by Frosty BlueThat's very interesting, I was hoping for a certain response in them since fear is sort of obsolete in there responses to things. So I was sort of wondering how they would feel after watching something very creepy.
Creepy as in strange or scary? I find little creepy, I find lots strange. Uglystrange I have no reaction to though. Though that's my point though, "they" don't have a standard way of feeling, they wouldn't even necessarily find it creepy like you do. Same with nons.
Women have typically been poisoners. I wrote about that on the thread on arsenic.
That is why Aileen Wuornos was not the norm for female killers.
As for Aileen, no I don't think monster is a term I would use. Again she was a victim herself as well, society is always in a hurry to label people as monsters rather than considering the causes for their behavior.
Monster as I would take it seems to denote that the person was just born that way, that they are evil and there were no other extenuating circumstances (environmental, trauma, abuse, sexual abuse).
As we know evil is a label too, there is nothing scientific about the word evil, it is a theistic.
RE: evil as theistic not scientific label
I believe science can measure and prove differences between "dark" or negative energy versus "light" or life-giving/healing spiritual energy. One promotes health and healing, the other blocks the mind/body from natural self-healing.
there are secular studies on the effects of "forgiveness" and "unforgiveness" on people's mental and physical health
the difference in qualities can be measured in terms of brain responses, or if nothing else, patient surveys/interviews.
There is a difference in these specific qualities that can be measured scientifically.
But how can scientific research measure and document actual proof of differences between light and dark as you are suggesting. As the book, Science of Evil points out evil is a religious term or a philosophical term, its not measured in any scientific way.
I am sure there may be studies that show movement in brain responses to feelings and stimuli that could be recorded but then isn't it hypothetical to attribute these movements in the brain to good and evil?
I would like to see those studies as the MRI analysis that was documented in the books I have read only explains it as brain wave patterns shifting or nonexistent response to various stimuli as compared to the norm.
What you write of is interesting but I see no real empirical evidence to this. Have you read any of Dr. James Fallon's books? I would love to be in one of his classrooms, he teaches near me but I am at a different university.
Good subject for discussion!
Yes, true but I think myself and TK are agreeing that for us it is a sexual rush viewing disturbing and dark graphic material( I don't want to speak for TK but she alluded to agreeing to this point in the post at the top of this thread).
It would be hard to know exactly what Aileen's diagnosis was other than viewing the standard psych reports done on her but I would suspect comorbid borderline with sociopathy as that is the same diagnosis given to Jodi Arias.
There was a random impulsivity to both their killings, that could be taken as sociopathic. As for abuse, that could exacerbate the deep feelings of neglect and abandonment also culminating in a brutal killing such as these were, borderline traits.
Both these ladies exhibited lack of planning or failure to plan ahead unlike a poisoner where there is more methodical planning and accuracy, sociopathic traits.
Why not post some and see what happens? Hell, there's always www.rotten.com
I'm wondering if the original poster meant actual disturbing images that the mind knows are real. I am not at all sociopathic, but I am very sexually stimulated by kidnapping/rape/strangulation scenarios when I know that they aren't real.
I would think that it's probably universally stimulating to the general population to some degree, isn't that why vampire shows and movies are so popular? Vampires kill and people think they're sexy.