Modern WisdomWhy We’re Drawn to Death, Crime, & Danger - Coltan Scrivner
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 4:18
Coltan’s path into morbid curiosity research: from archaeology to haunted houses
Coltan explains how a childhood enjoyment of scary media evolved into an academic focus on why humans seek threatening content. He describes the “paradox” that violence is condemned in real life yet consumed for entertainment, and how early haunted-house field studies helped crystallize his research direction.
- •Early fascination with scary things, especially when experienced at a safe distance
- •Academic journey: archaeology/anthropology/forensics → psychology PhD
- •The violence paradox: shunning violence vs celebrating it in specific contexts (e.g., Colosseum)
- •Humans scaring themselves for fun as an understudied ‘gold mine’ topic
- •Recreational Fear Lab work and haunted house studies as ‘fear in the wild’
- 4:18 – 7:20
Why dark content compels us: “predator inspection” without the danger
They outline a core explanation: organisms must learn about threats, and humans can do it through stories and media instead of direct exposure. This makes morbid content a low-cost way to simulate danger, extract lessons, and feel more prepared.
- •Threat-learning as a basic adaptive need across animals
- •Predator inspection examples in zebras/gazelles observing predators
- •Humans gain similar benefits via stories, books, films, and news
- •Safety, rules, and control change whether threat content is ‘fun’ or ‘aversive’
- •Disgust sensitivity and controllability (reading vs watching) shape consumption
- 7:20 – 12:24
The 4 domains of morbid curiosity (and how researchers measured them)
Coltan describes how he built a morbid curiosity scale and discovered four clusters of interest. Each domain reflects a different way threats show up: the act, the agent, the injury, and the unknown.
- •Creating a questionnaire scale: item collection → participant ratings → factor structure
- •Domain 1: Violence (witnessing violent conflict)
- •Domain 2: Minds of dangerous people (true crime, perpetrators, motives, methods)
- •Domain 3: Body violations (injury, gore, aftermath and what it signals)
- •Domain 4: Paranormal/supernatural threats (ghosts, aliens, occult, cryptids)
- 12:24 – 15:25
What ties the four domains together: uncertainty, vulnerability, and threat mitigation
They connect the domains through a single thread: identifying what can harm us and what we don’t yet understand about it. Morbid curiosity sits in a push-pull system—avoid threats, but approach them when safe to learn.
- •Common thread: ‘What could harm me, and what don’t I know about it?’
- •Different media teach different parts of the threat timeline (mechanics vs lead-up vs aftermath)
- •People find escape tactics especially compelling in true crime narratives
- •Curiosity as an evolved approach motive that counterbalances fear/disgust in safe contexts
- •Learning is valuable precisely when perceived danger is low or controllable
- 15:25 – 23:22
Evolutionary roots: animal inspection, folklore, and dreaming as threat rehearsal
Coltan zooms out to what morbid curiosity likely looked like before modern media. He uses animal behavior, cross-cultural folklore themes, and threat-simulation theories of dreaming to argue the mind routinely rehearses danger offline.
- •Gazelle–cheetah field study: adolescents, distance, and group size increase inspection
- •Why prey can’t flee constantly—need discrimination of ‘hunting’ vs ‘resting’ predators
- •Folklore worldwide often features predators and dangers as recurring teaching tools
- •Threat simulation theory of dreams: rehearsing danger when ‘offline’
- •Distinguishing nightmares from other threat-containing dreams that don’t disrupt sleep
- 23:22 – 27:03
Who’s more morbidly curious: personality predictors, age effects, and disgust nuance
They discuss individual differences and what predicts morbid curiosity beyond general curiosity. Findings: morbid curiosity is partially explained by personality measures, declines with age, and relates to psychopathy subtraits more than expected; disgust plays a more specific role than a blanket deterrent.
- •Validity testing: morbid curiosity remains distinct from Big Five/HEXACO and other scales
- •About ~50% of variance explained even with many predictors (leaves substantial uniqueness)
- •Psychopathy correlates, especially the rebelliousness facet (subclinical)
- •Small sex differences by subdomain: men higher in violence; women higher in ‘dangerous minds’
- •Age trend: younger people more morbidly curious (consistent with learning/inspection logic)
- 27:03 – 31:30
Body violations vs disgust: why infection cues change what we’ll touch (and watch)
A key puzzle—why disgust sensitivity doesn’t strongly suppress curiosity about injuries—gets unpacked. Coltan explains evidence that people differentiate infectious from non-infectious injuries, and disgust avoidance targets contagion risk more than gore itself.
- •Disgust wasn’t as strongly negatively correlated with injury-interest as expected
- •Two injury types: infectious vs non-infectious (knife wound vs eye infection)
- •Kupfer study: people avoid infection-labeled bandages even with gloves
- •Disgust functions as pathogen-avoidance; less relevant to non-infectious trauma learning
- •Perceived safety/distance (e.g., historic plagues vs COVID era) shapes response
- 31:30 – 34:05
Morbid curiosity as resilience: horror/true crime fans during early COVID
Coltan describes a natural experiment sparked by pandemic shutdowns. After controlling for major confounds, morbidly curious people reported greater psychological resilience early in COVID—less anxiety/depression and more optimism—suggesting threat rehearsal can be emotionally protective.
