What Prompts Psychopathic Behaviour?

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by KnightDelLogos

Im trying to think of how to say this without being inflammatory/overly religous...(And let me introduce myself. Long time lurker, decided to go ahead and make an account to let myself be heard here. Nice to meet ya.)I guess the first thing i would like to point out is that evolution is, in fact, just a theory and as recent scientific and philosophical advance/debate is pointing out, not even a very good one. Its a borderline cult belief, as the definition of faith is believeing in something without proof to back it up(in very simple terms anyway). And since the rules here do forbid religous discussion..is it fair to use this quasi-religous belief as a basis for your argument but not base one out of traditional religion?.

This argument is hollow. You provide no evidence whatsoever outside your own opinion on where scientific theory is at this point. A lot of the research on this very topic can be scientific (as part of the multidiscipline that is psychology). Without being too tangential, my understanding of evolution has nothing to do with faith, at least not beyond some basic assumptions about the universe in general. But then if I can't trust those, I give up.

Originally Posted by Nique

It does bother me. It's just different, and I think that even if violence is being glorified in the other films, murder for murder's sake, or even violence for violence's sake, isn't. One is, ostensibly, worse than the other.

Well, aside from dragging someone in here that loves slasher flicks, all we can do is try and explain our subjective draw (or repulsion) to these films. I think Lumenskir is right that most of us disassociate from whatever we're watching, because it isn't reality. I've seen Saw, but never felt the need to perpetrate any of those events in real life for a "thrill" or anything.

There's also horrible, horrible amounts of de-sensitization in our culture, but I think it's inexplicitly tied with the fact that we know what we're watching isn't real. Though I don't really enjoy films of this genre, I could sit through these things without blinking. Disassociation, and desensitized, I know its on a screen. I would shit my pants if a quarter of the things that they did in movies, happened in real life.

Actually, something simple like someone having a heart attack in real life can be very traumatizing just for observers, or being in a car accident. These are pittance things in entertainment; in under 60 seconds I can load up GTA and plow through a crowd of civilians. They just aren't real, and it's funny and/or cool. I have no desire no plow through a crowd of civilians in real life, even if I wouldn't be charged and my car repairs were paid for. Even if my only investment was just the time it took me to plow through the real people, I wouldn't do it. So I don't see how it's an "unhealthy" lifestyle unless you're working with a person who is already predisposed to enter an unhealthy mental state.

[BitVyper]

Now that the vast majority of human beings aren't focused on their immediate survival 24/7

I just feel the need to point out here that agrarian societies tend to have a significantly longer work week (domestic chores included) than those focused more on hunting/gathering. I believe the !Kung were clocked at about twenty hours a week, once again with domestic chores included.

KnightDelLogos, all I can say is that you should probably reread the definition of "theory." I don't think it means what you think it means, or you probably wouldn't use the phrase "just a theory." Wiki puts it pretty well, so I'm just gonna copy/paste from there:

Originally Posted by wiki

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession.

Emphasis mine. In fact, the very fact that it's "just a theory" pretty much invalidates your point about it being dogma. It is challenged on a fairly regular basis, and it has in fact been modified. And if there's one thing I've found that scientists love; it's ripping apart each other's work.

There isn't really a step up from theory, unless you want to talk about law, which is something a bit different that can't really apply to anything as complex as evolutionary theory.

Edit: That said, that evolution occurs period is a well documented fact that has been witnessed in everything from microscopic organisms to humans. All it really requires you to "believe" is that the world you see in front of you is, in fact, real. Nothing quasi-religious about it.

[Nique]

I think Lumenskir is right that most of us disassociate from whatever we're watching, because it isn't reality. I've seen Saw, but never felt the need to perpetrate any of those events in real life for a "thrill" or anything.

Everyone seems to think when I make the 'everything affects you' argument, that I am suddenly Jack Thompson and that GTA makes you a killer! RAR!

All I'm saying is that as much as we dissasociate fantasy from reality, as we should, it does leave an impression. I think that's more a cause for concern when being entertained by slasher films and hyper-violent action flicks, etc than most everyone else here does, but that's an entirely different disscussion.

[Azisien]

Well, it's the implication that seems most obvious in a thread about normal people's reactions to films about psychopaths, and psychopathic behaviour in general. What exactly did you expect?

So I'm not sure what we're discussing anymore. If you're not going to do anything morally wrong, what's the problem? Unless you think the act of viewing pleasure in fictional gruesome acts of violence/murder is morally wrong.

As far as the impression I think it makes? Mostly de-sensitization, but for me personally, and I like to think most people, that only applies to the fictional realm I'm being de-sensitized from. I'd still be truly traumatized if I saw someone run over by a car, than if the same thing happens to a character in a video game, movie, or book.

[BitVyper]

I think if movies had anything more than a negligible desensitizing effect, you wouldn't get so many soldiers with PTSD.

In any case; do you know what scaphism is? Believe me; the horrible things we do to each other now are a lot less horrible than that. There's a whole shit-ton of stuff like that in history. If anything, it's become far less common in modern society, now relegated pretty much solely to people with major social disorders, instead of being something that is outright glorified.

