What do you think?
Rate this book
Morbidly Curious: A Scientist Explains Why We Can't Look Away
“A fascinating examination of a feature of human nature that all of us have, most of us deplore (at least in others), and few of us understand.”
—Steven Pinker, New York Times bestselling author of Rationality and Enlightenment Now
"An entertaining examination of the underlying reasons behind our attraction to the macabre."
—The New York Times Book Review
The leading expert on the science behind morbid curiosity explains our spooky, gory, and macabre fascinations
What makes us peek at a car wreck or binge-watch true crime shows late into the night? Why are some of us drawn to horror movies while others shudder at the thought? In Morbidly Curious, scientist Coltan Scrivner takes readers on a thrilling journey into the psychology of morbid curiosity, uncovering why we can’t resist the macabre. From grisly serial killers to spine-chilling paranormal stories, Scrivner reveals the psychological forces that compel us to explore our darkest fears—and explains how this proclivity is more than just a quirk. It’s a powerful survival instinct, helping us mentally prepare for real-world threats, all from the safety of our imaginations.
Blending fascinating insights and cutting-edge research at haunted houses across the world, Scrivner makes a powerful argument for the value of playing with fear and embracing the gruesome. Whether you're a horror fan yourself or just want to better understand the true crime craze, Morbidly Curious will open your eyes to the hidden benefits of exploring the dark side of human nature.
—Steven Pinker, New York Times bestselling author of Rationality and Enlightenment Now
"An entertaining examination of the underlying reasons behind our attraction to the macabre."
—The New York Times Book Review
The leading expert on the science behind morbid curiosity explains our spooky, gory, and macabre fascinations
What makes us peek at a car wreck or binge-watch true crime shows late into the night? Why are some of us drawn to horror movies while others shudder at the thought? In Morbidly Curious, scientist Coltan Scrivner takes readers on a thrilling journey into the psychology of morbid curiosity, uncovering why we can’t resist the macabre. From grisly serial killers to spine-chilling paranormal stories, Scrivner reveals the psychological forces that compel us to explore our darkest fears—and explains how this proclivity is more than just a quirk. It’s a powerful survival instinct, helping us mentally prepare for real-world threats, all from the safety of our imaginations.
Blending fascinating insights and cutting-edge research at haunted houses across the world, Scrivner makes a powerful argument for the value of playing with fear and embracing the gruesome. Whether you're a horror fan yourself or just want to better understand the true crime craze, Morbidly Curious will open your eyes to the hidden benefits of exploring the dark side of human nature.
272 pages, Paperback
First published October 7, 2025
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 220 reviews
January 30, 2025
I thought this book was very interesting - an exploration of the different reasons humans are drawn to horror: ghosts, serial killers, etc. In our evolutionary history, we learned how to watch for threats so we could anticipate them. We also can experience fear more as a "practice round" for more intense situations. The author cites multiple research studies that have brought humanity's morbid curiosities to light.
September 12, 2025
I won this book in a goodreads drawing.
A scientist tries to explain the appeal of horror movies and the like through the lens of evolution. It's very informative, but seems like a lot of effort to justify liking horror movies.
A scientist tries to explain the appeal of horror movies and the like through the lens of evolution. It's very informative, but seems like a lot of effort to justify liking horror movies.
November 17, 2025
Concept was interesting but it just read like a doctoral thesis and didn’t actually end up being that interesting. Way more academic than I anticipated to be honest.
October 7, 2025
لقد مررنا جميعًا بفضولٍ مرضي في وقتٍ ما. إنه ذلك الشعور الغريب بالانبهار الذي يدفعنا لمواجهة الخوف والاشمئزاز والمجهول. إنه التناقض الذي نشعر به عندما نُواجه مشهدًا مُقززًا ولكنه جذاب بشكلٍ غامض. إنه التردد الذي نشعر به قبل دخول منزلٍ مسكونٍ في عيد الهالوين، حيث ترتجف أجسادنا وتتحرك عقولنا بمزيجٍ من الإثارة والخوف. أحداثٌ مُرعبة، وقصصٌ مُرعبة، وألعابٌ مُرعبة تخطف انتباهنا وتُغوي خيالنا.
عندما يحدث أمرٌ سيءٌ في العالم، نرغب في أن نكون أول من يسمع عنه. يُمكننا تخيُّل الأحداث المُرعبة بسهولة. أحيانًا نضطر حتى إلى مُقاومة الرغبة في استحضار أحداثٍ مُؤسفة. علينا أن نُقنع أنفسنا بعدم التفكير في تعطل الطائرة وتحطمها عندما يكون هناك القليل من الاضطرابات ويومض ضوء حزام الأمان.
لطالما جادل علماء النفس بأن البشر لديهم ميل للسلبية، أو ميل للتأثر بالأحداث السلبية أكثر من الإيجابية. فالأحداث السلبية تجذب انتباهنا أسرع، وتزيد من حماسنا، وتثير استجابات أقوى، ويتم تذكرها بسهولة أكبر مقارنةً بالأحداث الإيجابية أو المحايدة. إن الشعور الذي يتولد لديك بعد خسارة ألف دولار أقوى بكثير من النشوة التي تشعر بها بعد ربح ألف دولار. الانفصال المؤلم يبقى في الذاكرة أكثر من الانفصال الودي. ردود الفعل السلبية أقوى من ردود الفعل الإيجابية. باختصار، تؤثر فينا المشاعر والتفاعلات والأحداث والمواقف التي نعتبرها "سيئة" بشكل أقوى. نشعر بها بقوة أكبر، ونعالج المعلومات المتعلقة بها بدقة أكبر، ونتذكرها بوضوح أكبر. كما قال عالم النفس الاجتماعي روي باوميستر، فإن السيئ أقوى من الجيد.
