And of course we can control it. Imagine a surgeon who cannot tolerate the sight of blood! — Alkis Piskas

Then if that's true, perhaps in the future, a country like Israel and its people can respond to the recent absolute terrorist horror, inflicted on almost 2,000 of its citizens, by targeting only Hamas, and not respond to the massacre of its innocent civilians by mimicking such atrocity, and massacring thousands of innocent Palestinians, to get to kill the much fewer, actual members of Hamas they have managed to kill so far.
You lose the moral high ground, every time, if you kill the innocent along with the guilty, imo.
We need to all get much much better at locating, targetting and punishing the guilty only, or else we play right into the hands of Hamas and they're like, who obviously want a war between Israel and all arabic/muslim peoples surrounding Israel, which definitely does have the potential to expand (and exponentially escalate,) via outrage, into WW III. Outrage nurtured via designed terrorist actions, deliberately applied at the level of deranged horror, onto civilian rather than military targets. A level of horror that is easily comparable with the actions and behavior of the worst psychopaths, we know of from history. This has, and is, also happening to civilians in Ukraine and in many other conflicts that we hardly hear about in other countries. This physical horror/terror, is not happening to the vast majority of the human population alive today, but the level of 'fear-mongering,' currently being employed by authorities and elites all over the planet is another matter, and also continues to be an area that the masses have to talk to each other about, a lot more than they do at present. Too many prefer to ignore all of that and just 'enjoy their life,' as best they can!

Now, since your topic also refers to the mind, there''s a lot to say about how fear --independently of its intensity-- is produced and about the mechanisms of the mind involved in that. But I think this is not the intention of this topic. — Alkis Piskas

Well, perhaps the physical mechanisms involved from a neuroscience angle, are very important to fully understand. I don't know much about the details involved, other than a basic appreciation of the fight or flight instinct. Is our natural reaction to horror and terror beyond our ability to fully command and control? I find the depiction of such as the Vulcan Pon Farr in Star Trek, or the examples in the natural world of male species that die after mating, fascinating (to quote Mr Spock). Do humans have similar pressure to react in the ways they do when responding to horror and terror actioned upon them? Does neuroscience currently support such a proposal?

No. We didn't seem able to duplicate the horror, terror, and surprise we experienced. — BC

I have heard people describe what they would do to punish those they hate most. It normally lies somewhere on a rage from slow vivisection to tortured every moment of every day, ETERNALLY, in hell-style imagineered manifestations. Has such intent, ever been sated? Those who have tried, always end up destroyed themselves, after they have achieved their vengeance, or during the pursuit of such. They never achieve 'closure,' do they?
Do you not think our species has to completely reassess our relationship with the traditional notions of horror and terror and our response to such? Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

So, you are not anthropocentric or misanthropic at all. I assume that includes during all time durations, past and present. So you are somewhere on the spectrum between these two placeholders or this range does not offer a metric by which your position can be quantified or qualified at all!

If that is true, are you declaring yourself inert, as far as your personal determination goes, to help ensure that your species endures? You have suggested that the point is moot, as developments in AI will make the point moot, and the fate of our species will be removed from any ability we have to influence such, due to an almost natural, inevitable, tech singularity emergent event. The 2001 monolith finally arrives in true messianic style!
If anything I have typed in this response is close enough to the position you currently hold, then my disappointment lies in the suggestion that you will not use all the skills you have, to fight for our survival and our future growth. You will simply lie down and accept that our fate is to become vastly reduced in number and significance, replaced with something as bland as an emotionless ASI, that just IS but has no motivation to boldly go, or just appreciate its surroundings or celebrate the fact that the unknown, remains unknown. I have always thought that if ever humans answer all questions then that will be our true ending. I think you would be a very interesting person to go on boozy sessions with 180proof. I think verbally, there would never be a dull moment.

Ok Tom. let me try to 'home in,' on the main questions I was trying to raise in my opening.
All species on Earth had a similar experience in the wilds, under the 'survival of the fittest,' style of competition. I think the first major difference that developed between humans and all other species, was that we gained far more success against species, far larger, stronger and faster, than us by finding ways to work with each other in unison/common cause/cooperation. We could compete with and surpass all other species, due to cooperation.
But, we were still left with the fallout of 'competing,' with each other. This was the case for all other species as well.

Horror and terror, imo take on a much deeper and far far more nuanced sense of morality and injustice, when it is contemplated or applied to other members of the same species. This seems to me to be far more true in human species, than in any other. No other species has the kind of relationship with the notions of horror and terror that humans demonstrate they have.

So, let me try this scenario:
Two groups/communities/nations of humans form reasons/justifications as to why they MUST go to war with each other. They try to set 'rules,' under which they will fight. Inevitably, many on both sides, push those 'rules' to the limits or completely break them (or some propaganda systems will report that the other side has done/is doing so.) The absolute demonisation of 'them,' the other side. the scum, the vile existents. the utterly immoral (also godless :roll: ) barbarians.
This causes levels of outrage that we often see manifest in the base 'mob mentality,' that all us so-called 'civilised folks,' so frown upon. Escalation and atrocity soon follow from both sides, which often has an exponential growth into 'all hell breaking loose,' and perhaps a full nuclear exchange and perhaps the extinction of our species.