- •Lab shutdowns prompted online pivot and a ‘natural experiment’ opportunity
- •Hypothesis: morbid curiosity prepares people for real-world threat uncertainty
- •Controls included personality, income, age, and other relevant factors
- •Result: higher morbid curiosity predicted greater resilience and lower distress (April 2020)
- •Interpretation: prior engagement with simulated threats may improve coping skills
- 34:05 – 37:46
Why serial killers attract fan mail: safe access to dangerous minds (and ‘dark triad’ dating interest)
They tackle the provocative question of women drawn to serial killers. Coltan frames it as high-information, low-risk access to a dangerous male—threat-learning under maximal containment—plus research showing morbidly curious women are more willing to engage with ‘dark trait’ profiles even without feeling warmth.
- •Prison creates a ‘safe interface’ with a dangerous individual (learning without risk)
- •Fan mail phenomenon includes cases like Dahmer (even without typical attractiveness)
- •Dating-profile studies: morbid curiosity predicts interest in dark triad traits
- •Key distinction: behavioral interest to learn vs emotional warmth/comfort
- •Speculative angle: dangerous allies can be assets if they ‘like you’
- 37:46 – 47:14
Why different groups prefer different morbid content: true crime vs war stories (and kids’ play)
They explore demographic patterns in morbid media preferences. The argument: people gravitate toward threats most relevant to their likely social/ecological risks—domestic/relationship danger for women and intergroup conflict/war for men—showing up even in children’s pretend play.
- •Evidence suggests women consume more true crime across formats
- •War stories as ‘true crime for men’ tied to historical male conflict exposure
- •Threat relevance: women’s risk often in close relationships; men’s risk often from outgroup men
- •Childhood play differences: nurturing vs battle themes as early-prep simulations
- •Anecdote: kids playing Mafia/Werewolf quickly escalate to vivid violence when in control
- 47:14 – 50:12
What makes a horror movie ‘horror’: vulnerable protagonists vs formidable antagonists
Coltan offers a structural definition of horror beyond ‘it scares me’ or author intent. He argues horror reliably features an asymmetric matchup: a highly vulnerable protagonist facing a highly formidable antagonist—an archetype that provides compelling threat-learning for morbidly curious viewers.
- •Genre definitions based on audience fear or creator intent are unreliable
- •Proposed structural signature: formidable villain + vulnerable protagonist
- •Empirical work: analysis across hundreds of films supports this pattern
- •Horror’s appeal involves empathic alignment with an underdog in danger
- •Horror functions as controlled rehearsal of low-power/high-threat scenarios
- 50:12 – 52:27
Why zombie stories work: one monster that hits all four morbid-curiosity domains
They explain the broad appeal of zombie media by mapping it onto the four domains. Zombies combine dangerous agents, violence, body violation, and supernatural uncertainty—creating a ‘maximal’ morbid-curiosity package that scales to mass audiences.
- •Zombies as ‘dangerous minds’: human-like but with unclear inner life
- •Violence plus intergroup conflict among survivor factions
- •Supernatural ambiguity: alive/dead status and rule uncertainty
- •Body violations are constant (decomposition, bites, mutilation)
- •Why high-budget zombie franchises can capture unusually broad audiences
- 52:27 – 57:12
Crafting scares: “monster enters left,” jump-scare mechanics, and attention misdirection
Chris introduces a cinematography trope and they explore plausible cognitive mechanisms behind it. The discussion links learned scanning patterns, hemispheric processing, misdirection, and why some screen positions may yield stronger surprise responses.
- •Concept: viewers drift attention right; surprises from left may hit harder
- •Possible mechanisms: learned left-to-right scanning, pseudo-neglect, novelty processing
- •Misdirection and ‘empty space’ as tension-building tools in horror framing
- •Idea for research: quantify which side jump scares originate from across films
- •Using modern tools (e.g., LLM plot/character annotation) to scale film analysis
- 57:12 – 1:02:58
Desensitization concerns: violent media, empathy myths, and what data suggests
They address whether exposure to horror and graphic content reduces empathy or increases callousness. Coltan summarizes findings that horror fans aren’t lower in empathy, though people stereotype them as less compassionate; he notes rare cases where truly dangerous individuals might engage for different motives.
- •Developmental/desensitization research is hard (needs longitudinal data; cohorts confounded by tech)
- •Modern paradox: lower real-world violence, easier access to graphic footage online
- •Studies find no empathy difference between horror fans and non-fans
- •People *perceive* horror fans as less empathetic (strong stereotype in judgments)
- •Caveat: a small subset (e.g., predators) could consume violence for ‘predator training’ reasons
- 1:02:58 – 1:03:40
Where to find Coltan’s work (book + Substack)
They close with a quick plug for Coltan’s upcoming book and his newsletter. Chris wraps the episode and directs viewers to additional content.
- •Book availability details and release timing
- •Substack for additional writing: morbidlycuriousthoughts.com
- •Episode wrap-up and thanks