لكن ماذا يعني أن يكون شيء ما سلبيًا أو سيئًا؟ هذه مصطلحات عامة جدًا. بالطبع، يمكنك معرفة الحدث السلبي عندما تمر به. فقدان شخص عزيز، الرسوب في امتحان، المرور بانفصال عاطفي صعب، التعرض لإصابة؛ يتفق الجميع تقريبًا على أن هذه تجارب سلبية. ومع ذلك، لا يمكن للعلم أن يتعامل مع "الشعور بالأمر بمجرد رؤيته". حتى شيء مثل العنف، الذي يبدو أنه يُصنف بوضوح على أنه سيئ، ليس بهذه البساطة. من المرجح أن يُنظر إلى العنف الذي يمارسه المتنمر على ضحية بريئة على أنه سيئ، لكن العنف الذي يمارسه بطل نبيل على شخص شرير لن يُنظر إليه كذلك على الأرجح. السلبية ذاتية وقابلة للتغير حسب السياق والشخص الذي يمر بها.
سمعنا جميعًا أن الأخبار السيئة تنتشر أسرع من الأخبار الجيدة. وهو أمر يُعزى غالبًا إلى تحيزنا السلبي. ولكن كما أوضح عالم الأنثروبولوجيا المعرفية باسكال بوير، فإن الأخبار المُهددة هي الأسرع انتشارًا. جادل بوير بأن تحيزنا السلبي مدفوع بالمعلومات المتعلقة بالتهديد تحديدًا، وليس بالمعلومات السلبية عمومًا.
تعتبر المعلومات المتعلقة بالتهديد أكثر أهمية من أنواع المعلومات الأخرى، والأشخاص الذين ينشرون هذه التهديدات يعتبرون أكثر جدارة بالثقة. لنأخذ مذيعي الأخبار على سبيل المثال: ينشرون يوميًا معلومات عن جرائم القتل والسرقات والكوارث. بالنسبة لهم ولمشاهديهم، تُعتبر هذه المواضيع أكثر أهمية من معظم الأخبار الأخرى. ورغم كل هذا التشاؤم، يحظى العديد من المذيعين الذين ينشرون معلومات مُهددة يوميًا بشعبية واحترام كبيرين من قِبل مشاهديهم.
.
Colton Scrivner
Morbidly Curious
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
عندما يحدث أمرٌ سيءٌ في العالم، نرغب في أن نكون أول من يسمع عنه. يُمكننا تخيُّل الأحداث المُرعبة بسهولة. أحيانًا نضطر حتى إلى مُقاومة الرغبة في استحضار أحداثٍ مُؤسفة. علينا أن نُقنع أنفسنا بعدم التفكير في تعطل الطائرة وتحطمها عندما يكون هناك القليل من الاضطرابات ويومض ضوء حزام الأمان.
لطالما جادل علماء النفس بأن البشر لديهم ميل للسلبية، أو ميل للتأثر بالأحداث السلبية أكثر من الإيجابية. فالأحداث السلبية تجذب انتباهنا أسرع، وتزيد من حماسنا، وتثير استجابات أقوى، ويتم تذكرها بسهولة أكبر مقارنةً بالأحداث الإيجابية أو المحايدة. إن الشعور الذي يتولد لديك بعد خسارة ألف دولار أقوى بكثير من النشوة التي تشعر بها بعد ربح ألف دولار. الانفصال المؤلم يبقى في الذاكرة أكثر من الانفصال الودي. ردود الفعل السلبية أقوى من ردود الفعل الإيجابية. باختصار، تؤثر فينا المشاعر والتفاعلات والأحداث والمواقف التي نعتبرها "سيئة" بشكل أقوى. نشعر بها بقوة أكبر، ونعالج المعلومات المتعلقة بها بدقة أكبر، ونتذكرها بوضوح أكبر. كما قال عالم النفس الاجتماعي روي باوميستر، فإن السيئ أقوى من الجيد.
لكن ماذا يعني أن يكون شيء ما سلبيًا أو سيئًا؟ هذه مصطلحات عامة جدًا. بالطبع، يمكنك معرفة الحدث السلبي عندما تمر به. فقدان شخص عزيز، الرسوب في امتحان، المرور بانفصال عاطفي صعب، التعرض لإصابة؛ يتفق الجميع تقريبًا على أن هذه تجارب سلبية. ومع ذلك، لا يمكن للعلم أن يتعامل مع "الشعور بالأمر بمجرد رؤيته". حتى شيء مثل العنف، الذي يبدو أنه يُصنف بوضوح على أنه سيئ، ليس بهذه البساطة. من المرجح أن يُنظر إلى العنف الذي يمارسه المتنمر على ضحية بريئة على أنه سيئ، لكن العنف الذي يمارسه بطل نبيل على شخص شرير لن يُنظر إليه كذلك على الأرجح. السلبية ذاتية وقابلة للتغير حسب السياق والشخص الذي يمر بها.
سمعنا جميعًا أن الأخبار السيئة تنتشر أسرع من الأخبار الجيدة. وهو أمر يُعزى غالبًا إلى تحيزنا السلبي. ولكن كما أوضح عالم الأنثروبولوجيا المعرفية باسكال بوير، فإن الأخبار المُهددة هي الأسرع انتشارًا. جادل بوير بأن تحيزنا السلبي مدفوع بالمعلومات المتعلقة بالتهديد تحديدًا، وليس بالمعلومات السلبية عمومًا.
تعتبر المعلومات المتعلقة بالتهديد أكثر أهمية من أنواع المعلومات الأخرى، والأشخاص الذين ينشرون هذه التهديدات يعتبرون أكثر جدارة بالثقة. لنأخذ مذيعي الأخبار على سبيل المثال: ينشرون يوميًا معلومات عن جرائم القتل والسرقات والكوارث. بالنسبة لهم ولمشاهديهم، تُعتبر هذه المواضيع أكثر أهمية من معظم الأخبار الأخرى. ورغم كل هذا التشاؤم، يحظى العديد من المذيعين الذين ينشرون معلومات مُهددة يوميًا بشعبية واحترام كبيرين من قِبل مشاهديهم.
.
Colton Scrivner
Morbidly Curious
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
May 10, 2026
This was… fine. Some cool anecdotes and I definitely learned some new things but the writing felt repetitive and overly intuitive at times.
