Details
Nothing to say, yet
Comment
Nothing to say, yet
Listen to 1st Take of Podcast by John Fiorita MP3 song. 1st Take of Podcast song from John Fiorita is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 32:41. This high-quality MP3 track has 246.777 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 8 Apr 2024. Stream and download 1st Take of Podcast by John Fiorita for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
Comment
Loading comments...
The main ideas from this information are: - The debate of nature versus nurture when it comes to monstrosity is discussed. - The historical meaning of the word "monster" is explored, including birth defects and dangerous individuals. - Movies and media often depict monsters as being born naturally or having specific traits. - Society's expectations and personal experiences can contribute to someone becoming monstrous. - Personal narratives and experiences influence beliefs about monsters and monstrosity. - The idea that monsters are created through societal influences and learned behaviors is presented. Good morning, everybody. Today, we're doing a podcast on nature versus nurture when it comes to monstrosity. I'm Noah. I'm Izzy. I'm Kelly. And I'm John. For context, the word monster comes from the word manere, a Latin word, which means to warn, which is kind of ironic seeing that we see monsters as something that could harm us. That's right. As it evolved, it came from words that involve large animals. It came from extremely immoral humans. So, it encompassed both the actual animal world that could actually physically hurt us and also evil humans that could hurt us in other ways. So, generally, we can interpret it as something that keeps us away from danger and keeps us safe, which is why we associate monster with dangerous things. Yeah. I think one of the biggest debates about this topic is whether monsters are born or made or nature versus nurture. And I think this debate is filled with a lot of evidence and news from each side. And it'll be interesting to see, you know, everybody's different perspective and see if we can come to some type of conclusion about what people think. Yeah. In recent times, this debate has become quite, you know, quite pop culture with philosophers and psychiatrists really bringing up the nature of how this applies to human psychology as well. We look at recent serial killers and stuff and, you know, it brings to light how important this topic is to, like, development of society and, like, how we treat our kids. So, yeah. All right. For our question and our argument, are monsters born or created? As you guys know, it's nature versus nurture. That's the topic of discussion. All right. And now we'll go into nature. So, here's why nature should be the correct choice for this argument. I want to just do, like, history. All right. I'll go over mine. So, from a historical standpoint, nature is definitely the correct choice here because in the past, we've seen people born with massive birth defects and this, like, they're just hella ugly, but sometimes these birth defects can involve actual diseases. As we saw in a Yale article called The History of Human Monstrosity, published by Yale Medicine, so, incredible source, it talks about birth defects, especially those of circus freaks. Those people, they were called monsters, but with regards to the actual historical meaning of monster, they weren't dangerous. They were just mad ugly. So, as we see it, these people were born like that, and that shows that it's nature that put them to the monstrosity. You can also argue, however, that it was humans that interpreted them as monsters and that they were just born with those problems, but the thing is, if humans see them as extremely monstrous and they're born extremely monstrous looking, you can't really blame the humans for looking at them that way. Like, if someone's born with an extra leg or a third arm, people are going to look at them funny. That's just human nature. So, if someone's born looking like a monster, I feel like it's only natural that that person, you know, we could argue that that person was born a monster because he was born like that. And it didn't talk about the actual problem of plague and danger when it comes to monsters. However, we can also assume that people born with severe contractible diseases would also fit into that category because of the danger it brings with regards to the historical meaning of monstrosity. So, it makes sense for people to view them that way as a protective agent for our society so none of us, like, get it. And as we go on about the historical meaning, we also can talk about a second article from BSU. It comes from their academic journal for their college. So, they talk about how Frankenstein's monster, we get Jeffrey Dahmer and Dracula and large spiders all encompass the word monster. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the meaning of the word monster is a strange or horrible imaginary creature, something extremely or unusually large, or a powerful person or thing that cannot be controlled and causes many problems. Again, we see how this is used as society's way of saying stay away from that thing to protect its members of society. So, when society collectively ostracizes one specific thing, like a scary monster or like a predator in the woods or a dangerous person, it makes sense for human history because that's how we proliferate. When we stay away from dangerous things, humanity can stay safe and, you know, we'll have enough food to eat when you're aware of that. For example, a chupacabra in an ancient Mexican lore, there was like a chupacabra that ate like eight sheep and sucked their blood. So, it makes sense for people to view it that way and for parents to tell their kids there's a monster in the woods because, again, it keeps the kids safe, first of all, from like actual coyotes. And also, it keeps people aware that their sheep are at risk of being attacked by predators. And so, people will be more likely to fence their gates and whatnot. So, in the past, it was definitely a form of protecting and that's like the historical relevancy of the word monster. And now, Izzy will talk about the other side of the problem. Yes. So, I would also go and say monsters are born at birth. Just because of like the narratives I've witnessed growing up in movies, TV shows, books, they frequently feature monsters like as a central element to storytelling. And they're pretty much drawn on the idea that monsters are born naturally, either through like with Frankenstein, like scientific experimentation gone wrong, or genetic mutations, or as like ancient creatures. Or if we see it in humans, it's like people with specific traits like narcissism, envy, psychopathy, addiction, trauma, or people with physical defects or deformities like Noah just talked about. But we see that in the media. Like in the movie Freaks, which is a 1932 film, we see what he was just talking about, a lot of humans with like those physical deformities. And that was something I found when I searched up movies about monsters. So, that's just something we see growing up. And then like with the movie Split, we can talk about that later because I think it's a really interesting film. But we also see like mental illnesses being brought in relation to monsters and some other films and entertainment that we can also talk about. But yeah, these narratives just are associated with like real world concerns with monsters. And I am excited to talk about them. Wow, you guys bring up some pretty great points on that side. I would like to argue, I found some pretty interesting points on the side that argues that, you know, monsters are created. One of the things we looked about was the impacts of social conducts and, you know, personal experiences that, you know, can play a role into, you know, what drives someone to be monstrous. And some of the articles or some of the evidence that I found was, you know, that monsters can be created from society, like society's expectations that there's, you know, a set of rules that you must follow. And if you don't, you are looked at as monstrous. As well as one of the interesting things I found was that, you know, we often talk about how monsters, you either believe in monsters or you don't. But in order to believe in a monster, it kind of has to be created for it to, you know, exist and have an influence on your life. So I'll be taking a deeper look into that a little bit later. But, yeah, if you want to... Yes, to add on to John's point, I believe that lived experiences definitely play a vital role in determining what makes an individual essential or essentially what drives them to become or be a monster. Stemming from, like, birth and the foundations of what essentially forms human experiences, I like to come to the belief that everyone, being humans, are born inherently good. Philosophers like John Locke also backed this idea with the theme of a tabula rasa, a clean slate. I think that environments, other people influence what creates monsters or monsters in people. And, yeah, I feel as though society and its many, many standards that are quite slim and narrow also go into what kind of... Sorry. Society and its standards basically feed into these stereotypes and prejudices that monsters can manifest from physical appearances, whether that comes from physical deformities or not fitting a beauty standard. And, yeah, I feel as though... Sorry. Yeah, great points. Okay. Yeah. I think that humans strive from structure, from environments that they're comfortable with. So if someone grows up in a chaotic environment, they're going to take that throughout the rest of their life and implement that to feel a sense of familiarity and safeness. So that just backs my statement that monsters are created. They're not just put out into the world. They're made from other people, experiences, and learned behaviors. That's great. That's great, Kelly. So I'm really curious about your side. Can you share any personal experiences or narratives that influenced your beliefs about monsters and monstrosity? Anything personal that happened that made you think that it was your shared nature? That's a good question. Growing up, a lot of the stories I heard about monsters were always myths, folklore, fairy tales, in a sense of that. And the