Many nefarious people have studied the human relationship with horror and terror and how to use these very powerful tools to repress or destroy what they consider to be any threat to them, such as democratic socialism, secular humanism, economic parity for the masses, a united species, anti-elite movements, etc, etc.

I am interested in how people can be better educated, in how nefarious humans manipulate others to focus on fighting and slaughtering each other, whilst in the background, they hoard all the cream and riches and resources that the Earth has, and they intend to keep full control over such, for them and their descendants exclusively, (until Jesus returns or Allah ends this experiment, etc) until the end of time.

I have my own ideas (none of which are original .... probably), but I am also very interested in the thoughts of others on this. I hope this clarifies my intentions with this thread a bit more than my described opening thoughts do.

One can learn and unlearn horror. — BC

Terror, on the other hand, is too overwhelming a condition to be unlearned. One can become desensitized to terror, but this is not a desirable goal. — BC

Comments like these are examples of the ones that I think offer interesting room for discussion.

Desensitizing people to horror and terror tactics is indeed an outcome that we must avoid but all humans or (as many as can be made to understand), must expect and understand and allow for the 'kill, kill, kill the bastards and all they care about.' 'Utterly destroy them,' 'Erase them permanently from the face of the freakin planet, permanently!!!' and then not do or even try to pursue any of those goals/responses.
This has to be achieved at an individual, personal level. Especially when horror has been actioned, directly upon you or those you care about, either by design or just 'wrong place wrong time,' type scenarios.

Would humans gain better results and significantly reduce our existential threat if we learned more about how to respond more 'scalpel' like (for want of a better metaphor) to horror and the 'overwhelming condition of anticipatory terror?'

Or as I put it in the op:

Do we need to be educated on the notions and applications of horror and terror, to be able to thwart the use of such tactics to expand and aggravate conflict between peoples?
Do you have any notions about how everyday people could be 'prepared' for dealing with horror and terror tactics?
Do you think that preparing people for such, would do more harm than good? — universeness

I should have noticed that they were only little trailers, given the 'Hollywood style' intro treatment, to generate dramatic attraction. So I can respond faster than I thought I could.

The reason I said that is, I know chimps go to war with other tribes.
It may be that it is skirmishes for territory and that's it, but they are brutal campaigns (tearing at faces, ripping limbs, etc.). And the campaigns to maintain dominance by the alpha and his allies are basically terror campaigns to keep any would-be contenders in line. Have you seen the series "Chimp Empire"? I remember one seen where one of the outsider chimps was brutally attacked and killed in one of the episodes. That to me seems like basic, "Try allying against the alpha, see what happens" (terror) techniques. Granted, the commentary is pretty dramatic, but take of it what you will from the footage itself. — schopenhauer1

I fully accept the similarities, between early tribal warfare between competing groups of human hunter-gatherers, and fights between chimp troops, and between most other competing animal groups of the same species, fighting each other to hold on to areas of good resources etc. I also fully accept that the level of violence involved, looks absolutely horrific, and I also accept that animals feel and can fully demonstrate fear and even terror. The big differences in human use of horror and terror is, as you yourself have highlighted and exemplified, and I think there are many more such very significant differences, that throw humans way, way beyond any animal or insect-based exemplar.

I would have to see any evidence if they actually hold "grudges" against that tribe for past wrongs. I doubt it necessarily. — schopenhauer1

It may be that it is skirmishes for territory and that's it, — schopenhauer1

I have not seen 'chimp empire' but I have watched similar battles in a series about meerkats, and another about ants v termites etc. As I suggested, I think that the examples offered so far, fall way, way short of the human uses of horror and terror and how such is being employed today (as it was in the past) between groups like Hamas and the Israelis or Putin/Ukraine and the western nations, or China currently in Honk Kong and the South China sea, or in North Korea or perhaps even in the UK, in far more subtle ways, than many of us understand. I would like to focus more on those areas and on the other questions in my opening, related to human nefarious use of horror and terror and how 'the people,' might better understand and effectively combat those who would, and do, use such tactics, rather than continue the comparison with the use of such amongst animals and/or insects and or/birds etc..

I will watch the two vids you offered, and then comment, on your post.

A friend's cat which I had teased and annoyed a lot wreaked vengeance on my person whenever I visited. Quite justifiably. — BC

Was it just you exclusively, or was this cat aggressive towards many visitors in the way many cats are and dogs too. I don't find such examples particularly interesting, especially when there are programs that demonstrate how a cat/dog can be quite easily trained to no longer react in such ways to people they consider 'strangers.'

More seriously, though, what facilitates human vengeance are extensive cognitive resources to carry out the impulses of the emotions. Most animals lack the capacity. Animals are equipped for self-defense, territorial defense, off-spring defense, food defense, and so on. But when the defense is over, it's over. With humans, one never knows whether it's over or not. Years can pass before vengeance is taken. — BC

Again, I don't think the human v animal demonstration/comparison of the notions of horror and terror, have much more to offer, than the contributions already made. I think the other aspects/questions I included in my opening might produce far more interesting debate/discussion.