[Nique]

So I'm not sure what we're discussing anymore. If you're not going to do anything morally wrong, what's the problem? Unless you think the act of viewing pleasure in fictional gruesome acts of violence/murder is morally wrong.

I think desensitizing is actually a bad thing, socially. And on an induvidual level it may feel like that only applies in the 'fictional realm' whence it came, but I think it contributes to social apathy twoards induvidual suffering.

I think if movies had anything more than a negligible desensitizing effect, you wouldn't get so many soldiers with PTSD.

Maybe it's just cause I'm at work and I'm only paying attention to this between calls, but I can't make heads or tails of this statment.

scaphism

Yeah but just becuase the ancient world was more brutal, I mean, should we want to emulate that even if it is fictional? I see little difference between horror films and watching lions eat christians?

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Nique

I think desensitizing is actually a bad thing, socially. And on an induvidual level it may feel like that only applies in the 'fictional realm' whence it came, but I think it contributes to social apathy twoards induvidual suffering.

Okay, but is that just your personal theory or is there something to back that up? There's just so many factors that could contribute to social apathy I can't even comment on it. Maybe distance would be a larger factor too? And as technology advances, it's easier to distance ourselves from each other.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Nique

Yeah but just becuase the ancient world was more brutal, I mean, should we want to emulate that even if it is fictional?

Yes, because it's not the ancient world that's brutal. It's humans.

Murder, war, death, destruction, sadism, and hatred are all hardwired into our bodies and minds. They're survival mechanisms. You kill for territory, you kill for food, you kill for status in the pack, you kill because you are a territory based social predator... like a wolf or a lion, but a hundred times more dangerous.

Seeing things killed is a primal human urge. The Colosseum wasn't popular because people back then were so much worse than we were. It was popular because murder is as much a part of human nature as sex.

I see little difference between horror films and watching lions eat christians?

One doesn't kill people.

Both quiet the primal urge to kill in humanity.

So you can either quiet that urge to watch others die by ACTUALLY killing people--or you can make a movie like saw.

I'm not seeing where there's any moral ambiguity over which is better or what the difference is.

[KnightDelLogos]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

I just feel the need to point out here that agrarian societies tend to have a significantly longer work week (domestic chores included) than those focused more on hunting/gathering. I believe the !Kung were clocked at about twenty hours a week, once again with domestic chores included.

KnightDelLogos, all I can say is that you should probably reread the definition of "theory." I don't think it means what you think it means, or you probably wouldn't use the phrase "just a theory." Wiki puts it pretty well, so I'm just gonna copy/paste from there:



Emphasis mine. In fact, the very fact that it's "just a theory" pretty much invalidates your point about it being dogma. It is challenged on a fairly regular basis, and it has in fact been modified. And if there's one thing I've found that scientists love; it's ripping apart each other's work.

There isn't really a step up from theory, unless you want to talk about law, which is something a bit different that can't really apply to anything as complex as evolutionary theory.

Edit: That said, that evolution occurs period is a well documented fact that has been witnessed in everything from microscopic organisms to humans. All it really requires you to "believe" is that the world you see in front of you is, in fact, real. Nothing quasi-religious about it.

I was afraid i was going to be a bit unclear in my post and i see it came across that way.

Evolution, is just a theory in the sense that it can only be proven to a certain extent. After that said extent, it begins to break down logically to the point it no longer makes any sense and all the previous making of sense no longer makes any sense at all. And i know that sounds like bullcrap so lemme try and explain.

While i cant exactly post evidence because well...lets put it this way, evolution supports atheism the way creationism supports organized religion. As such any material that counters and debunks evolution as a theory is "dripping"with religous reference and i cant find any links that arent as such. But what it all comes down to is evolution only makes sense until you try and determine what event caused the entire universe to spring into being in the first place, and since the theory of evolution does not leave room for an uncaused first cause, it begins to fail as a whole. Thats the counter argument severely dumbed down and probably very ineffective.

And what is this documented fact? The point is the fact that everyone basically accepts evolution as a law instead of a theory. The way you put it and as i understand it, laws are generally accepted as fact whereas theories can have competing theories to explain the same concept.

And the whole point of my little tangent was that it was a little unfair to support a quasi religous(in the sense of supporting atheism) theory and not allow logical arguments from a opposed(in the sense of supporting most other religions).

Im sorry again if anything i say doesnt come across as clear, english is not my first language and i struggle with the way to say things sometimes. Also..if someone could give me a little strip down tutorial of etiquette around here i would be most obliged...i feel im stepping on toes and again i apoligize.

[Krylo]

DelLogos--Few things

Firstly--Evolution is distinct from the theories on how the universe is created. We aren't entirely certain how the latter happened (and there are a few conflicting theories), but we ARE a lot more sure than you think (just wait till SithDarth sees this). We are, however, 99.9 ad infinitum percent certain that evolution exists.

Secondly--Please remove the religious stuff from your signature and title, it's just going to make people respond to you as though they're talking to a religious zealot (as true or false as that may be) and probably end up causing problems.

Thirdly--You still don't understand theory. A law is still a theory, actually--it's just existed for a long long time. The law of gravity doesn't have as much evidence as the theory of evolution.