character that always made out to be monstrous was the antagonist. They started off their lives quite normal, as any other person would, but then something influenced them to change the way they behaved. Something bad. Whether that was mostly traumatic or, yeah, it was definitely traumatic, life-altering things that they're not used to. We're not used to it in the sense that it changed them from their normal, but it influenced their normal to become something else, which then made them a monster, in a sense. So they weren't once evil, quote-unquote evil, or chose to wreak havoc or do what monsters are made to do, in a sense. Not the most specific. Yeah, just to piggyback off of that, I would say that, you know, in terms of the personal experiences, I wouldn't say I have a specific experience of myself, but I would say, you know, in movies or the classic bully, you don't just be born like a bully. Most of the time, it's because of a childhood, they're being abused. The bully becomes the bully. You always hear that narrative. And a lot of the movies with the superhero and the villain, the villain normally has a troubled upbringing or something that happens to them that makes them act a certain way. And that no one is really born, you know, as bad or as monstrous as, you know, they become to be. Right. Like a school shooter, like no one's born a school shooter, but something definitely impacted their... This is not funny. Wait. No, exactly. I completely agree. I think you see like, you know, criminals and anything like that. No one's born bad or chooses to necessarily... People's past have an influence on them for sure. That's what... Exactly. Exactly. I actually think that school shooters, a lot of the school shooters that we see have or even terrorists are usually... Well, their means for doing the school shooting or, you know, acting on violence or whatever usually stems from some kind of mental illness or something that is within them. Like, what kind of traits are those? Like, I think, like sadism or... Like sociopath. Yes. Sociopath and psychopathy. Yeah. Yeah. Those are... Those would make you like just have no empathy, right? Yeah. You don't see people as people. You just see them as objects. Those are the kind of kids that are kind of dissect your local squirrels and your local rats just for fun. Just for fun. They're going to take apart the raccoon. Okay. I read a news article some other time and it was like they interviewed the... They didn't interview the school shooter. It was like interrogation. But he literally said he didn't shoot him. They didn't bully him. Like, the kids were literally all innocent. The kids that he was shooting up, they did not bully him. He did not go to that school. Oh, actually, he did go to that school. But he did not go to that school like in the same year that those kids gone. Like, he went a while ago and he was older then and he's shooting up little kids. And he said he did it just because he wanted to. Like, that's a little fucked up. Like, that guy, he definitely wanted something. He's not normal. Exactly. And a lot of times it's not something that you experience growing up, because a lot of the times what I actually did research on, like, the media aspect of it in regards to entertainment, I watch a lot of Law & Order Special Victims Unit. And I have seen episodes where there are, like, there are people who have done, like, very malicious things, and they don't really get any consequence for it because it is associated with, like, a mental disorder. For example, there was this one episode where this boy was just, he had dissected a bunch of animals. He was killing a lot of dogs and then dissecting them and then just freezing them. But he had a, like, good upbringing. He was from a very, like, good household, all that. He had two parents. Like, I mean, it all depends on, like, what we see as a good upbringing. But, like, from, like, the movie's perspective, or from the show's perspective, like, he had a good upbringing. His family really cared about him. But he just had this in him that, like, you know, he got a lot of, what is that word, when you get a lot of, when, okay, I can't think of the word. Great point. Oh. Yeah. So one of the things I would say, though, however, you said, you stated that the kid had a great upbringing, right? So what I'm trying to, what I would like to point out is if he did have a great upbringing, then, like, what we were trying to argue is that something must have happened. Something must have pushed him to. No, it was what he was born with. Okay. He was born with that, you know. And don't get me wrong. I do believe that, you know, mental illnesses definitely play a role in it. But would you say that, you know, there are also outside, you know. Influences. Influences or events that do impact that, no? I mean, from what I've seen in media, a lot of the times it's just these people, their disorders. And, like, if you think about compulsive disorder or what's the one from Split? It's like DID. It's dissociative identity disorder. So, like, from what I've seen, like, a lot of times it's not something that has affected their, like, it's not something they