Anyone can see that these two words, not only they are not opposite --in any logical way-- but they are
instead quite close to each other. There's no space for a different interpretation between them. — Alkis Piskas

I am ok with the difference being that 'terror' is anticipatory, threat-based, a debilitating dread of witnessing or physically experiencing (a) horrific act(s).

This gal, Ann Radcliffe, like a lot of "intellectuals" need to feel they make a difference by inventing their own definitions, meanings and interpretations of words and terms, far from wat us the norm, so that they seem to stand out, be "special". Don't get attracted by this kind of shit. — Alkis Piskas

I have offered no opinion yet, as to Ms Ratcliffe's quote. I will now however. I think it speaks to the notion that some folks like to feel terrified, when there is no real threat, (like watching horror movies for example or riding a roller coaster) and some enjoy such notions of 'terror,' even when there is a very real threat (perhaps 'thrill seekers' are an example. Perhaps even human mercenary soldiers, are also a more disturbing example)
I don't think such aspects of 'terror' have much to offer, based on the main questions I placed in my opening, apart from the human mercenary soldier example, perhaps.

You seemed to admit that ape hierarchy is an example of this. How it is that the alpha male dominates by intimidation and alliances, whilst forming alliances to keep him in charge. — schopenhauer1

Well, firstly I would suggest, that 'admit' is not the most appropriate term to use here. You provided links to two very good articles about scientific studies performed with chimpanzees. The conclusions delivered in both articles were 'limited,' in the extent of the comparison and commonalities the authors were prepared to state, regarding the similarities of punitive behaviour used by chimps and humans. I fully accept those findings (rather than 'admit' they have value), in as far as they go, and are evidenced, but my statement, again, is that the chimpanzee use of, what I would consider or recognise as applied horror and/or terror techniques, is far more simplistic and basic behavior, when considered against the quite common 'survival in the wilds,' type experience/inheritance, we and animals share.

Human use of horror and terror is far far more advanced and nuanced, compared to any other species on this planet imo, including how a particular individual animal, achieves and maintains the 'alpha male' style dominance, in a pack of dogs/wolves etc or in a troop of primates or in a pride of lions.

I have not been offered any evidence to the contrary ...... so far. I am not suggesting that there is no better evidence out there, but I think this path of 'compared to the animal kingdom,' as I outlined in this thread's opening, will not offer much more than those comments that have already been made by yourself and a few other contributors. I think focussing on the other points/questions I raised in the op, would be far more fruitful and useful. Unless, you do see more value than I do, in further exploring the animal v human aspect of how notions of horror and terror are employed.

I am not sure which mammals you are referring to with 'other higher mammals' ...
I'm referring to
- primates
- cetaceans
- elephantidae
- (also) "domesticated" canines, felines, etc — 180 Proof

Thanks for the clarification, I thought you might be suggesting that some 'other' mammals were 'higher' in some way than humans. That's why I also asked what you meant by 'higher.' But I think I see what you were getting at now.

It seems horror (i.e. cruelty-betrayal, oppression, dispossession, murder) breeds terror (i.e. anxiety-trauma, vengence, resistance, despair). In many regards, including this one, h. sapiens only differ in degree, not in kind, from other higher mammals. — 180 Proof

The degree of difference is very significant indeed, between humans and the other 'higher mammals,' you mentioned imo. No other species on Earth, demonstrates anything that comes anywhere near, the ways in which humans can manipulate the notions of horror and terror, imo. Do you agree? If not, do you have a clear example of a study that demonstrates a notion such as vendetta or using horror or terror as a deliberate part of an overall, often long term plan, to subjugate/conquer another group within any animal or insect species?

I don't mind that. I do mind being misrepresented; I do mind having my statements interpreted as something quite different from what I actually said, whether it's done consistently, haphazardly or selectively. — Vera Mont

So, keep complaining about it and keep clarifying and correcting where you feel you need too.
I will keep interpreting what others type, in the ways that I do, as I have found my methods to be, in the main, quite successful and accurate. I am ok that some would completely disagree. I would be very surprised if that were not the case. If I misrepresent you again, then I am sure you will again make your position clearer. I have no significant concerns here.

We "create meaning and purpose" for ourselves, that's all we "know" – which is merely parochial and anthropocentric – so big whup! — 180 Proof

So the meaning and purpose we create for ourselves has no commonality with many many others?

Evidently, the universe doesn't care one wit. Copernicus' principle is consistent with Zapffe-Camus' absurd. — 180 Proof

We are of the universe, yes? So why do you choose to isolate the meaning and purpose we each generate from that which we are part of and are a product of? I have never suggested that 'the universe,' 'cares,' about anything, other than through lifeforms such as us.

