Just watched a fabulous little movie called Roadside about a newlywed couple driving down a dark snowy woodsy road on Christmas Eve on their way to some relatives. When the man makes the mistake of getting out of the car, he hears a demented voice from deep inside the forest. claiming to have a gun & he will shoot if the couple dares to leave. So the couple pretty much is stuck there all night on the road, forced to either freeze to death, or risk being shot by the madman if they drive off
IMDB only rates this 4.5/10, but I enjoyed it. Normally i don’t like guns in horror & other horror fans feel the same; horror villains are supposed to be slashers not shooters.
In Halloween IV (1988), there’s a seen where the killer (Michael Myers) sits on a chair with a rifle pretending to be the sherrif. When a young woman approaches, Myers gets up with the rifle in hand. Legend has it that movie audiences booed because they were so disappointed Michael would kill his victim with gun. But then boos turned to cheers when instead of shooting the woman, he rammed the rifle through her body & using it to nail her to the wall
I have a theory for why horror fans prefer stabbings, slashings & impailings to shootings. Our love for horror is our way of coping with fears that evolved tens of thousands of years ago. In those days, genetically superior mongoloids had not yet evolved to teach the world how to make guns, so we feared the Stone Age violence of being stabbed, slashed or clubbed to death. Villains like Jason from the Friday the 13th movies or Myers from Halloween are like relics of the primitive killers who used to haunt our distant ancestors.
That’s also why slashers in these films are often mentally retarded & kill in the woods; because 100,000 years ago, most humans were mentally retarded & lived in the forest
Today mostly those who are middle class or beyond watch horror & most horror is written & cast for a middle class white suburban audience. It is those who feel safe who most crave the adrenelen rush of being scared…as long as it’s from the comfort & presumed safety of their cozy suburban homes
Getting shot is a cleaner less personal way to die, or survive. I think your theory has substance. But what is it then about disguised killers that is so scary? Like the guy pretending to be the sherriff. Is disguise and impersonation a variation on kamoflaged predators?
Think it more has to do with fearing nature as a malevolent force than bring mentally retarded and living in the woods.
East mongoloids was domesticated earlier than caucasoids. The caucasian european advantage is exactly this balance between wildness and ”civilization”. The better slaves have better teeths.
I think the domestication comes from agricultural reasons. East Asia was able to cultivate food in a stationary area before Caucasians. The aggressive Mongols came from the Northern Steppes, and their lifestyle was nomadic, compared to the passive Chinese with their farming, which means a less inclination to be assertive and show friendliness/hospitality and also hostility to strangers. Also, the original Mongols maybe physically different from the ones living in Mongolia today, who look like Chinese. It is believed that Genghis Khan was not East Asian in appearance.
He seemed mongoloid. Well, wild tend to have different appearance than domesticated ones. I think mongoloid branch became longer time geographically isolated. It creates over- cognitive and psychological specialization and posterior cultural alienation. In conflict regions, wildness is better preserved because the ”wilds” are needed. It happen with europeans. During Empire Mongol era, chineses were already very polite and pacific (seems). This less creativity in chineses, specially, is based in less combination with ”wild” and ”civilized” personality types. Conflicts and serious problems (like wars) creates chaos and need of the creativity.
Ashkenazim during XX century produces inovations and conflicts, look at cultural evolution of Western world, specially USA, and compares with Eastern.
I remember seeing the trip of the first western orchestra of classical music in China in 70’s. Chineses students learn very well but they learned only technical skills and nothing about emotion, personal inovation, etc…
East Asians tend to be risk adverse, or what Rushton says, cautious. Unsurprisingly, the Confucian culture of saving face is apparent in East Asians. I do however have to say the Japanese, are quite creative when compared to the Chinese, because the Japanese before the defeat of World War II, were conflict ridden with their samurai wars. They seem to be the only main Mongoloid group with both a wild and civilized nature. Some Japanese also have Ainu ancestry, who look Caucasian or maybe resembling an early Mongoloid prototype with a wild nature like the Mongols.
They did a study and found that East Asians are not attractive to Westerners. However, some East Asians have a phenotype that can conform to the Western Standard of Beauty, and in this study, Westerners showed much less hostility to their facial appearances. Maybe it’s a remnant phenotype when the Mongoloids were still in the wild phase.
…because 100,000 years ago, most humans were mentally retarded
Something bothers me with that assertion. Being retarded is something you are relative to others, and once you are branded as retarded you are pushed aside and become even more retarded. Are gorillas retarded? No, but if there were suddenly gorillas with human brain capacity among them they would be after a while. A retarded person displays odd behavior, but a lot of that is conditioned, by people around them.