This is going to sound very anti-intellectual of me, but I think this concept would’ve worked better as a podcast or limited series. There’s so much visual and auditory fascination intertwined with horror and morbid topics, and I feel like the story would’ve felt much more alive if I were to be seeing it unfold in front of me (as well as bringing so many of those studies to life) I know…I know… it sounds silly that I’m complaining about the medium that this knowledge is being delivered to me, but I just think it’s such a fun topic and could’ve been explored in a slightly more engaging, memorable way.
This is going to sound very anti-intellectual of me, but I think this concept would’ve worked better as a podcast or limited series. There’s so much visual and auditory fascination intertwined with horror and morbid topics, and I feel like the story would’ve felt much more alive if I were to be seeing it unfold in front of me (as well as bringing so many of those studies to life) I know…I know… it sounds silly that I’m complaining about the medium that this knowledge is being delivered to me, but I just think it’s such a fun topic and could’ve been explored in a slightly more engaging, memorable way.
December 30, 2025
A fascinating and surprising exploration into the science behind the human drive to seek out the disaster, gore, terror, gross, macabre or horrifying.
‘Morbid curiosity is an adaptive behaviour that is central to the success of our species.’
This was very interesting for my nerdy brain.
‘Morbid curiosity is an adaptive behaviour that is central to the success of our species.’
This was very interesting for my nerdy brain.
May 25, 2026
This was a really illuminating read! I've never made an effort to address why I'll watch Homelander gruesomely tear someone in half on The Boys, or watch a snippet of a well-known horror show over someone's shoulder when I know I'll have nightmares about it for weeks after. This book satisfied the question of why that behaviour happens in the first place.
Though Scrivner's most compelling arguments for why morbid curiosity (defined as curiosity about death) exists in humans is essentially fully revealed by the second chapter, the rest of the book's content on other closely related topics is also really interesting. It spends some time unpacking stereotypes, such as the assumption that violent games make violent kids, or horror fans are flat out weird, which I did also find interesting to read about. The entire book feels like Scrivner's passion projects over the years compiled together — one could say as most PhD research is — which is enjoyable chiefly because his enthusiasm about it is palpable.
Overall another fun non-fiction book. I probably won't take his advice to watch more horror movies or go into haunted houses as a form of exposure therapy to make myself "more resilient", but everything else was great to know!
Though Scrivner's most compelling arguments for why morbid curiosity (defined as curiosity about death) exists in humans is essentially fully revealed by the second chapter, the rest of the book's content on other closely related topics is also really interesting. It spends some time unpacking stereotypes, such as the assumption that violent games make violent kids, or horror fans are flat out weird, which I did also find interesting to read about. The entire book feels like Scrivner's passion projects over the years compiled together — one could say as most PhD research is — which is enjoyable chiefly because his enthusiasm about it is palpable.
Overall another fun non-fiction book. I probably won't take his advice to watch more horror movies or go into haunted houses as a form of exposure therapy to make myself "more resilient", but everything else was great to know!
October 31, 2025
DNF'ed at about 30%. With prejudice.
Compared to my typical reading habits, I've been consuming an absurd amount of nonfiction this year--which, given the vagaries of the modern publishing industry and of my local public library's acquisitions team, has led to me reading a huge amount of true crime and disaster and (sometimes) survival stories. And I do love that morbid stuff, I won't pretend to be "above" it in some way, but whenever I find myself this drawn to it I always wonder where that draw comes from. There's this cultural conception of true crime as "fandom" that I don't really buy, and of the people that engage in it as "fans" stereotyped in ways that I find inaccurate to my personal experience and interests. But there does seem to be something really potent in the "morbid curiosity" that compels me and so many others to seek out this kind of information, these kinds of stories, to the extent that they've become wildly lucrative sections of multiple different industries, and I can't ever quite seem to pin down what that "something" is, even for myself. And this book claimed it would help me do that.
I very quickly lost faith in its ability to do so.
The introduction seemed promising, if a little unnecessarily juvenile--I'm not your high school English teacher, you don't need to give me a chapter-by-chapter "In this essay I will..." thesis statement, thank you. But despite that, and despite the thankfully-brief but still-unfortunate blurb from Steven Pinker on the cover of my audiobook (a man who, to my mind at least, is really only reputable for the fact that he voluntarily aided the legal defense of renowned pool of hot sewage Jeffrey Epstein), I really did try to engage with this uncritically. After all, the cover itself told me the author is a scientist, the book itself kept telling me that these conclusions were based in years of firsthand research--the author's blurb on the publisher's website even refers to him as "the world's leading expert on the science behind morbid curiosity". If you're wondering why I found myself looking into his credentials, well, we'll get to that in a second.
Because what I wasn't finding in the first couple chapters...was a lot of citations. Or any at all, at least that I noticed. That might just be a problem with the medium; I primarily listen to audiobooks these days, so I know well that it can be a challenge to transcribe footnotes in an audible format, and maybe they are present in the text. But my concern was rising, because the text kept leading along to conclusions I found far from substatiated. I started to get really worried when we got to the long section about Ötzi the Iceman, where I was told quite definitively that he was "murdered". Listen, I like a good 3am Wikipedia rabbithole as much as the next guy; me, I've read about some ice mummies, sure. Was the person whose body we refer to as Ötzi killed by another person? That seems to be the consensus, sure. Was that person murdered, a word which necessitates some degree of ill intent on behalf of that other person? There is no possible way that we could ever know.
Was my annoyance at the author's certainty there simply nitpicking? Probably, yeah, I'll own up to that. I write fiction, I understand that sometimes writers reach for less-accurate language in order to evoke an emotional response. I could have let it slide. But then...we got to the chimpanzees.