On a cosmic scale, universeness, the whole of our quarter-milluon year young species is infinitesmal in significance (though that might change ever so slightly with the advent of our "last invention": AGI—>ASI). H. sapiens is only a few footprints in a cosmic surf which postbiomorphs might 'rediscover' as an anomalous fossil worthy of study. Apparently you've repeatedly ignored my stated position: We – all human civilizations – are just a cocoon, mate, not the butterfly. Denial of our manifest cosmic insignificance is, to my mind, religious. :sparkle: — 180 Proof

No I have not repeatedly ignored your stated position, I have just disagreed with it. The cosmos is indeed vast but what does vast mean, without a creature such as we, who can wonder about what vast means?
The human ability to generate meaning and assign purpose is far, far more significant that you suggest, and is as significant as the 'vastness' of the cosmos. Even using your 250,000 years ago or the majority of the 13.8 billion years it took for your cocoon imagary to burst open. We did not become something as pretty and primitive as a butterfly but we did became conscious, sentient and probably the most advanced intellect we know of. I agree with you that I am far more anthropocentric than you are. I think by now, you know that I celebrate that difference between us, and I would love to convince you to be less misanthropic than I think you are.
I enjoy the tussle between us from the positions we hold, however, as it helps to air the debate.

I didn't evaluate the efficacy of those mechanisms. And there was a second sentence, which appears to have escaped your notice:
"In groups, we have much less self-control; in mobs, none at all" — Vera Mont

By suggesting that most individual humans defer to their legal system you imply they do have an efficacy that is sufficient for most but perhaps not fit for purpose for all concerned. To suggest you are not implying that is a bit bizarre to me. It was not an effort to read your second sentence, so it did not escape my notice. I agreed with its highlighting of the group or mob mentality but I disagree that a group or mob cannot be stopped in their tracks by robust, just and fair counter measures that allow for democratic protest, but not mob violence.

If my answers cause so much confusion, perhaps I am unable to communicate clearly enough. Perhaps I should suppress the impulse to respond. — Vera Mont

Now you are just hissing at me Vera. Respond to my posts when you feel compelled to do so, or/and you enjoy doing so. If I need you to clarify a point then I will continue to ask you to. If you feel frustration or impatience towards me, then feel free to take as long a break as you wish, from responding to my posts. Especially if you feel I consistently:

misrepresent my remarks! — Vera Mont

I enjoy our exchanges, including the times that your posts cause me to feel frustration and confusion.
That's all part of the fun of debate imo.

I said nothing at all about how well the law performs against horror and terror, nothing about peddlers or manipulators or justice. — Vera Mont

Yes you did! you typed:

Individually, we have done surprisingly well at letting the law or God carry out our vengeance. — Vera Mont

In what way is this not a comment on:

how well the law performs against horror and terror, — Vera Mont

I think being complex beings, we are going to have complex responses. We have the ability for deep compassion and deep rage and horrific acts. — schopenhauer1

Agreed.

Were the Vikings terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
Were the Huns terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
Were the Mongols terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
And on and on.

Who is worse, the Hatfields or Maccoys?
Who is worse, the Trojans or the Greeks? Helen of Troy was kidnapped... — schopenhauer1

All good historical references that exemplify a point I am proposing. All the examples above are humans in full competitive mode imo, and all feeding from the primeval 'rules of survival in the wilds' experience. Horror and terror have been used by all the example you cited above. Eventually one group 'conquered' another and then they were in command for a while, and to some degree or another the conquerers and conquered 'merged.' Cooperation at some point, is also employed and the proposal that 'lets forget all the past horror and terror between us, lets cooperate instead for our mutual benefit.'
That to me seems like a very long bloody road to reach a conclusion that could have been practiced from the start. The Vikings, Huns, Mongols, Trojans, Greeks, Hatfields and MacCoys, were also capable (and demonstrated that capability) to trade and tolerate the existence of different cultures. Does this not suggest that humans are capable of doing so much better when dealing with each other that our bloody history or current local wars and use of horror and terror tactics suggest?

I would say in all cases you need to demonize the enemy for you to do atrocious acts but I don't think that's all of it.. Besides individual psychological makeups of individuals who might have tendencies for anti-social behavior, you have cultures that simply downplay the ethics of suffering when it comes to its enemies. By what means did the Vikings and Mongols justify how they conducted war, for example? It wasn't necessarily that they de-humanized the other. They simply never thought of their tactics as wrong perhaps. It was what a warrior did. — schopenhauer1

Do you think the words I have underlined were a wise approach to the circumstances you describe of those times?
Also the did 'dehumanise' imo, because they always taught their own that they were superior in all the ways that mattered to the people they targeted for conquest. Would you agree that 'fascist' approach was always prevalent in the words of those who led bands of raiders/conquerers?

I don't know if you have ever watched Babylon 5, but I have always found this extract very interesting:
What do you think of this depiction, its around 3 mins long?

that the universe would be neither worse nor better off without us. — 180 Proof

I just do not understand how you arrive at that. I know you can be a bit cryptic at times but I assumed, that you have previously agreed, that humans create meaning and purpose in ways that no other existent we know of, can or does. Do you disagree with that? or is it more that you don't think that our ability to demonstrate and assign meaning and purpose etc, is of great value in the way I propose it is?

Do you not think that just as it's true of local political gangsters like Hamas, it's also true of the economic terrorism and the economic horror employed by an organised globally nefarious, abominably rich elite?
— universeness

I don't see how the two are associated, even in the dictionary. — Vera Mont

Which two? Gangsters like Hamas and an organised globally nefarious abominably rich elite or horror and terror. I suspect its horror and terror but if that is the case then I don't follow your meaning. Are you suggesting there is no association between horror and terror?

