences. That's right. Assassin's Creed. I would love to travel back in time and become an assassin. Again, I keep trying. I'm just too busy these days, especially with kids to raise and a business to run.

But yeah, my whole generation would be mad max if video games made people violent. It would be terrible. And here we are, and it's mostly fine. And the video games are even worse, and people are like, they're so realistic. It's going to make people violent. We thought Pac-Man was going to make people drug addict. Well, that might have happened. There might be some.

But like Mortal Kombat was going to make people violent. Street Fighter was going to make people violent. I don't know, man. I don't see it. Yeah. And I think that, as you mentioned, the people who grew up on Slash and, films and Mortal Kombat, they seem fine. And in fact, they may be a little better, right? I've done some studies showing that people who engage with scary things, scary play generally,

especially as kids. And that can take a lot of forms, right? Kids can watch a scary movie or play a scary video game, but they can also engage in scary pretendically. And they often do. Like, if you have young kids and you leave them alone with their friends, what do they do? Play things outside before there were phones and things. The games they play tend to have a bad guy or an evil monster or terrible thing. That's just the kind of stories that they, intuitively come up with. Even the group-based games that kids play like tag or hide-and-seek, those are just predator prey mapped games, right? You have someone who's it and they're trying to get you and if they get you, you are out, or they are hunting you and you have to hide from them.

For kids, those are probably actually a little bit thrilling, a little bit scary, a little bit. They don't look like it to adults, but they are like a little bit thrilling for kids. And there's some good evidence that kids who engage in thrilling play are less likely to develop anxiety later in life. I've done some studies showing that how engaging in scary play might actually help you build emotional resilience, in particular to fear and anxiety, which makes sense, right, if you're growing up as a kid and you never experience fear, never experience anxiety, right, you never do any scary play, you don't watch scary movies, you don't play scary games, your parents shield you and protect you, you're just not going to

be practiced in regulating fear, regulating anxiety. And so when you grow up in the adult world hits you in the face and you start feeling fear and anxiety in uncontrollable ways, you're not going to be well suited to regulate those emotions, right? But if you engaged with scary play as a kid, you would have developed those emotion regulation skills for downregulating your fear, down regulating your anxiety, dealing with uncertainty. And it doesn't mean you have to go and watch Saw as a 13-year-old. You just need to engage with things that scare you, right? So that you feel truly afraid, truly anxious, but still safe, and you have the opportunity to regulate those emotions. And then you just get good at regulating those emotions as a byproduct, rather, of doing that.

I found it interesting that people look at faces and photographs, except if there's violence, and then people are focused on that. And it does make sense, though, right? When somebody's injured or murdered, for example, if somebody gets killed, if I hear about this, I want to know the reasons. If I read about somebody who, like, got murdered while hiking and they were just chopped into little pieces, I'm like, okay, but I'm hoping that they did something bad, and this was like, oh, it wasn't just a random guy followed them to the National Park.

Like they were an aggressor or something. What happened is this person had an affair with this other person's wife and that guy was a violent criminal and this guy was also in the underworld and he was going into the woods to check on his marijuana grow and he got killed and then he got chopped into little pieces. That's much more palatable than family goes for hike and super crazy psychopathic serial killer murders everyone. Are you referencing the devil's den? No.

So that's exactly a story that happened a few months ago. I live in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, and this happened like maybe half an hour from where I live and Devil's Den State Park, which unfortunate name for a place like this to happen. Yeah, might want to rename that after this particular incident. Yeah, so this guy that didn't have a record or anything went into a state park and murdered a man and his wife in front of the kids. And they think the kids got away somehow. He's in trial right now, and they don't know like why he did it or anything. But of course, people want to know why did he do this? And importantly, because you can then make an assessment about what are my odds of being a victim, right?

Because as you mentioned, if it's like he was sleeping with the wife and then he found out that she was actually married and that's what caused it. Or maybe he and the husband had some kind of shady arrangement or it fell through. That makes you feel safer about hiking the woods. But if it was truly just a random act of violence, that makes you feel a little more afraid. And you are suddenly, you can put yourself in that position and be like, wow, maybe I should think twice about doing this or doing that. Or maybe I should carry Mace with me or maybe I should carry whatever with me, right? Was he arm? How did he do it? This is gross. I don't know. I think it was a knife. Yeah, it was a terrible, like, sad story.