More accurately (ha), we got to a discussion about "theory of mind", a term that refers to the ability to conceive of other individuals as distinct from oneself, with their own individual thoughts and ideas and motivations that might align or conflict with our own. This book claimed, "Our closest primate relatives don't appear to have this mind-reading superpower in the same way that we do." As evidence of this, it then went on to describe a study by Masako Myowa-Yamakoshi, in which the eye movements of both humans and chimpanzees were tracked while they were shown video of someone trying to pour water from a bottle into a cup, but missing and pouring it on the table instead. The humans tended to look toward the face of the pourer, watching for facial expressions and nonverbal cues to determine whether the cup was missed on accident or purpose; but the chimps mainly focused on the bottle and the cup, neglecting the human pourer's face.
I'm not a behavioral scientist. I'm certainly not an animal behaviorist. To be totally honest, I'm kind of afraid of chimps in particular, and I really don't go out of my way to learn much about them. But even I know that, despite some very distant ancestors and a bit of genetic relativity, humans and chimps are very different, especially in our uses of facial expressions and body language to communicate. I thought it seemed like a broooooad stretch to decide that they lack a capacity for theory of mind just because they don't look at faces to determine it. For all I know, they could be using pheromones, or subvocalizations, or the tonality of their farts, or anything. I thought, surely, there had to be more going on with that study than was represented here.
So I did a light googling for "chimps theory of mind". And I immediately found link after link after link, page after page after page assuring me that, yes, in fact, chimps do have some capacity for it, though there is some debate about the extent to which they do.
Then I found an article in the open-access research journal Nature Communications, written by Myowa-Yamakoshi (and Céline Scola and Satoshi Hirata) about her study. In just the abstract of the article, I found this gem:
The conductor of the study, writing about that study, said that chimps do this the same way as humans. They just don't do it by faces.
And honestly, look, I get it. Pop science writing is hard--so hard that I don't do it. It is a real challenge to be able to look at a mountain of scientific writing and data and research and distill it down to its essence and translate that essence into layman's terms. Personally, I'm just some schmuck with a BA in a fake field from a bad university that later got stripped of its accreditation and forcibly shut down. I'm quite literally the layman who should need to be translated to. So if I can see that an author got something this wrong about something this easily checkable, with just a few minutes of internet access and a search engine, then no, I am not going to be bothered to finish reading their book. It's clear that I won't be able to trust anything they have to say at face value, I don't care what field they're considered the "lead expert" in. It clearly isn't fact-checking.
Compared to my typical reading habits, I've been consuming an absurd amount of nonfiction this year--which, given the vagaries of the modern publishing industry and of my local public library's acquisitions team, has led to me reading a huge amount of true crime and disaster and (sometimes) survival stories. And I do love that morbid stuff, I won't pretend to be "above" it in some way, but whenever I find myself this drawn to it I always wonder where that draw comes from. There's this cultural conception of true crime as "fandom" that I don't really buy, and of the people that engage in it as "fans" stereotyped in ways that I find inaccurate to my personal experience and interests. But there does seem to be something really potent in the "morbid curiosity" that compels me and so many others to seek out this kind of information, these kinds of stories, to the extent that they've become wildly lucrative sections of multiple different industries, and I can't ever quite seem to pin down what that "something" is, even for myself. And this book claimed it would help me do that.
I very quickly lost faith in its ability to do so.
The introduction seemed promising, if a little unnecessarily juvenile--I'm not your high school English teacher, you don't need to give me a chapter-by-chapter "In this essay I will..." thesis statement, thank you. But despite that, and despite the thankfully-brief but still-unfortunate blurb from Steven Pinker on the cover of my audiobook (a man who, to my mind at least, is really only reputable for the fact that he voluntarily aided the legal defense of renowned pool of hot sewage Jeffrey Epstein), I really did try to engage with this uncritically. After all, the cover itself told me the author is a scientist, the book itself kept telling me that these conclusions were based in years of firsthand research--the author's blurb on the publisher's website even refers to him as "the world's leading expert on the science behind morbid curiosity". If you're wondering why I found myself looking into his credentials, well, we'll get to that in a second.
Because what I wasn't finding in the first couple chapters...was a lot of citations. Or any at all, at least that I noticed. That might just be a problem with the medium; I primarily listen to audiobooks these days, so I know well that it can be a challenge to transcribe footnotes in an audible format, and maybe they are present in the text. But my concern was rising, because the text kept leading along to conclusions I found far from substatiated. I started to get really worried when we got to the long section about Ötzi the Iceman, where I was told quite definitively that he was "murdered". Listen, I like a good 3am Wikipedia rabbithole as much as the next guy; me, I've read about some ice mummies, sure. Was the person whose body we refer to as Ötzi killed by another person? That seems to be the consensus, sure. Was that person murdered, a word which necessitates some degree of ill intent on behalf of that other person? There is no possible way that we could ever know.
Was my annoyance at the author's certainty there simply nitpicking? Probably, yeah, I'll own up to that. I write fiction, I understand that sometimes writers reach for less-accurate language in order to evoke an emotional response. I could have let it slide. But then...we got to the chimpanzees.
More accurately (ha), we got to a discussion about "theory of mind", a term that refers to the ability to conceive of other individuals as distinct from oneself, with their own individual thoughts and ideas and motivations that might align or conflict with our own. This book claimed, "Our closest primate relatives don't appear to have this mind-reading superpower in the same way that we do." As evidence of this, it then went on to describe a study by Masako Myowa-Yamakoshi, in which the eye movements of both humans and chimpanzees were tracked while they were shown video of someone trying to pour water from a bottle into a cup, but missing and pouring it on the table instead. The humans tended to look toward the face of the pourer, watching for facial expressions and nonverbal cues to determine whether the cup was missed on accident or purpose; but the chimps mainly focused on the bottle and the cup, neglecting the human pourer's face.
I'm not a behavioral scientist. I'm certainly not an animal behaviorist. To be totally honest, I'm kind of afraid of chimps in particular, and I really don't go out of my way to learn much about them. But even I know that, despite some very distant ancestors and a bit of genetic relativity, humans and chimps are very different, especially in our uses of facial expressions and body language to communicate. I thought it seemed like a broooooad stretch to decide that they lack a capacity for theory of mind just because they don't look at faces to determine it. For all I know, they could be using pheromones, or subvocalizations, or the tonality of their farts, or anything. I thought, surely, there had to be more going on with that study than was represented here.