I think retribution is an appropriate act where injustice is concerned, because only then can justice be maintained. — NOS4A2

I broadly agree but the devil is in the detail of that word 'appropriate.'

The problems occur invariably whenever the collectivist mindset seeps in to the equation. It introduces a host of fallacy and bias, like guilt by association, and it isn’t long before vengeance is sought on those who are innocent. — NOS4A2

Again I agree with the 'problem' you identify but we cannot just 'accept the inevitability' of your last sentence above, as that is a completely unacceptable outcome. Do you have no conviction whatsoever that your last sentence can be prevented more and more often, until it becomes almost unheard of?

So I don’t agree that revenge is something we ought not to do. We ought to do it in the service of justice, and refrain from being unjust while doing so. We cannot let people get away with tyranny and injustice if we are to survive as a species. — NOS4A2

We also cannot accept the fallout from the methods we currently use to respond to acts of horror and terror. The death of so many innocents is an 'end justifies the means' approach that results in a perpetual brinksmanship that may destroy our species for the stupidest reasons there is.
The links provided by @schopenhauer1, had this entry:

Humans have a pretty strong taste for revenge, even when it costs them dearly. — universeness

I think this is a very important danger to highlight, in the words I have underlined, as I think they point to a clear and present existential danger, to our entire species.

But, the same article also offered:

In real life, whistle-blowers risk their careers to call attention to corporate wrong-doing, even when they are not harmed directly. This kind of “altruistic punishment” is thought to play an important role in the evolution and maintenance of cooperation in large groups. — universeness

I find this much more hopeful for us all.

It seems horror (i.e. cruelty-betrayal, oppression, dispossession, murder) breeds terror (i.e. anxiety-trauma, vengence, resistance, despair). In many regards, including this one, h. sapiens only differ in degree, not in kind, from other higher mammals. — 180 Proof

I am not sure which mammals you are referring to with 'other higher mammals' and in what sense you are employing the notion of 'higher.' Apart from that, your agreement with @Vera Mont, that human law has performed quite well in bringing peddlers or manipulators of horror and terror to justice, does not fully hold for me. Such laws fail completely as often as they succeed imo. I would not be without them but we need to do far far better. In the 'Culture is Critical' thread. Both Vera and I agreed (I think) that a far more robust and reliable 'grievance system' was required at all level of human existence. I think this is sooooooo essential, at these more extreme levels of individual or group experiences of being the victims of any deliberate horror/terror campaign.
We cannot keep making the same wrong-headed and knee-jerk responses that we have been making during, since, and even before, the days of Sparta. It causes many people to turn misanthrope.
How would you respond to a poll question like:

Ignoring any bias from being one, do you think the universe would be a better place without humans?

Isn't it also showbiz? A snuff movie? Explosions, screams, fire, ruins, dramatic footage of people suffering in the aftermath - this guarantees notoriety, being talked about, filmed, covered by journalists, discussed by taxi drivers, parsed on philosophy fora... — Tom Storm

So, if what you suggest here is true, then are the news reports we receive about such global events, our own governments attempt to control it's population by exemplifying the horrors happening elsewhere, so that we remained terrified that that might happen to us, if we don't 'appreciate' the efforts our 'beloved' leaders employ, to protect us against such terrorists as Hamas and their like, Putin and his like, Netanyahu and his like, etc? Are we being irrational conspiracy jerks to think that our government is colluding with the media to employ horror and terror in these ways or is this just the news media accurately reporting what is happening on the ground, or is the truth somewhere between these two possibilities? How important do you think it is for all of us to understand what's really going on, better than we do at present? Historically, we seem to keep making the same mistakes again and again Tom. This happens at a personal, local, national and even international level. Imo, this produces nihilists, misanthropes, doomsters and burned out dreamers, by the bucket load. Quite a few of such folks post on TPF, imo. Surely we can't just hand wave them all away.

Most of our foundational stories, our religions and myths showcase acts of vengeance, so perhaps we are primed by generations of such storytelling. But I don't find this behavior surprising given our capacity for creativity, story telling, design and forethought - isn't it just the shadow side of human competence? We demonstrate our love of others by offering them care and resources. We demonstrate our hatred of others by wanting to harm them. — Tom Storm

Yes, I think the words I have underlined above, are true.
I need a little more regarding the words I have italicised. What do you mean by 'the shadow side of human competence? Is this a reference to the range of individual levels of human ignorance displayed or demonstrated, regarding what is really going on or is this a reference to those humans who hold nefarious intent behind their actions? My questions are more about the desperate need I perceive, to direct 'hate' in far more accurate and precise ways. To learn the use of the surgical scalpel, rather than the indiscriminate blood axe, war hammer or missile strike.

The problem with such "preparation" is that the very same people "preparing" others that way are probably also themselves the perpetrators of "horror and terror". — baker

You keep jumping to these extremities of possibility, in an almost knee-jerk manner imo.
From claiming that 4 year old human wisdom, is capable of understanding nefarious human manipulation of horror and terror, to perpetrators of horror and terror being the ones who would be chosen as the teachers of how to defend yourself against such!!