experience throughout their lives, but it's just something they were born with. And I definitely see where you're coming from in your point. But then I feel as though if it's something that they're born with and it's recognized by their household or their community, I feel as though it's their place as, you know, raising a child, and it takes a village, of course, to interfere in said patterns of behaviors. Not that mental illnesses can necessarily have a fix, but they are, what's the word I'm looking for? I feel as though there are preventive measures to reduce outbreaks, in a sense. It's true. I agree you can, it's definitely society's role to reduce outbreaks. However, when you have a wild animal in a cage, for example, right, and you let the wild animal out, it's possible to restrain the animal, even tame it. But one day, that wild animal, that lion, that orca, is going to eat its trainer. At SeaWorld, they've tamed these animals for generations, for literally decades. But that one time, I think it happened twice, actually, it literally ate its trainer. It dragged it underwater and it ate it. That's how I compare someone born with this kind of problem to a wild animal in a cage. Obviously, you can restrain it, but they're predisposed for violence. Once they get an opportunity, you leave them alone, it's going to happen. One day, you're going to let loose. Right. That's like the animalistic nature that humans have, too. Yeah. Right, but at the end of the day, we are human, so it's our job as a society to recognize each and everyone's humanity, despite their uniqueness. But we're also individuals. I would agree. The animal part, I don't think – it's hard for me. I see, like, you know, all these animals in zoos and cages and stuff like that. Like, to argue our point is that that's not, you know, their environment. That's not the environment they're born to be in. So, if they – you know, the environment definitely plays a role in maybe that outbreak because they're not used to being that. That's not their natural habitat. So, if – I mean, they are, you know, quote, unquote, wild animals. And if they, you know, are, you know, caged, I mean, imagine living your whole life in a cage. Like, that's – you would go crazy. Right. That's the animal, though. What about the guy with the disorder that makes him sociopathic, that makes him view humans as nothing more than puppets? Let's say this. What is his natural habitat? Where does he belong? Where would he even go? I think that's a great point. I think there are, you know, certain resources that that individual can use. And kind of what Kelly said, there are steps and measures to take to reduce the possibilities of that individual committing a crime or doing something extremely bad. Yeah, for sure, for sure. All right. I'd like to ask you guys another question as a group. I mean, to you two as a duo. All right. So what if someone's born as a seven-foot cyclops with thick black hair? All right. Like, that's just got to be a monster, right? No matter how – no matter how people, like, treat him nicely, if they view him as – if everyone sees him and they go, oh, it's a monster, then they go, must be a monster, right? Doesn't that mean nature or Trump's nurture in that case? Well, my interviewee actually touched on this topic a little bit, which I think can answer your question. Point number one is let's be realistic, first of all. Now, we can look at the birth defects because that is something that happens, you know, a lot more – you know, it happens a lot more, and it actually, you know, happens a lot. My rebuttal to that question is with children with, you know, Down syndrome, you know, any type of disorder of that nature is to label them as monstrous is kind of, you know, you're jumping to a conclusion. Like, what – who's to say that there is actually a way that you should look and not? Like, what are the actual rules that say you have to be six feet tall, you have to be – look a certain way? Like, who's – I would like to know where that law is, if you could show me. It must be society. I feel like having sinister qualities is different than actually looking like a monster, you know? It's unjust to take someone and dehumanize them just because they don't necessarily fit a certain category, fit a certain box, look like you, for example. I feel like them being seven foot cyclops, even though it's very unrealistic as a human, doesn't necessarily mean that they're a monster. Okay. So, say it's – Let's record. And then it starts from the end. All right. I'm just going to respond to Kelly and John, what they were saying. So, they mentioned that monsters really aren't made because society interprets them that way, and when they grow up, even if they're super ugly, it's society that makes them the way they are. However, I just want to argue the converse, right? If someone is born like that, obviously it's not right to treat someone with Down syndrome poorly just because they're ugly. But the truth is, like, when someone is born and you see a baby, say they're born with cyclopia or some kind of severe, severe Down syndrome or dwarfism that severely morphs their face or they got a cleft