And again, being interested in a story like that does not mean that you don't feel sad about it. So I think that's another thing people mistake. This is terrible. This is genuinely horrible. Yeah, I think people think about emotions as like singular things. I feel happy or I feel sad or I feel afraid or I feel XYZ. It's not uncommon to feel multiple emotions, right? You can feel curious about something, but also sad or disgusted by it. In fact, you usually feel curious about things you are sad or disgusted by. Those are the kinds of things that are important to learn about, important to know about, and they matter.

And like in this case, people often ask me, are there any downsides to Marby curiosity? Because I often talk about the potential benefits. And I do that because I truly think there are some potential benefits that are under explored. And because historically, there's kind of been this stigma already against Morby curiosity. Like, people already have intuitions about how it can be bad. So I was curious about if it can be, how can it be good? and there are some downsides to it, right? If I sit at home and I just watch true crime all day

and I don't go out into the world and engage with people, I'm going to start feeling paranoid. I'm going to think that the world is more dangerous than it is. I'm going to think people are more dangerous than they really are. I think that some of the downsides like that, though, are pretty easy to counter. Like, you just have to go out into the world and interact with real people to put some guardrails on those beliefs.

So I think there can be downsides, like there could be downsides to any personality trait. You could be too extroverted, you can be too agreeable, you can be too neurotic, you can be too whatever. You can also be too morbidly curious, but it's pretty easy to counteract those downsides. Some people meditate, others knit, while people get dismembered on a screen.

I know which one I'd rather date. We'll be right back. If you like this episode of the show, I invite you to do what other smart and considerate listeners do, which is take a moment, support our sponsors, they make the show possible, and they're searchable and clickable on the website at Jordan Harbinger.com slash deals.

If you can't find a code, you can't remember a code. You're not sure if the code exists, or it's not working for you, email me Jordan at Jordan Harbinger.com. We're happy to surface codes for you. It is that important that you support those who support the show. Now for the rest of my conversation with Colton Scrivener. There are whole subreddits, well, these are banned now, but there were subredits like watch people die.

Or rotten.com back in the day. People still talk about it and they'll be like, oh, this reminds me of that video where something happens. And then it'll be like, oh, are you talking about Funky Town? And people are like, don't link it. Oh, God, yeah. And you're like, huh, I wonder what that's all about. And people are like, don't Google it, don't watch it. Trust me, I'm a grown up.

I saw it when I was 18. I'm 25 now. I wish I could unsee it. I still think about it. And you're like, yeah, okay, I won't watch this. But God, I want to know what's in. Like somebody just tell me what it is. Somebody give me a description.

Yeah, I just want a description. And it's really, really gross stuff. For people who are going to Google this, don't bother. It's a cartel murder. And it's just absolutely disgusting. I haven't seen it. But the description alone is just terrible and disgusting. and I won't even say it on the show. It's absolutely vile.

It's awful. Yeah. And again, like most people when they watch that feel awful. And yet they still feel compelled to be like, oh, I kind of want to know what it is, though, not because I'm glad it happened, not because I approve of it, not because I think it's a good thing, not because I even feel neutral about it, but specifically because I feel bad about it. Right. Because it feels awful. I give an example in the book of Darwin, notice it does seem like humans do that more often. So he talks about these monkeys that you heard about. Darwin, of course, was famous for his theory of evolution. He was a theorist, not an empirical scientist, didn't do studies. But he heard about this story from a zoologist named Alfred Brim, who gave a story about

these monkeys that saw a snake inside of a bag. This was an experiment that he did. A monkey would look inside the bag and scream, and then another monkey would come up and look inside the bag and scream and run away. And it's exactly what you're describing here, where people are like, oh, I've seen this, you don't want to see it. That's the human version of looking inside the bag, shrieking and running away. And yet the other monkeys had to come up. and see it because he survived. That other monkey survived. He was fine, and he signaled danger.