So I did a light googling for "chimps theory of mind". And I immediately found link after link after link, page after page after page assuring me that, yes, in fact, chimps do have some capacity for it, though there is some debate about the extent to which they do.
Then I found an article in the open-access research journal Nature Communications, written by Myowa-Yamakoshi (and Céline Scola and Satoshi Hirata) about her study. In just the abstract of the article, I found this gem:
"We find that chimpanzees anticipate action goals in the same way as do human adults. Humans and chimpanzees, however, scan goal-directed actions differently. Humans, particularly infants, refer to actors' faces significantly more than do chimpanzees."
The conductor of the study, writing about that study, said that chimps do this the same way as humans. They just don't do it by faces.
And honestly, look, I get it. Pop science writing is hard--so hard that I don't do it. It is a real challenge to be able to look at a mountain of scientific writing and data and research and distill it down to its essence and translate that essence into layman's terms. Personally, I'm just some schmuck with a BA in a fake field from a bad university that later got stripped of its accreditation and forcibly shut down. I'm quite literally the layman who should need to be translated to. So if I can see that an author got something this wrong about something this easily checkable, with just a few minutes of internet access and a search engine, then no, I am not going to be bothered to finish reading their book. It's clear that I won't be able to trust anything they have to say at face value, I don't care what field they're considered the "lead expert" in. It clearly isn't fact-checking.
January 6, 2026
Avtor vzpostavi pojem "morbidne radovednosti" - evolucijsko razvito radovednost glede nevarnosti, strahu, gnusnih in smrtnih zadev, ki nam pomaga preživeti tako, da lahko v varnem okolju simuliramo in se pripravimo na ekstremne situacije. Razprava je oprta na številne eksperimente in teste osebnosti (ki so povzeti precej po ameriško, popreproščeni in ponavljajoči, v dobrem in slabem) in prinaša kar nekaj zanimivih spoznanj, ki razbijajo številne stereotipe o gledanju grozljivk. Na primer tudi o tem, da empatija ni vedno nekaj nujno dobrega (vsaj s stališča preživetja) in da se empatija in "mračni" osebnostni tipi ne izključujejo vedno (ker obstaja več vrst empatije itd.). Sicer pa so dobrodošle tudi raziskave o skupnostih ljubiteljev groze. Morda manjka kaj več poglobitve v estetske razloge za to, da "ne moremo pogledati stran", ampak to pač ni fokus dela (čeprav bi bil preplet estetskih dejavnikov po mojem tudi zelo v prid osnovni teoriji). Zelo informativno je tudi poglavje o tem, kako morbidna radovednost pomaga pri uravnavanju anksioznosti. Skratka, fino in berljivo spisano.
March 17, 2026
As an anxious person that loves horror, I've always wondered what exactly it was that drew me to this genre. In my personal life, I don't have a particular penchant for blood, guts, or seeing people suffer. Why does it thrill me to consume this content when I'm not exactly a thrill-seeker in real life?
Dr. Scrivner answers this question and more. His research is well thought out and explained in an easily digestible way. I found his explanation of morbid curiosity and its development through human existence to be incredibly interesting. Although it can, at times, be a slow read due to its psychological and analytical nature.
I came away from this book with a better understanding of myself and those around me. I highly recommend this read if you're interested in horror and interested in knowing why. Then go watch a horror movie or read a horror novel. Enjoy!
Dr. Scrivner answers this question and more. His research is well thought out and explained in an easily digestible way. I found his explanation of morbid curiosity and its development through human existence to be incredibly interesting. Although it can, at times, be a slow read due to its psychological and analytical nature.
I came away from this book with a better understanding of myself and those around me. I highly recommend this read if you're interested in horror and interested in knowing why. Then go watch a horror movie or read a horror novel. Enjoy!
October 18, 2025
This is a really interesting read and dealt with several morbid esque topics. I loved it and learned a lot. My only criticism (and this is just me) there’s a chapter about the pandemic which I didn’t care for because I’m not interested in reading about something we all just lived through, and it kinda dragged the last 3 chapters.
December 1, 2025
This is one of the most interesting books I have read in a long time. I was hooked on the book within the first few chapters and halfway through I found myself wanting a copy of this book. As someone who is a huge fan of horror novels and paranormal things this book felt like an explanation for why I’m so drawn to these things. It’s human nature to be curious and this book shows readers why they are so drawn to the fictional macabre material that exists. I had a hard time putting this book down and it drew me in the way other books do to escape from my reality and explore someone else’s reality.
July 23, 2026
This was a cool one! Backed with oodles (scientific term) of examples and research, each chapter hones in on a facet of life that we tend to be morbidly curious about. Tbh, the horror film section was almost too scary to read for ol Zo.
December 18, 2025
Really fast read to prep for my “Psychology of Horror Films” class, but I absolutely loved it. Several lightbulb moments for me!
April 23, 2026
Great book, especially for those with an interest in true crime and mysteries. Picked this book up after I saw the author speak at a True Crime Convention and this would make a great college course!
December 12, 2025
This was a very interesting read. It was interesting to see how negativity biases shape people's curiosity about horror. We're more inclined to remember and pay attention to things in our environment that are negative so that we can learn to manage them.
September 29, 2026
Looking forward to using parts of this when I teach horror in my genre fiction class!
February 22, 2026
this was a really fun read and I loved the studies that were conducted - especially as a horror fan myself 😌
June 14, 2026
Excellent narration. Really interesting book about why people love horror. We aren't psychopaths! Yay! Lol
June 28, 2026
4.25/5
Going to start using the word “macabre” more often
Going to start using the word “macabre” more often
September 26, 2026
So this is a good example of what I DON’T want to do when I publish my doctoral thesis as a public-facing book <3 Also please for the love of god consult ANY humanities scholar when discussing horror media PLEASE aside from your sometimes disclosed, sometimes not disclosed research partner.