lip, you can't help but go, oh, that's an ugly baby, you know? In your heart, you're thinking, that's a monstrous, that's a monstrous-looking baby, you know? Sometimes, things are human in nature, and you can't help but think things that way. And in your heart, you think of them as a monster. But obviously, it's not right to treat them that way. So, I think we can differentiate that. I think we can differentiate how we treat monsters and how we view them. Because some things are just physiological. Some things we see and we go, that's an ugly baby, you know? Can't help that. That's just human nature. Right. So, according to you, monster equals ugly. Well, when you see a baby like that, you see monsters. I know you see a monster, because I see a monster. You see a monster. Briefly. I don't see it like that. Go back to the definition of a monster. It's a tough look. It's a tough look. However, you know, they were dealt that hand and, you know, they don't have – do you think you should be punished for something that you have no control over? That's what society does. I try to treat them nicely, but obviously, other people don't do it that way. Exactly. That's what society does, but we're not saying that – we're not saying that a person, like, born with – they should inherently think that they're ugly and going to commit monstrous acts, is what I'm understanding. I think that that's what we are – that's what we see through media and entertainment. I don't know – And believe it? But I don't believe a person with, like, actual, like, Down syndrome or, like, some other kind of, like, physical deformity is a monster. I think for myself, I think it's mostly certain characteristics and traits or certain disorders that people are born with, like, that make them that way. But not, like – I don't think the physical aspect really relates to my understanding and argument, but it's mostly, like, what's inherent in someone, like, their envy traits and their sadistic traits and their – and then, like, if they have – if they are suffering from, like, compulsive disorder or dissociative identity disorder and, like, some other kind of disorder. I think that's what supports my argument. All right. That's very fair. So, I just want to clear something up. So, the first thing – or one of the things we talked about, you know, this semester was – or discussed was, you know, monsters, you know, are just physical or goes, like, beyond the physical? You're saying that it's just physical. No, it's definitely beyond the physical, but I think it's both encompasses. So, because, like, if you have a serial killer, right, and obviously they're a monster, but if you have a serial killer that at the same time looks like Chupacabra, then, like, that's – you could argue that, like, that's definitely an aspect that makes them more monsters, right? Yeah. You know, I think it's an aspect of consideration, but definitely the mental aspects and their actual actions matter a little more. Like, an ugly person is obviously not going to be as monstrous as someone who killed 7 million Jews. That's just, like, you know, how it is. So, yeah. But even with that still standing, people have more psychological predispositions. Predispositions to be, like, evicted and, you know, to kill people. That's all definitely still there. I agree. But I also have to add that sometimes they're passed down. So, if we really cycle back to their parents, you know, who came together and pre-created them, that's still nature. Right. But at the same – God, I just contradicted myself like that. So, another point is – so, media, you know, we live in a technology-filled world now. Nowadays, everybody has a phone. They can get, you know, news in a split second. And one of the things that, you know, we talked about that could play a role into, you know, monstrosity is the fact that there's so – there's a bigger chance of false information spreading that can create, you know, this narrative that is amplified or, you know, expressed more to what is actually reality of what's going on. You just want to touch on that? Yeah. I definitely agree with that. Like, I can see that so much nowadays, you know, with the whole 2016 election or 2020 election, actually, where, like, Trump literally had his supporters storm the White House. But, like – and I can see monstrosity coming from both parties, though. You know, I can see Democrats also, like, super-monsterizing Trump. Like, that's also there. But, you know, you can see it from the other side as well. So, politically, 100%, 100% there. And that's definitely one of the reasons why it's such polar politics nowadays, that people don't want to see each other as people. But in the media, I think that's, like, the biggest thing. Like, politics, the media, perpetuating differences and amplifying them, right? I don't think people, Democrats, Republicans, actually have that big of a difference. They're both Americans. They both believe in freedom. They just want it in different ways. But the media makes them think they're black and blue. Or not black and blue, but blue and red, actually. But, you know. Yeah.
There are no comments yet.
Be the first! Share your thoughts.