So I kind of want to know what that thing is. And that's a very similar thing to, oh, this thing is terrible. You don't want to see it. Now I kind of do. I have a real life experience with this. When I was living in Manhattan, my doorman, I was in the lobby hanging out, talking to the doorman, and the other doorman ran in. And he goes, because we heard a loud noise, and he thought, like, scaffolding fell.

And he ran in and he goes, oh, my God. And he's like, all shook up. And he's, call 911 right now. He's, don't go out there. And I was like, I'm going out there, obviously. And he's like, don't go out there. And I was like, what happened? And someone jumped off the roof.

And the slam we heard was them hitting the ground. And we were just like, oh, he looked at me in the eyes so sad. And he was like pleading with him. He's like, don't go out there. And I was like, yeah, maybe I won't go out there. You could just see in his face. But because he told you what it was. Essentially what he was emphasizing is,

what you're going to learn from this will not counterbalance how you will feel about it. Yes, exactly. That's a good way to put it. But man, gruesome anything really creates that morbid curiosity. Yeah. And it does make sense that medieval leaders were like, don't just kill these people and make them disappear.

Take their heads and put them on spikes and put them all the way to the road, all the way to our border with the other place so that they can see when they come in what happens when they send invaders. They're going to get dismembered and hung up and let the birds eat them or whatever it is. Or even better, do a public execution so people can come watch and they can see the power of the state and how like what will happen to them. Yeah, that's exactly what that's doing. And it's not going to be a regular way. It's going to be some Braveheart-ish where they're like taking a hook like on the wheel. They're pulling his intestines out while he's watching it and

screaming and everyone's like, ah, there's no risk to viewing violence today like there used to be back in the day. You had to be close to violence. You had to go to the public execution to see it. And unless you live in Iran or something like that, you're not North Korea. You can't do that anymore. And now you just watch TV, play some video games. It's safer. It appeals to a wider audience. I have no interest in a public execution. I mean a little bit, if we're being honest, but not really, not really. But also because you have access, you're like, I can Google that. But if you lived in a world where you couldn't Google it, one of the most common questions I get asked is, are we because of the easy access to any kind of violent thing you can imagine? Like,

I can type in any violent thing in Google and I could find a video of it, probably. Are we more morbidly curious or is that bad? I usually say, well, we definitely have more access to it. and we have access to things that are irrelevant to us. We have access to things that are happening thousands of miles away that don't pertain to us or anyone we know. That's not really that helpful. Now, historically, that would have been helpful because if you saw something like that,

you didn't have a screen, so it's something that happened to you or someone you knew or someone you might know. It's like in a small community, right? I don't think it makes this more morbidly curious, though, because 500 years ago, you would have packed up your family and walked five miles to watch a public execution.

Like, that takes a lot of motivation to engage your morbid curiosity. But it is the only thing going on this week, so come on, kids. Yeah, exactly. But it takes a lot of energy and motivation to be like, all right, I'm going to walk barefoot five miles to watch this guy get his head lopped off. To me, that's just as morbidly curious as watching some videos online, right? Yeah, no, you're right, except I might not have my five-year-old on my shoulders for the

cartel execution video here. Yeah, exactly, yeah. I wonder if there's anything evolved in sort of humans wanting to see how someone, like, do I want to see this? Oh, did they die of a disease? Did they die? Okay, they got their head cut off. If that was by that guy, he did something bad, okay, we're good.

Why did this person just suddenly die and have it boils all over their face? I need to know more about this because I don't want that happening to me. One of the unique features of humans, which famous last words, we always end up finding something animals do that we thought was unique to humans. But one thing that does seem to be somewhat unique to humans is healing. We heal other members of our species in ways that other animals don't really do. And we're really good at it. That would have never happened. Like that cultural artifact would have never came about.

we weren't curious about why are there boils on that person's body? How can we stop that? Why did this person fall over and die mysteriously? And we didn't realize. For a long time, we're like, well, it's witches, it's whatever. And we did try to come up with solutions, right? We came up with countercurses. We came up with effigies or totems that would heal you or protect you. We did try to come up with ways to heal things that we didn't understand. Now, if it was a visible injury, we would often have pasts that we put together, put on the wound. And you do see chimps do that a little bit. But when it came to things that we, as you said, like somebody just died and we don't know why, now with science, like the reason that got developed is because we were curious about that.