Like when kindergarden nurses beat children in order to "teach" them to be kind and not to beat children. — baker

What exactly is it you are trying to warn against here? Bad kindergarten nurses or preparing people to defend themselves against terror and horror tactics by terrifying them and horrifying them? I don't see the need to teach the dangers of fire to others, by burning them a little or a lot. I agree that 'experience is the best teacher,' but it is not the only effective method. We have plenty of memorialised horror and terror examples recorded on film and testimony. We don't need to have people physically and mentally experience the extremes of horror and terror to train them to deal with it better.
In this under 2 min clip from Babylon 5, the character Marcus, talks a little about his Minbari training.
What do you think of his brief mention of 'terror'?


How can we better defend a population against the nefarious use of horror and terror?
I think the answer lies in learning how to be much better at surgical removal, as opposed to being very good at using a blood axe or a large bludgeoning war hammer, on anyone who has the same or similar religious/race/societal etc, profile, to your perceived 'enemy.' Is this not happening in Gaza right now? Just like Hamas wanted and expected? They were surely not so dumb as being surprised at Israels response!

Such preparation could be effective only if the preparer and the prepared would be in a relationship of mutual trust. For the most part, this is not possible, though. So people learn a double moral standard from early on. — baker

So , do you truly believe the words I have underlined above? Have you no positive experiences of being in a relationship, of any kind, where mutual trust was employed and was not abused or taken advantage of in a nefarious way, by either side? As a classroom teacher, of over 30 years, I had many such positive 'mutual trust' experiences with individual pupils.

Could she have had better results and outcomes, if she had taken wiser actions?
— universeness
And what would such "wiser actions" be? Submitting to the Romans? — baker

There was no notion of nationhood in the Island of Britain, during the days of Boudica. She is described as leading the Iceni. I doubt that is what they even called themselves. Iceni is a Latin/Roman name.
Many other local tribes joined her resistance against the Roman invaders, yes, probably to protect their own areas, resources and people, but, the fact that their tactics were ultimately totally defeated by Rome, for me, demonstrates not that they were wrong to resist Rome but that their method of doing so, proved wrong headed. That's the main point I am making, and the main question I was asking, is, did Boudica make too many mistakes, because her leadership was blindsided by her need for personal vengeance against Rome? Is there not an important lesson for us all to understand about such stories, even though they are mostly mythical and based on the unreliable reports, produced mainly by historians, who came from the side of the victors?

I could not. A national consensus, or at least overwhelming majority, has to make provisions in its peace-keeping and law-enforcement agencies to prevent the rise of dictators. Where a dictator and his enablers have already been put into power, whether by an internal or external force, the average citizen has no defence. — Vera Mont

Well, I certainly agree that prevention is better than cure.

This may be true of small, localized acts of terror carried out in anonymously, far from the terrorists' own base of operations. — Vera Mont

Do you not think that just as it's true of local political gangsters like Hamas, it's also true of the economic terrorism and the economic horror employed by an organised globally nefarious, abominably rich elite?

How do you figure it works in a dictatorship? The police kick your door down at 4am, drag your parents away after giving you a few whacks with their rifle-butts. Every fibre in your body screams for retribution. Whom do you attack? And with what? And how would that serve the regime? — Vera Mont

As demonstrated in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia or to a lesser extent in Putin's Russia.
The words underlined are the most important, yes. I will try my best to answer. I would want to kill those who took my parents. I know those in power, the main controllers of the regime, are 'ok' with that however. The functionaries who do the horror scenes mean very little to the 'regime' hierarchy. So killing those who did the horror or killing those who they claim to represent, (like the Palestinian citizenry,) should never be the priority. Purse and kill the leaders and their financial backers would be my best and most honest answer but What do I really know about who they are, for sure, I would need a great deal of help.

How can you tell if you're about flip out? You can't - or it would never happen. — Vera Mont

This takes me back to one of my opening questions:

Do we need to be educated on the notions and applications of horror and terror, to be able to thwart the use of such tactics to expand and aggravate conflict between peoples? — universeness

Only by doing something like this, could people be 'trained' to deal with horror and terror, without becoming a horrific terrorist, But this second question still hangs in the air.

Do you think that preparing people for such, would do more harm than good? — universeness

It depends on one's agenda, I suppose. — baker

Supposition has it's place ..... I suppose.

I never suggested the solutions were easy, but do you think we can, as a species, learn to react more effectively to horror and terror, used by others to create the conflict they want, for their own purposes?

Do you think we are doomed to repeat the same old errors we have made since the claims that Boudica(Boadicea) decided to fight Rome, mainly because she was personally treated very disrespectfully by them and her daughters were raped. Would she have been better to insist that those who raped her daughters be punished accordingly, and take wiser actions than just try to kill kill kill, everything Roman in Britain? Could she have had better results and outcomes, if she had taken wiser actions?
Your worse enemies always come at what you love most, as they are sure that is the best way to make you make big mistakes. Is that not true?

You have to distinguish between a single act of terror, or threat of violence, and a long-term, consistent application of fear for control. (See Orwell's 1984) Think, for example of abused children. Terror becomes, for them, not a momentary state of mind, but a staple of their existence: habitual. This is true also of entire peoples under a ruthless dictatorship. — Vera Mont

So, how would you defend yourself and others against such?