Also boring as hell. You mean to tell me you’re just going to answer every damn chapter with “it’s evolutionarily viable to like dark things” but not acknowledge any sort of diversity of minds or bodies that participate in these acts but are themselves not evolutionarily the most “fit”? Not that I’ve literally published on applying evolutionary theory to horror literature reader response or anything!!!
Also boring as hell. You mean to tell me you’re just going to answer every damn chapter with “it’s evolutionarily viable to like dark things” but not acknowledge any sort of diversity of minds or bodies that participate in these acts but are themselves not evolutionarily the most “fit”? Not that I’ve literally published on applying evolutionary theory to horror literature reader response or anything!!!
October 30, 2025
Words cannot express how good this book is, and I don’t think I’ll do it justice. Whether you’re someone who enjoys horror or want to know about people who enjoy horror, true crime, and other morbid topics, you need to read this book immediately. I used to be the biggest wuss when it came to horror, but my now fiancée got me into it years ago. Coltan has researched and studied research about why people are into horror and other morbid things, and I’ve honestly been waiting for this book for years.
Coltan starts the book by explaining how we evolved to be morbidly curious, and it’s something I’ve thought about a ton. As someone who is anxious and thinks about death regularly, he discusses how some of this comes from us trying to mentally plan for awful situations. I also loved how he explained why scientifically minded people still get scared in “haunted” places. One of the other cool myths he debunks is the stereotype that fans of horror lack empathy.
I could honestly talk about this book all day. And if you’re reading this, I don’t want you to think Coltan only discusses horror movies, either. A lot of this book is about fear as well, and I think it’ll help a lot of people better understand themselves and potentially learn how to deal with or embrace certain fears. As someone who used to refuse to watch scary movies, this book helped me better understand why and how getting into them has helped me overcome fears and deal with them in a controlled environment on my own terms.
Coltan starts the book by explaining how we evolved to be morbidly curious, and it’s something I’ve thought about a ton. As someone who is anxious and thinks about death regularly, he discusses how some of this comes from us trying to mentally plan for awful situations. I also loved how he explained why scientifically minded people still get scared in “haunted” places. One of the other cool myths he debunks is the stereotype that fans of horror lack empathy.
I could honestly talk about this book all day. And if you’re reading this, I don’t want you to think Coltan only discusses horror movies, either. A lot of this book is about fear as well, and I think it’ll help a lot of people better understand themselves and potentially learn how to deal with or embrace certain fears. As someone who used to refuse to watch scary movies, this book helped me better understand why and how getting into them has helped me overcome fears and deal with them in a controlled environment on my own terms.
June 2, 2026
This was one of the most interesting books I’ve ever read, and I learnt SO much. I was constantly telling the people around me all the facts I’d learnt. More non fiction that’s as easily digestible as this please, even if the topic is difficult.
December 6, 2025
A tad repetitive in explaining certain concepts but an interesting read nonetheless.
Some great phrases:
Psychologists have long argued that humans possess a negativity bias or a tendency to be more affected by negative events than by positive ones. In short, emotions, interactions, events and situations perceived as ‘bad’ impact us more strongly. We feel them more strongly, process the information related to them more thoroughly and remember them more vividly. As social psychologist Roy Baumeister has said, bad is stronger than good. Hence threat-related information is seen as more important than other kinds of information and people who spread them are seen as more reliable and trustworthy.
Our sensitivity to threat-related information can be explained in part by something called the smoke detector principle. The smoke detector is built to be sensitive to danger. Because of this, false positives occur more often, meaning you occasionally have to deal with a loud beeping when you are cooking despite there not being a fire.
To effectively avoid and deal with threats, we need to learn about them. This means that our inclination to be repulsed by or afraid of dangerous situations must be counterbalanced by morbid curiosity. We need to collect information about what a dangerous animal or person is like, how it behaves and what the consequences of interacting with it might be. The result is two opposing motivations: one to approach the potential danger and another to avoid it.
The factors that influence the weight of the cost and benefits are complex and multifaceted but the basic computation is the same. This calculation exists in nearly all animals but the human form of morbid curiosity is increasingly complex and interesting because humans can imagine situations, allowing humans to drastically reduce the costs of engaging with threat-related information and making humans the most morbidly curious creatures around.
Some great phrases:
Psychologists have long argued that humans possess a negativity bias or a tendency to be more affected by negative events than by positive ones. In short, emotions, interactions, events and situations perceived as ‘bad’ impact us more strongly. We feel them more strongly, process the information related to them more thoroughly and remember them more vividly. As social psychologist Roy Baumeister has said, bad is stronger than good. Hence threat-related information is seen as more important than other kinds of information and people who spread them are seen as more reliable and trustworthy.
Our sensitivity to threat-related information can be explained in part by something called the smoke detector principle. The smoke detector is built to be sensitive to danger. Because of this, false positives occur more often, meaning you occasionally have to deal with a loud beeping when you are cooking despite there not being a fire.
To effectively avoid and deal with threats, we need to learn about them. This means that our inclination to be repulsed by or afraid of dangerous situations must be counterbalanced by morbid curiosity. We need to collect information about what a dangerous animal or person is like, how it behaves and what the consequences of interacting with it might be. The result is two opposing motivations: one to approach the potential danger and another to avoid it.
The factors that influence the weight of the cost and benefits are complex and multifaceted but the basic computation is the same. This calculation exists in nearly all animals but the human form of morbid curiosity is increasingly complex and interesting because humans can imagine situations, allowing humans to drastically reduce the costs of engaging with threat-related information and making humans the most morbidly curious creatures around.
November 5, 2025
This was a fascinating look at why people are morbidly curious. It covers all different kinds of reasons why humans are drawn to horror, ghosts, murder, violent games, etc., and how it all stems from our evolutionary history.
From the beginning, this book had me hooked on how it explains our fascination with morbidly curious things. As someone who is morbidly curious and reads a lot of books about death, the paranormal, and watches a lot of horror movies, this book really helped me understand myself a little better. Also I never knew there was so much research being done into being morbidly curious, but I really enjoyed learning about it.