Like, why did this happen and what bad thing caused it and how can I stop that bad thing? That's the essence of medicine, right? That's a good point. I'd love to talk about dreams because dreams, look, obviously we often simulate conflict with threats that some of which we would encounter in the real world, plenty of which we would not. I definitely run from supernatural beings occasionally in my dreams. That doesn't make sense. But I don't know. Or they're people and I'm just having a bad time.

But I thought it was interesting. In the book, you write about a study done on men who live in the jungle in South America, so somewhere in the Amazon. And their dreams were about spiders and snakes and things like that. Not though about jaguars or anything like that, though, I guess. They're probably a lot more likely to get bitten by a snake or a spider than a, a big cat? I don't know. Yeah, well, there were some gender differences there. So men, this was done in like the 80s by an anthropologist by the last name of Gregor, men were more likely to

have bad dreams or scary dreams, nightmares about snakes and spiders. So why would that be? Or flying insects, like poisonous insects. If you live in the jungle, it's kind of hard to be prepared. You don't have a weapon that is particularly good dealing with poisonous insects or poisonous snakes. You just have to find them and you can kill them with anything, but there's not like a real effective way of dealing with it. The men would go out, of course, and they would hunt, and that's the kind of thing that they would encounter that they were unprepared for. Jaguar is a really common predator in South America and have been an issue for humans and other primates for a long time. But we've kind of had a chance to learn a little more about them, where we might find them, how we counter them, right? You can counter a jaguar with a spear probably more easily than you could a snake.

Because the snake you're not going to see, it's going to bite your leg, and then you're screwed. The Jaguar, he might get the jump on you or one of your groupmates a little bit, but as soon as you see him, he's a big target. Women would actually have worse nightmares about jaguars or other dangerous tribesmen or things that they were unprepared to deal with. So if a Jaguar comes into the village, the women are there by themselves, the men are out on a hunt or something. That's the kind of thing that they are unprepared for that's really dangerous.

And so there were some gender differences there between that. And we see that, I don't know about in modern dreams, but certainly again, in modern fiction. Women tend to like stories about men who are dangerous to other women, and men tend to like stories about men who are dangerous to other men. The only books that men read more than women is military history. That's the only genre that men read more than women. And military history, of course, is about men harming other men. Yeah, that's a good point. Which is the kind of thing that men historically have had to deal with.

So dreams are kind of a threat learning system. Well, some dreams, I suppose, are a threat learning system. I wonder if horror movies help us with that. Because, you know, after I watched the black phone, I was like, huh, how am I getting out of the basement? Those are my dreams for the next few days. Dreams are still kind of the last frontier of consciousness. We don't really understand them that well. There's, of course, the question of, okay, everybody has had a dream before.

Of course, they know about it. They know what it is. They know that dreams are weird, that they don't make a lot of sense. The plots have some holes in them, and the visuals are kind of weird. Sometimes you can fly or do other crazy things. But they are still audiovisual simulations that have a plot of. some kind, even if it's weird. And if you didn't have the nerves to your muscles kind of shut off when you're sleeping, you would actually act them out. And there's studies showing in other

animals that if you sever certain neuronal connections, animals act out their dreams, right? And typically they're acting out defensive maneuvers. So not only is it this audiovisual hallucination, it's also stimulating the correct motor neurons to make you move. And then we evolved a way to stop that. So that's just a lot of complex machinery for something that doesn't have a cause or doesn't have a reason to exist, right? If you're a biologist and you see something like that, like, wow, that took a lot of very specific evolutionary directing for this machinery to come about. So it probably served some kind of purpose. That's right. Probably did something that enhanced fitness at some point, even if it doesn't still. And so there's an interesting theory out there about why dreams ever came

about in the first place. And the theory goes that, well, it would have been pretty useful to essentially simulate encounters with different kinds of threats while you're asleep, because you can prepare for them maybe literally, but also emotionally, again, preparing how you handle stress, essentially, but also maybe the dangers that are local to you and relevant to you. And so that could be a good explanation for why that machinery evolved in the first place. Now, once it's there, we might dream about all kinds of things. But it's like the people who would have initially been able to dream about these things would have probably also been seen as some kind of like clairvoyant wizard in their society like, oh, I had a dream about this and this happened, right?