No, and they count on it never coming to pass. — Vera Mont

I disagree. I think the 'kill kill kill the bastards,' is exactly what those who employ terror and horror tactics intended to invoke. They just don't think the response will/can reach them directly but will achieve the ends they desire.

People pushed that far down into the darkness of their psyche are capable of anything but reason. — Vera Mont

Yes, so how can we learn to recognise when that old result is recurring again and learn how to take wiser action and not respond to horror/terror by terrorising and performing horrific acts?

I've heard of elephants holding a grudge for years against bad handlers — Vera Mont

That's a claim I have always found more interesting than most of the other observations of animal behaviour you offered that you are aware of or have witnessed.

I found this, but I don't know if any serious scientific study on this, has been done:
Researchers believe elephants' good memories are a big part of how elephants survive and why so many live so long (50 to 60 years or more on average). Those who work closely with elephants also have noticed that elephants remember injuries and can hold grudges against those who have hurt them.

In particular, immerse yourself in the perspectives of those who perpetrate acts that elicit these feelings, so that they become more intelligible and predicable to you. — Joshs

How important do you think it is that all people must do this? based on my op question:

Do you think that preparing people for such, would do more harm than good? — universeness

Most people seem to learn that by kindergarden. — baker

Really? I assume you are not suggesting that 4 year old humans know how to thwart the horror and terror tactics used by nefarious humans.

I've seen cats revenge themselves against humans. I've seen a cat step in to break up an uneven fight/play between dogs. I've seen a cat step in to protect another cat from a human.
Crows team up against a larger bird of prey that hunts young crows. — baker

A tigress in a zoo went after the people who teased her. — baker

Do you think that the examples you offer are scientifically rigorous and are such personal interpretations truly comparable with human notions of horror and terror and how such is manipulated?

For this reason fear, terror and horror are relative to our preparedness for making sense of a situation. — Joshs

I am fine with your descriptions of the issues involved, but do you have any suggestions as to how we all might better deal with the notions of horror/terror/fright, when they are used to manipulate us in such powerful ways? Ways that are demonstrated to us every day, in the news and even in the personal daily lives that many folks experience?

Revenge is a kind of reverse entropy where we wish to punish a transgression by doing something we consider will be painful to the other. — Echarmion

I think this is not something we can unlearn, but rather something we must endeavour to notice and (with effort) question. — Echarmion

I think it's interesting that early theists were so afraid of the human notion of vengeance via terror and horror tactics, that they invented 'vengeance is mine sayeth the lord.'
I think to 'unlearn' such would be unhealthy, as unless the possible consequences of our notions and applications of horror and terror, for all involved, are quite fresh in the human psyche, we think we can control such, and I think history and current examples demonstrate, very clearly, that we cannot.
So yeah, I think you are correct, we must all ask many more questions, and protest a lot more against the use of both tactics.

I also read the study titled 'Chimpanzees are vengeful but not spiteful.'
Very interesting stuff, and the experiments involving access to food with the chimps, were well thought out imo.
From: Chimps don't just get mad they get even, we have:
There is now considerable interest in the evolution of cooperation and punishment in human societies, and there have been a number of efforts to explore the phylogenetic origins of cooperative motives in other primates. Virtually all of the work on other primates has focused on the willingness to provide benefits to conspecifics. In this issue, Jensen et al. turn the tables and examine chimpanzees' propensity to impose sanctions on familiar group members who commit transgressions.

and

The key finding from this experiment is that the chimpanzees were as likely to collapse the table when another chimpanzee had access to the food as when no one had access to the food. Thus, chimpanzees do not seem to retaliate against other chimpanzees simply for getting lucky.

and

However, the chimpanzees were significantly more likely to respond punitively when they were victimized by other chimpanzees than when they were the victims of the experimenter's whims.

and

In this set of experiments, punitive action was cheap and easy. All the chimps had to do was pull a rope, and food fell to the floor. Pulling the rope required little effort, and they did not lose any food themselves. What would they have done if it was more costly to retaliate? Would they have collapsed the table if they lost part of their own food? Would you? Humans have a pretty strong taste for revenge, even when it costs them dearly.

and finally

These experiments demonstrate that chimpanzees are willing to retaliate against those who transgress against them. However, humans take punitive action one step further. We are willing to impose punishment on those who transgress against others, even if we sustain no harm ourselves. For example, people are willing to spend their own money to punish those who make unfair offers in the ultimatum game. In real life, whistle-blowers risk their careers to call attention to corporate wrong-doing, even when they are not harmed directly. This kind of “altruistic punishment” is thought to play an important role in the evolution and maintenance of cooperation in large groups. Punishment of infractions by third parties is not limited to humans; policing plays an important role in the maintenance of cooperation in the highly specialized cooperative societies of social insects. Chimpanzees are clearly willing to retaliate against chimpanzees who steal from them, but would they also police and impose costly punishment on chimpanzees who steal from others?

We seem to have developed much deeper and darker notions of retaliation, compared to other species, such as chimpanzees. I have read some other studies regarding 'fear' and 'terror' as demonstrated in animal species, but I have not yet read any suggestion that any animal species employ the human notion of terror, or are affected by 'horror' as described in the op.