Overall, this was a fantastic look at human nature and I highly recommend it. I feel like I need to reread this already because it was just so fascinating and I want this information to really sink in.
From the beginning, this book had me hooked on how it explains our fascination with morbidly curious things. As someone who is morbidly curious and reads a lot of books about death, the paranormal, and watches a lot of horror movies, this book really helped me understand myself a little better. Also I never knew there was so much research being done into being morbidly curious, but I really enjoyed learning about it.
Overall, this was a fantastic look at human nature and I highly recommend it. I feel like I need to reread this already because it was just so fascinating and I want this information to really sink in.
Want to Read
October 12, 2025This thing is a goldmine for a psychology fanatic, horror fan, and morbidly curious writer. I'm writing an essay on morbid curiosity and Dr. Scrivner is nothing but amazing, I've gotten the opportunity to contact him a couple times with questions and he always responds quickly and politely; his work is well needed for anyone.
January 22, 2026
I expected more.
March 1, 2026
Coltan Scrivner, PhD is a pioneer on the subject of morbid curiosity and in Morbidly Curious - A Scientist Explains Why We Can't Look Away, he endeavours to explain what it is. In the prologue Scrivner firstly explains what it isn't; it's not a pathological, abnormal or unhealthy curiosity. Instead, morbid curiosity is a curiosity about things that are threatening or potentially dangerous and usually falls into the following four categories:
- minds of dangerous people
- physical violence
- bodily injuries
- paranormal dangers
This might present as a fascination with true crime, watching gory medical procedures or playing violent computer games. It's also what drives that irresistible urge to look at a car accident and try to determine what happened from the carnage left behind on the road.
Scrivner is the leading expert on the science behind morbid curiosity and the creator of the Morbid Curiosity Scale. Scientists now use this scale to assess how morbidly curious a person is and where they fall with respect to these four categories. I completed the free Morbid Curiosity Test on the author's website after reading the book and scored an overall score of 4.63 out of 6.0, where the population average is 3.41. As for the four categories mentioned above, I scored highest in the 'Minds of Dangerous People' category which correlates with my interest in true crime and wanting to understand why people commit such terrible crimes.
While I wasn't surprised to learn that morbid curiosity has helped humans across history learn more about the dangers of daily life in order to avoid or survive them, I didn't expect to find that it can positively influence our psychological wellbeing as well.
The author explains how watching a horror movie can actually help someone when they're feeling anxious:
"Horror movies can provide a way for you to hack and redirect your vigilance system. They act as a lure for an anxious mind using a threat centric plot to capture and hold the viewer's attention." Chapter 10, Terrifying Therapy
Who knew watching a horror movie can provide a new and salient threat for your mind to latch on to and which in turn, can out compete other existing sources of anxiety. The author states that those who watch horror movies tend to have more - not less - empathy than the rest of the population. I know two people in particular who regularly watch horror movies and have tonnes of empathy as well as service related PTSD, and I think I better understand now what they're getting out of the experience.
Much of the content in this book is centred around horror movies, computer gaming and haunted houses of the entertainment nature as these were the perfect settings for Scrivner's scientific research. However, this did become a little dull as these aren't the areas of my own morbid curiosity. Along the way, the author sheds light on the fact there is no link between those who play first person shooter games and those who commit mass shootings in the way we've been led to believe. Computer games don't make murderers, but so many boys and men play them that it's likely that those guilty of these crimes also played them.
Ultimately, Scrivner believes:
"Morbid curiosity is an adaptive behaviour that is central to the success of our species."
Sounds to me like a solid reason to embrace our morbid curiosity. Morbidly Curious by Coltan Scrivner is narrated by the author and I'd love to know if you complete his Morbid Curiosity Test.
- minds of dangerous people
- physical violence
- bodily injuries
- paranormal dangers
This might present as a fascination with true crime, watching gory medical procedures or playing violent computer games. It's also what drives that irresistible urge to look at a car accident and try to determine what happened from the carnage left behind on the road.
Scrivner is the leading expert on the science behind morbid curiosity and the creator of the Morbid Curiosity Scale. Scientists now use this scale to assess how morbidly curious a person is and where they fall with respect to these four categories. I completed the free Morbid Curiosity Test on the author's website after reading the book and scored an overall score of 4.63 out of 6.0, where the population average is 3.41. As for the four categories mentioned above, I scored highest in the 'Minds of Dangerous People' category which correlates with my interest in true crime and wanting to understand why people commit such terrible crimes.
While I wasn't surprised to learn that morbid curiosity has helped humans across history learn more about the dangers of daily life in order to avoid or survive them, I didn't expect to find that it can positively influence our psychological wellbeing as well.
The author explains how watching a horror movie can actually help someone when they're feeling anxious:
"Horror movies can provide a way for you to hack and redirect your vigilance system. They act as a lure for an anxious mind using a threat centric plot to capture and hold the viewer's attention." Chapter 10, Terrifying Therapy
Who knew watching a horror movie can provide a new and salient threat for your mind to latch on to and which in turn, can out compete other existing sources of anxiety. The author states that those who watch horror movies tend to have more - not less - empathy than the rest of the population. I know two people in particular who regularly watch horror movies and have tonnes of empathy as well as service related PTSD, and I think I better understand now what they're getting out of the experience.
Much of the content in this book is centred around horror movies, computer gaming and haunted houses of the entertainment nature as these were the perfect settings for Scrivner's scientific research. However, this did become a little dull as these aren't the areas of my own morbid curiosity. Along the way, the author sheds light on the fact there is no link between those who play first person shooter games and those who commit mass shootings in the way we've been led to believe. Computer games don't make murderers, but so many boys and men play them that it's likely that those guilty of these crimes also played them.
Ultimately, Scrivner believes:
"Morbid curiosity is an adaptive behaviour that is central to the success of our species."