Probably going to butcher the pronunciation, but it's like on your romancey, understanding what dreams mean, how they can tell the future. Every culture has been interested in that. Because dreaming is kind of a weird thing. Like you go to sleep, you die for like eight hours, you don't exist in the real world, but you are in another world, you know, it's kind of a weird thing that happens. Yeah, you can't tell what's real and what's not. And our body often can't tell what's real and what's not. I mean, you mentioned in the book, We've all seen a dog or a cat dream if we've had a pet and they're running and they're going, and then even octopus's dream and they shoot ink in their sleep.

So they're wasting those resources and energy for no reason. It's just that we can't tell the difference most of the time. Yeah, and what's interesting about it is like cats, you talked about cat, like cats stream, rats stream, dog's dream. We're at least, let's say, conservatively, 70 maybe million years diverged from small mammals like that, meaning that that machinery has been around for a long time in mammals. And then the example with octopus, octopus have an entirely different nervous system than us. So not only is it interesting that they dream is interesting because they evolved that ability

separately from the mammalian line because it's an entirely different type of nervous system. So dreaming must have been so important in some way that not only has it been conserved for millions of years, but it actually evolved separately twice and kind of the same way in different nervous systems. So again, just a suggestion that it's important for something or it was at some point, and potentially threats or threat learning might be a good explanation for that. That is fascinating. Dr. David Eagleman, who's been on the show, he's a neuroscientist. He said that one of the functions that dreams have, I guess, we think, is that when your brain is not using something, the neurons can get repurposed for something else or another area the brain can take over. So you need your visual and auditory cortex while you're asleep because if you don't use it, then, I don't know, whatever. Some other part of your brain's like, oh, you're not using these for eight hours, 10 hours? I'm going to start using these. So it's like, no, no, no, we're dreaming. So I am seeing things even though my eyes are closed. I am hearing and feeling things even though my eyes are closed. I'm asleep.

So the brain's like, all right, this is in use. So there's that. But then again, you could just have a giant kaleidoscope with a music show. You don't have to simulate a threat. So just have an acid trip. Right. So it's basically, it does serve a function other than the brain conservation theory or whatever it is. Yeah, I think there just, there wouldn't need to be a plot and there wouldn't need to be necessarily connections to motor neurons and then severing those connections so that you don't actually act it out and hurt yourself in your sleep. That requires a lot of engineering. Yeah, the whole like sleep paralysis thing where it's, I'm jumping and it's like, but I'm not really jumping. Maybe I kick it off the blankets that carries another bit. I'm not

outside on the roof of the house now, unless I have a sleep disorder of some kind, which some people of course have. And then, gosh, there's a whole lucid dreaming thing where it's like part of my brain's like, wait, this doesn't make sense. Oh, I'm dreaming. In that case, screw the this monster. Get out of here. I want to go to a sick party in a tropical island. No, no, no, no. I don't need to be getting chased through the cold snow barefoot by this dude in a hockey mask. Get out of here. I can just change the whole recipe. I'm the director and I got magical powers. This is not how I want to spend this time. No. I found it interesting that if you're a nervous person, nervous people rent horror more often. So sclerty cats love horror. And then I've asked friends

about this and they'll say something like, I was stressed about not getting my pay on time and my kid not doing this thing and my mother giving me a bunch of crap. But now I'm watching this person get chopped into little pieces with a hatchet. Suddenly I feel better about my life. It's like, okay. Yeah, and it's not really shodden Freud, right? It's not like, oh, I'm glad this happened to this person. Again, like with the car wreck, you're not happy it's happening to them. It's just that we compare ourselves to every other person that we see a note. That's why Instagram kind of sucks because people are like curating their lives to be perfect. And so when you go on there, you're like, oh my God, my life sucks compared to this person who has all these things going on.

When we watch a horror movie, we're typically watching someone who's having the worst day of their life. And almost always, whatever's happening to us pales in comparison to that. So it's kind of just a nice reality check. You're right. School stuff sucks, work sucks, whatever. That man life could be a lot worse. And life historically has been way worse. Like, we live in the cushiest of times compared to every other human that's ever existed.

