ANATOMIA #002: A ANATOMIA DO ABSURDO

Main ideas, concepts, and lessons

• Curiosity toward danger (and why it feels “compelling”)

  • The video frames fascination with threatening or morbid events as a mental process:
    • Selective threat attention: the brain quickly registers danger cues and discards what it deems irrelevant.
    • Morbid curiosity: motivation to get close to fear, disgust, or the unknown—learning about threats without paying the full cost of a real threat.
  • Example setup:
    • People may remember the name/method/details of a notorious crime more easily than other unrelated, competing facts.

• Research claims about empathy and entertainment

  • A study (credited as involving a 2024 check by Scrivner) argues that horror fans are not less empathic than others.
  • This is used to reject the idea that enjoying dark content means emotional emptiness.

• How attention and curiosity differ by type of threat

  • A 2017 study is described where participants choose first among:
    • a violent social conflict,
    • a graphic medical scene,
    • a neutral image.
  • Key takeaway: people’s curiosity tends to pull them toward danger involving other humans, not just random harm.
  • Evolutionary explanation:
    • Natural threats (snakes, falls, disease) can be patterned/predictable.
    • Human-on-human violence requires social interpretation (motive, intention, “why would I do that?”), making it harder to anticipate and therefore more attention-grabbing.

• Why genres like horror/crime/suspense “hook” people

  • The script claims morbid curiosity helps explain why certain entertainment genres succeed:
    • Horror, crime, psychological thriller = human threat + suspense.
    • Romance or comedy = not built around the same danger/unknown mechanism.
  • Scrivner’s own morbid curiosity scale validation is cited:
    • High scorers are more likely to prefer horror/zombies/psychological thrillers.
    • It does not predict preference for romance/comedy.

• True crime as a “human-versus-human” threat

  • True crime is described as occupying the same mental space because it has:
    • a perpetrator with a name and often a stated/understood motivation,
    • increasing the “hook” rather than reducing it.

• Moral and social questions about turning real crimes into entertainment

  • The video bases its script (it says) on a TikTok case presented by Paolo Bendinelli.
  • Cristian Cravinhos is discussed in relation to the murder of Manfred and Marísia von Richthofen (crime in 2002).
    • The script claims a long sentence and that by 2023 he is in an open regime.
    • It further claims he later sells adult content online and that public interest spikes after a series called “Tremembé.”
  • Core question posed to viewers:
    • When series/entertainment dramatize real crimes as “gossip,” do they:
      • amplify legitimate curiosity about human behavior, or
      • manufacture notoriety/fame for someone who caused major harm?
  • The script also raises a fairness defense:
    • “He already served his sentence, so he has the right to monetize his story.”
    • The video does not claim a final opinion; it asks whether this resolves the ethical issue or merely shifts it.

• A psychological pattern: perpetrators remembered more than victims

  • The script argues that audiences often remember the killer’s name more than the victim(s)’.
  • A 2018 study (American Behavioral Scientist) is cited:
    • Analysis of 4,934 photos released after three mass shootings.
    • Reported ratio: 16 shooter photos for every 1 victim photo.
  • Claimed result:
    • The shooter becomes the narrative “central character,” while victims fade from memory.

• Interventions against “notoriety” (media framing)

  • No Notoriety (also called “Don’t Name Them”) is introduced:
    • Founded in 2012 by Tom and Karen Teves after their son Alex was killed in a movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado.
    • The campaign pressured media to change coverage that overly focuses on the attacker.
  • The script describes the mechanism as the contagion effect:
    • A next shooter studies a prior shooter and may seek similar or greater “fame.”
    • Media attention becomes a “signal” that this path leads to the same kind of recognition.
  • Proposed alternative approach by the campaign:
    • avoid naming/photo of the attacker,
    • direct coverage toward victims and heroes of the story.

• The video’s concluding argument

  • The script acknowledges domestic homicide and mass serial attacks differ in motivations, so the comparison is “not perfect.”
  • However, it concludes that when entertainment treats perpetrators as charismatic:
    • it can become an incentive structure (whether intentionally or not),
    • encouraging repetition of similar “scripts” because exposure/market reward follows.

• Tease of the next episode

  • Next video theme: “Anatomia do medo” (the anatomy of fear).
  • Promises:
    • a lot of production value,
    • specific documented fears to dismantle them with scientific rigor,
    • warnings for sensitive viewers.
  • Audience participation prompt:
    • viewers should comment or use the Instagram question box asking what fear to explain.

• Creator/platform and support details (non-scientific but present in subtitles)

  • Mentions where to follow: TikTok, Instagram, Threads, YouTube.
  • Requests support via:
    • a monthly support link (starting at 1 real/month),
    • and also mentions an email password for one-time direct contribution.
  • States the video creation requires paid tools and time, and asks viewers to contribute only if they want and can.

---

Methodologies / instruction-like elements (as presented)

Interactive method for viewer input (for next episode)

• Comment or submit via Instagram question box:
  • “What fear do you want to see explained?”
  • “What is your biggest fear?” (including death fear or common animal fears like scorpions/snakes/spiders)

Media intervention framework described (No Notoriety / “Don’t Name Them”)

• For coverage of violent attacks:
  • Do not name the attacker.
  • Do not show the attacker’s photo.
  • Focus coverage on victims and heroic elements instead.

Critical thinking prompt used about monetization

• Evaluate the claim:
  • “If the perpetrator served the sentence, monetization is acceptable.”
• Then compare whether it:
  • solves the ethical problem, or
  • only relocates it.

---

Speakers or sources featured (identified in subtitles)

Speaker / narrator

• Sara (the creator/narrator; “I am Sara everywhere.”)

Researchers / authors cited

• Colton Scrivner (University of Chicago; coined/defined morbid curiosity; referenced for morbid curiosity scale and related findings)
• Researcher at State University of New York (described “contagion” mechanism as a “signal”)
• 2017 study (not named; participants choose among violent social conflict / graphic medical / neutral images)
• 2018 study (American Behavioral Scientist) (not individually named; analysis of photos after mass shootings)

Case / creators / public materials mentioned

• Paolo Bendinelli (TikTok creator; described the Cristian Cravinhos case; script says it was based on his content)
• Tom and Karen Teves (founded No Notoriety in 2012)
• Alex Teves (their son; killed in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting)

Crime individuals and real-world references

• Cristian Cravinhos
• Daniel Cravinhos
• Suzane von Richthofen (spelled “Suzane” in subtitles)
• Manfred von Richthofen
• Marísia von Richthofen
• Tremembé (series name mentioned)

Campaign / conceptual sources

• No Notoriety campaign / “Don’t Name Them” (Tom and Karen Teves; described in subtitles)
• Contagion effect (described conceptually; attributed to a mechanism discussed by the SUNY researcher)

Platforms / outlets mentioned

• TikTok
• Instagram
• Threads
• YouTube
• Public reaction (triggered by the series “Tremembé”)