Sounds to me like a solid reason to embrace our morbid curiosity. Morbidly Curious by Coltan Scrivner is narrated by the author and I'd love to know if you complete his Morbid Curiosity Test.
February 22, 2026
One of my joys in this algo-centric world where I’m constantly being inundated with ads and recs for sh*t is picking up a book at random from a library display shelf. It feels rebellious. Take that you stupid algorithms and the entire publication-industrial complex, and all that.
BUT, I must be more discerning.
I mean, this isn’t a bad book. It has an interesting premise and makes some curious claims that I don’t totally discount about horror. More, it’s clear how much the author loves horror and the related research he does.
But, I found the scope here pretty narrow and there’s not a lot of grappling with “morbid curiosity” beyond a western context. It’s just taken as a universal human experience.
A lot of the examples are also very Eurocentric with some mentions of how rural tribes experience things that felt exoticizing to say the least. (Look at how these weird folk from a weird place do things or understand things.)
More than anything, this book leaves me with many questions about the methods and science of all of this.
Anyway.
The author clearly had fun writing this book and I managed to amuse myself by noting some oddities—let’s call them—while I read.
Please enjoy:
* not contending with any of the systemic factors that contribute to certain people being more likely to kill or be killed
* noting that Gacy was a democrat but not mentioning Bundy was a republican????
* describing a space owner as “having a sexual relationship with an enslaved woman”—that’s rape
* not ascribing malice to Excel
* citing Steven Pinker—listen to the “If Books Could Kill” podcast episodes that rip his research to shreds
* the idea of horror fans being a stigmatized group lol
* standford prison experiment mentioned with none of the criticisms of it
* playing devil’s advocate against empathy is crazy—dude, read the room. do you think too much empathy is the problem right now?
* “haunted house field study”
* adrenaline junkie, white knuckler, or dark coper—tag yourself
* many things can be “terrifying therapy” if you’re anxious enough
* interesting to discuss the therapeutic power of imagination in one chapter and then immediately bring up dahmer in the next but NOT mention his rich, imaginative world
* how studiously this author avoids even mentioning guns when talking about columbine—blink if you need help, coltan
A very peculiar read—for many reasons. Based on my experience, I’m going to say enjoyment may vary. Reader discretion is strongly advised~
BUT, I must be more discerning.
I mean, this isn’t a bad book. It has an interesting premise and makes some curious claims that I don’t totally discount about horror. More, it’s clear how much the author loves horror and the related research he does.
But, I found the scope here pretty narrow and there’s not a lot of grappling with “morbid curiosity” beyond a western context. It’s just taken as a universal human experience.
A lot of the examples are also very Eurocentric with some mentions of how rural tribes experience things that felt exoticizing to say the least. (Look at how these weird folk from a weird place do things or understand things.)
More than anything, this book leaves me with many questions about the methods and science of all of this.
Anyway.
The author clearly had fun writing this book and I managed to amuse myself by noting some oddities—let’s call them—while I read.
Please enjoy:
* not contending with any of the systemic factors that contribute to certain people being more likely to kill or be killed
* noting that Gacy was a democrat but not mentioning Bundy was a republican????
* describing a space owner as “having a sexual relationship with an enslaved woman”—that’s rape
* not ascribing malice to Excel
* citing Steven Pinker—listen to the “If Books Could Kill” podcast episodes that rip his research to shreds
* the idea of horror fans being a stigmatized group lol
* standford prison experiment mentioned with none of the criticisms of it
* playing devil’s advocate against empathy is crazy—dude, read the room. do you think too much empathy is the problem right now?
* “haunted house field study”
* adrenaline junkie, white knuckler, or dark coper—tag yourself
* many things can be “terrifying therapy” if you’re anxious enough
* interesting to discuss the therapeutic power of imagination in one chapter and then immediately bring up dahmer in the next but NOT mention his rich, imaginative world
* how studiously this author avoids even mentioning guns when talking about columbine—blink if you need help, coltan
A very peculiar read—for many reasons. Based on my experience, I’m going to say enjoyment may vary. Reader discretion is strongly advised~
December 4, 2025
I listened to the modern wisdom podcast, particularly the episode: “#984 - Coltan Scrivner - Why We’re Drawn to Death, Crime, & Danger” and immediately decided to read this book after listening to Coltan Scrivner’s interview from the podcast.
This was a really interesting read and dealt with several morbid topics. It covers all different kinds of reasons why humans are drawn to horror movies, ghosts or other paranormal activity, murder, violent games, etc., and how it all stems from our evolutionary history. I loved it and learned a lot.
From the very beginning of this book, I was HOOKED! on how it explains our fascination with morbidly curious things (my notes app is filled with soo many quotes). As someone who is majoring in criminology and took a class in forensic science and loves reads a lot of psychological thriller and research a lot of video essays about death, the paranormal, and started to get into watching horror movies, this book really helped me understand myself a little better. Prior to reading this book and listening to podcast episode from modern wisdom, I never knew there was so much research being done into being morbidly curious, but I really enjoyed learning about it.
Overall, this book was a fantastic look at human nature and I highly recommend it. I feel like I need to reread this already because it was just a fascinating read and I want this information to really sink in…
This was a really interesting read and dealt with several morbid topics. It covers all different kinds of reasons why humans are drawn to horror movies, ghosts or other paranormal activity, murder, violent games, etc., and how it all stems from our evolutionary history. I loved it and learned a lot.
From the very beginning of this book, I was HOOKED! on how it explains our fascination with morbidly curious things (my notes app is filled with soo many quotes). As someone who is majoring in criminology and took a class in forensic science and loves reads a lot of psychological thriller and research a lot of video essays about death, the paranormal, and started to get into watching horror movies, this book really helped me understand myself a little better. Prior to reading this book and listening to podcast episode from modern wisdom, I never knew there was so much research being done into being morbidly curious, but I really enjoyed learning about it.
Overall, this book was a fantastic look at human nature and I highly recommend it. I feel like I need to reread this already because it was just a fascinating read and I want this information to really sink in…
Displaying 1 - 30 of 220 reviews