Yeah, no, that's true. And it's, yeah, my paycheck was late. But I'm not being dismembered by a dude in a dirty basement. You know what? I'm just going to get some Cheetos. Yeah. And it doesn't mean that like those things are happening until you don't suck. Of course they suck.

But it does give you some perspective on how bad things really are, which can have some psychological benefits as well. I think you make a great point in the book where you can adjust your immersion. I do this. I'm not a scary movie guy. But if I know there's going to be a jump scare and they're going to show a dead body, turn the volume down. Maybe I'll only watch out of the corner of my eye because they're going to be like, boom,

and they're going to show a dead body that's been frozen for a year. It's going to be scary. I turn down the volume. They're going to play one. those loud-ass sounds where the violins and the cellos all hit the same note at once. I don't want to deal with that. I can do something like that. I can't adjust my real life exposure very easily. Yeah, and what you can do, you know, you're feeling anxious. It's really hard to like just stop feeling anxious. If it was that easy, we would be a lot more successful species, but it's hard

to just stop anxiety. Yeah, a lot of those prescription drugs, Xanax sales, this would be something most people don't need. It wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar prescription drug market. That's right. One thing you can do is fight fire with fire, right? Give your mind something that's scary to compete with these scary thoughts you're having. The story is told well and you have this scary stimulus, scary movie in this case. You kind of get sucked into the movie a little bit. Now you're feeling anxious or afraid maybe because of the movie instead of whatever thing you're worrying about. And then when the movie ends, your brain gets a signal that like, oh, well, the thing you were scared of is now going away. It will upregulate your parasympathetic nervous system, which is your rest and digest part of your nervous system. And it can actually physiologically calm you down a little bit. Is there a sweet spot for fear or for being scared? Because again, I'm not much of a horror movie fan. But when I watch a movie, the Black Phone, I guess it was successful enough to have a sequel. But everybody I talked to was like, yeah, I don't like that one.

The scary guy wasn't that scary. And I'm like, actually, that kind of works for me. I don't need like a crazy, demonic, disgusting, gore-filled movie. It's just scary enough for me. I don't want something that's more terrifying. It's going to make me anxious. And I wonder if everyone is like this. is it possible for a haunted house

that they have at a farm to be too scary? Is there like a way where you can figure out, I like a certain level of scary, I don't want it more than that, or this level of scary is therapeutic, this level of scary adds more anxiety to me and I don't need this. Yeah, yes.

A lot of my studies take place outside the lab because it's really hard to study true engagement with fear in the lab because the ethics committees don't like it and it's really hard to even generate something that people can engage with in a scary way in a laboratory. And so a lot of my stuff takes place at haunted attractions around Halloween, for example.

And one of the studies we did found that there does seem to be a sweet spot, like a Goldilocks zone for the perfect amount of fear in order for you to have the most amount of fun. And so it looks kind of like on the X axis, like a 1 to 10, a Y axis 1 to 10. And on the X axis is, how scared are you? And the Y axis is how much fun are you having? It peaks around like 7 or 8 for most people. This was, of course, people at a haunted house. Maybe they have a little higher sweet spot, but about a 7.

But everybody's 7 is different, right? Like, what gets me to a seven is different than what gets you to a seven. But if you know that there is this, it's at the cusp of I can handle this, but it challenges me a little bit. That's where people thrive in general in life. If you're trying to learn something new, you tend to want something that's about a seven out of ten in difficulty as well. Something that kind of challenges you, but it's not so hard that you're just incapable of making progress. It's like a workout. I don't want to be barfing everywhere and like not be able to finish.