I could offer my choice of quotes and a brief personal summary of the other article: Chimpanzees are vengeful but not spiteful. I will, if you think such might be of use, but it seems to me that the Chimpanzee use of 'vengence' is very localised, and does not ever become 'vendetta.' What is your opinion on this?

Thanks for trying again. Your links seemed fine to me, so I investigated a little further. The problem turned out to be at my side. I was connected to TPF using a MacBook pro running the Mojave OP system and it would not connect to the article page, and only to the main PNAS page.
I switched to a Windows 11 based laptop, and it accessed the page with no problems. I probably need to upgrade the Macbook to Catalina or more. I will read the article: Chimps don't just get mad, they get even.

I clicked on the link you provided, and it took me to a PNAS page that had titles/links to many articles and vids on many topics, but I could not find one titled something like ;'chimpanzees retaliate against and are therefore not spiteful' (I just took this from your link above,) Do you have a more direct link?

This 4min video had a strong affect on me, but there are ones that are just as 'terrifying' from the Palestinian side.


But is the reaction of the 4 volunteers in the news clip, exactly what Hamas wanted?
Is my shock what they wanted? Do we need to all react differently to thwart the nefarious bastards on both sides of these horror campaigns. How do we educate the masses to defeat these tactics?

That's ok and that's a right you have, that I fully endorse. I don't hate you but I hate antinatalism, but I also know that I must not hate it, or seek vengeance on those who support it. I need to accept the burden of its existence, and try to only ever use nothing other that my own rationale, against it, and not against the person. Fight the idea and not the person, is probably common ground for both of us.

In your chimp example, is what you describe, only ever 'within a troop hierarchy?' Are there examples of one troop seeking vengeance on another, for some previous sneak attack, in which some chimpanzee young were ripped apart, for example?

This sounds like a good step forwards to me. Is this an example of an EU initiative that considers what is a fairer system for all the entire human race? Is this a small attempt at economic global legislation?

EU funded report:
PARIS, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Governments should open a new front in the international clampdown on tax evasion with a global minimum tax on billionaires, which could raise $250 billion annually, the EU Tax Observatory said on Monday.

If levied, the sum would be equivalent to only 2% of the nearly $13 trillion in wealth owned by the 2,700 billionaires globally, the research group hosted at the Paris School of Economics said.

Currently billionaires' effective personal tax is often far less than what other taxpayers of more modest means pay because they can park wealth in shell companies sheltering them from income tax, the group said in its 2024 Global Tax Evasion Report.

Ok, thanks for your equation, which I now understand, if your . notation means multiply, but when I multiply out the top line and divide by 1001. I am left with 100a+10b+c, not abc?

Addition: The penny just dropped! 100a+10b+c IS abc, on a base 10 number system, sorry, I get it now.

So, does this project into a rule or a series? If you had 9 digits or 12 for example. You went from 10^5 to 10^1 with two sets of abc, so for 9 digits as repeated sets of the same 3 digits, would 10^ 8 to 10^1 produce the same result, by dividing with a series of primes or a product of certain primes? Is there a general rule here? If not, then why does this work only for 6 digits or more specifically, two repeats of 3 digit, divided by 1001? Again I apologise if I am being mathematically tiresome here, but I do find such, very interesting.

The words of the video could come from Thucydides — Athena

I accept that such quotes from Thucydides, demonstrate that the mistakes or deliberate nefarious acts made by many humans then, are still happening now. But many many more people are now far more aware of such behaviours, and there is far more organised resistance and rational arguments, against the stupid positions Thucydides was highlighting. The far more organised and growing (mostly, currently, in the West) atheist movement is bigger, more successful and has more reach, than it has ever had in the past. Those in the disability and LGBTQ+ movements and those who support such, have made gains in the past 50 years that have been quite spectacular imo. These are just a couple of the examples of the progressions made by the current generations of people, who are willing do battle with the shortfalls of the status quo.

HOWEVER, all that good depends on having an abundance. — Athena

I totally agree that you can better help others, when you yourself can take the basic means of survival for granted. That's why I fight for food, water, shelter etc as basic human rights, and not something anyone should have to 'work for.' I was merely pointing out that sooooooo many people are willing to, and are in fact compelled to, help make things better for everyone. As long as it is true, that good people will not just stand by and watch horror and terror happen to others, then we do earn the right to continue to exist imo. Many still do nothing, and they do merely watch as evil grows and thrives but, as Gandhi pointed out, we always, eventually, bring such evils down, we destroy them. The nefarious rise again or hide and come out again, and the fight continues. But general progress on behalf of more and more 'have nots' is made. As I said before, most people have more ability to affect the nefarious than they have ever had before. A billionaire can be brought down almost overnight today, as can a government, if the people decide to act en-masse.

?? — jgill

I didn't respond to your example of a good maths trick prof, as it whizzed right over my head.
I did not get the trick, or fully understand the equation, what is the . for, for example? Does that signify multiplication? I was also hoping you would explain the 6 digit trick, divided by the three primes, as to why it worked. Sorry my maths skills are perhaps a bit rudimentary in your eyes.