Mister_Awesome said:
"Present state of perfection"? And are they saying that horror movie fans are sociopaths? This whole thing seems pretty shakey. I'd argue that being able to laugh at what makes the rest of the human race cringe is a useful adaption, myself.
Different people find different things funny. Personally, I don't think the word "adaption" is funny. It makes me sad.
My strong ability to tell fact and fiction apart has given me a sense of humor that offends a lot of people. I am not affected by fake sadistic horror or dismemberment, but I am horrified by real sadistic horror and dismemberment. Of course there are those who think real violence is funny, as long as it's nobody they know, but that's different from being a horror movie fan.
The test subjects of this experiment who are repelled by gore know as well as the gorehounds that they are looking at make-believe. That is not an issue. There is nothing in the study that implies that the gorehounds (for lack of a better word) are superior in that respect to the other test subjects.
You say you are horrified by real sadistic horror and dismemberment. I'm glad.
Your last sentence doesn't make sense to me, however. You write: "Of course there are those who think real violence is funny, as long as it's nobody they know, but that's different from being a horror movie fan."
That could mean two different things, e.g.: (1) It's better to find real violence funny as long as it's no one you know than to be a horror movie fan, which would be really despicable; or (2) Being a horror movie fan is a perfectly respectable passtime, as long as you don't find real violence funny when it happens to people you don't know.
So what are you saying? The internal logic of your post would tend to indicate that you meant the second sentiment. And, in that you are simply repeating what has been said here at least twice before.
What we'd all like to know, of course, is whether the gene-defective gorehounds, as defined by that study, would also be likely to laugh at real violence against people they know.
The fact remains, for better or worse, that today's entertainment industry is largely based on the exploitation of increasingly realistic depictions of violence, sadism, death, gore and graphic dismemberment. People actively and routinely seek this kind of entertainment to a level that would have been considered pathological only 50 years ago. Death, dismemberment, the glorification of violent crime and sadistic revenge are the main preoccupation of comicbooks, graphic novels, pulp fiction, movies with superheroes or hired killers as protagonists (easily 75% of the US production), video games (in an interactive way), but mostly the daily onslaught of television shows in North America where there is approximately one violent act of sadism every 15 minutes in prime time (excluding the news stories). That is
besides all the C.S.I.-type shows that start with the dissection of a fresh body on the slab every week and the soap operas about "crime families". There even used to be at one time two (count'em two) competing weekly shows about the private lives of undertakers, one fiction and one reality.
You have to ask yourself: If you try to imagine a society where vampirism was the main activity or form of sustenance, would its entertainment themes and values be any different than what they are now - with maybe only slight alterations to the menus offered on the Food Channel*?
*No wine, easy on the garlic.
I don't know if gorehounds should be considered sociopaths but if it's the case, the patients have clearly taken over the madhouse.
Social critics used to talk about "desensitization to violence". This scientific study opens up a whole new chapter in our understanding of the phenomenon. Can we foresee a day when simple DNA testing at the cinema door would allow the consumer to determine whether he will enjoy himself or simply lose his cookies?