Yeah, same thing with fear, right? So people like having their fear like kind of right at the edge of where, oh, okay, it's scared me, but I'm still able to tell this is a fiction, I'm okay, I can handle it, I can regulate it. So yeah, there does seem to be this sweet spot of fear. And everybody is about a seven out of ten, but again, everybody's seven out of ten is a little different. And so finding that is a good way to find stuff then that you can engage with. That's fun for you still. And for some people, that might be the black phone. For other people, it might be, you know, saw six or whatever. Yeah, a little slightly different. I suppose maybe you build a tolerance. You watch the black

phone and then you're like, okay, and then you watch something else. And so the black phone, the reason my horror movie fan friends didn't like it is because they're used to saw. And then they go to the black phone and they're like, that's it? Just the guy with some scratches on his face and then a couple jump scares, whatever. I'm out of here. And the protagonists are, you know, they're not resonating with the protagonist very much because the protagonists are kids. I think the exception to that are people who grew up maybe in that time era where zero killing

had its golden era like in the 70s and 80s. And the danger of stranger in the van to kid to kid was probably a real fear for some kids that age. And so that might actually work for some people in that age range who experienced that. That is a good point because the guy grabbing kids and putting him in the van. That was a thing that happened to kids that were near me. There was a guy dressed as a clown that was trying to kidnap kids around my school, which is like the most cliche thing ever. Yeah. This is again in the 80s or the early 90s. And it was a good community. So people were like, there's a guy dressed as a clown with literal balloons in his car trying to talk to kids. There was a couple more reports. And then the

cops were like, we found this idiot who, of course, lives with his mother, and he is a dude who is trying to kidnap kids, and he hasn't killed anyone so far as we know, but he's, we gave him a talking to, and he's not doing that again. Yeah, so we had a little bit of that. I would love if you could take the last sort of couple minutes and explain why childhood is so long in humans. This is totally an aside, but I thought it was quite interesting from your book. It's only kind of an aside. I think it is related to some of this stuff we're talking about. Yeah, if you look at juveniles and other animals, most animals have a problem. pretty short juvenile state. And that makes sense because childhood is very expensive. Like,

it's energetically costly for the individual. It's costly for the family because the juveniles don't engage in food gathering or any other kind of thing. They just consume resources. Little parasites. Exactly. Little parasites. Yeah. It's very expensive to have kids or to be a kid. And so you try to get it done as fast as you can. Now, what's interesting is humans appear not only to have a really long juvenile period, but we actually evolved like additional stages. We have a late childhood that other animals don't really have. We have an extended adolescence that other animals don't really have. So we have realistically, I think people pretend like their kids until they're 30 now. Realistically, you're a kid, at least until you're 14, maybe, 15, you're still kind of learning.

In our society, it's, I think we would say 18, I guess, when you become an adult, right? A little bit arbitrary, but 18. So 18 years as a juvenile is none heard of. Even if you take that as a percentage of our lifespan, that's a huge amount of time. where we're just sucking resources and not really contributing. So the question, of course, is why would we have this longer juvenile period? And there's a couple of reasons. One is that animals who have complex food gathering techniques tend to have longer juvenile periods because it takes them longer to learn how to gather the food.

Now, historically, humans have had that. Now we just push a button on our screen and it just shows up. DoorDash is pretty easy to use these days. Yeah, but historically, we were omnivores. We hunt and we gather and we grow food. we do all these like really complex food gathering activities. That's one thing that tends to cause longer juvenile periods. Another thing is complex social life,

which of course humans have arguably the most complex social life, at least among mammals and probably among any animal. And so we have these two things that extend our childhood so that we have time to learn how to be a human. And that's probably why this, you get this like fake extended childhood we're seeing today where it's like, oh, I'm still a kid in my 20s because the world's just getting more complex. Like learning how to be a human in the world is just getting harder because things are evolving.

Technologies evolving so quickly that we never feel like really prepared. And I think that plays into this morbid curiosity story really well too because if you have complex social lives and complex food gathering, you're also going to encounter lots of complex threats, especially since humans aren't native to anywhere, like migratory species, right? We've conquered the entire earth. And so every time we go somewhere new, we're going to run into a new kind of threat that we've never seen before, whether it's an illness or a predator or a new tribe with dangerous people. And so it just takes time to learn how to be a human, including learning what's dangerous to us.

Colton Scrivener, thank you so much, man. Super interesting. And the book, of course, was also interesting. We'll link it in the show notes. Science, I suppose you had to watch a lot of horror movies and a lot of interesting rabbit holes to go down. Now you're the fear guy. That's your scientific niche. I'm the fear guy. Yeah. Good for you. Thanks for coming on. It's a blast. Thank you. Glad we did it. What if the person charming your lonely aunt isn't after love, but her home, her will, and her life savings. In this preview, Javier Leva reveals how modern romance scams have evolved into full-blown

identity takeovers hiding in plain sight. A lot of con artists, they are very generous at first. They're the types of people that are going to pick up the tab when you go to dinner. They're buying you stuff. They're very generous. And they're doing that. It sounds like they're fattening you up for when they need that favor. when they need that favor, when they need that loan, you wouldn't question it because this guy is so generous.

Why wouldn't I trust him with money? From a distance, we're thinking about these romance scams like, how could anybody fall for these things, right? But the closer you look into it and put yourself in the shoes of the victim, you realize that when you're in the center of the cyclone, it all makes a lot more sense. Another thing is when somebody smothers you and just consumes all of you. your time. That's a warning sign too, because what they're doing is that they're cutting you off from your surroundings. They create the urgency so that you could make stupid decisions, and you kind of bypass your reasoning. Don't forget your friends and don't forget your family. Their opinion counts, and you should take it. Honestly, when you start seeing all these signs, you recognize

that maybe this is a situation where you've got to create personal space. You have to create boundaries. Most victims of any con artists, they feel so ashamed that they don't want to tell their story because they've been violated, their trust, and they're no longer trusting people. To hear how predators turn affection into control, listen to episode 1195 of the Jordan Harbinger Show. So if you love horror movies, true crime, or stories that make other people deeply uncomfortable, congratulations, you're probably not broken. Morbid curiosity is not about enjoying suffering. It's about learning where the edges are without having to fall off. It's rehearsal, it's emotional practice. It's your brain saying, let me understand this so I'm ready if it actually

ever matters, which explains why empathetic people often love horror, why nervous people seek controlled fear, and why our minds would rather invent meaning than accept randomness, even when that meaning is wrong. Fear isn't the enemy. Now I'm off to watch something scary and screw with my sleep for the next five days. All things, Colton Sgravener, will be in the show notes at Jordan Harbinger.com, advertisers, deals, discount codes, and ways to support the show, all at Jordan Harbinger.com slash deals. Please consider supporting those who make the show possible. Also, our newsletter, We BitWiser, is really knocking it out of the park, if I do say so, myself, a lot of great feedback from you guys. I'm really stoked that I write this. I think it's a

great companion to the show, and the idea is something specific and practical that'll have an immediate impact on your decisions and psychology and or your relationships in under two minutes every Wednesday. Jordan Harbinger.com slash news is where you can find it. I'd love to see you there. And six-minute networking as well over at six-minute networking.com. I'm at Jordan Harbinger on Twitter and Instagram. You can also connect with me on LinkedIn. This show is created an association with Podcast One. My team is Jen Harbinger, Jace, Sanderson, Robert Fogarty, Tadasidlowskis, Ian Baird, and Gabriel Mizrahi. Remember, we rise by lifting others. The fee for the show is you share it with friends when you find something useful or interesting. In fact, the greatest compliment you can

give us is to share the show with those you care about. So if you know somebody who loves horror movies and might want a little insight as to why, definitely share this episode with them. In the meantime, I hope you apply what you hear on the show so you can live what you learn. And we'll see you next time. This episode is sponsored in part by Something You Should Know podcast. Finding a new great podcast shouldn't be this hard, so let me save you some time. If you like the Jordan Harbinger show, you'll probably like Something You Should Know with Mike Carruthers. It's one of those shows that makes you smarter in a practical, useful way. Same curiosity vibe we go for here. Just a fast-focused format. Mike brings on top experts and asks the exact questions that you'd want to

ask, and the topics are all over the place in the best way. Recently, they've covered things like why we care so much what other people think, the benefits of laughter, why sports fans get so invested, and what makes people like you or not. The through line is always the same. Smart ideas you can actually use in real life. Something you should know has been featured in Apple's shows we love, and it's got thousands of five-star reviews because it's consistently interesting. So if you want another show that scratches that I want to understand how people in the world really work, itch, search for something you should know wherever you get your podcasts. Look for the bright yellow light bulb and start listening. You can thank me later.