10 ms·

I would suggest that some forms of medieval entertainment would cause PTSD in a modern person. From public executions, through bear baiting[1] and cat torture[2

I would suggest that some forms of medieval entertainment would cause PTSD in a modern person. From public executions, through bear baiting[1] and cat torture[2]. The (unstated) assumption the people in the past "were just like us" emotionally, deserves closer scrutiny. I believe that the magnitude of trauma inflicted by a certain experience is relative to what is considered to be the norm in the time and place. The norms of "ancient" people were different from those of the 21st century [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear-baiting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear-baiting [2] https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/ritualistic-cat-torture-was-once-a-form-of-town-fun https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/ritualistic-cat-tortur...

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
Even butchering livestock for food, more or less a routine household chore in the past, is sufficiently alien today to most that it would likely cause PTSD if they had to do it.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  On the other hand a lot of people today can watch super intense horror movies which probably would have traumatized ancient people.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    One is real, with sights and smells linked to millennia of instinct and the knowledge that you yourself are the primary agent of what is occurring to the livestock. The other you know is fiction which you can criticize the script, special effects, and cinematography of from a comfortable chair, often with friends. I don't think the two really compare.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      I think they compare for some people. I can handle real world situations better than movies. I think it's because the movie only stimulus some senses (sight and hearing) whereas the real world experience is complete.
mattigames 7y ago
I can relate to not being traumatized with any of those practices but at the same time being easily traumatized from watching the dismembering of a close family member; that is to say that is not only the nature of the act that traumatize us but to whom is done.
- sorokod 7y ago
  The examples mentioned are entertainment. People would spend money to participate.
  - mattigames 7y ago
    And I pay to see similar depictions in horror movies, I don't think either proves much about the damage from something traumatic happening to a family member or close friend.
lidHanteyk 7y ago
It's true, we didn't have the same theory of other minds for those animals in those times. For a long time, bears in particular were so feared that their modern names actually come from ways to avoid referring to them directly [0]: > This terminology for the animal originated as a taboo avoidance term: proto-Germanic tribes replaced their original word for bear—arkto—with this euphemistic expression out of fear that speaking the animal's true name might cause it to appear. According to author Ralph Keyes, this is the oldest known euphemism. And it's well-known that housecats have been distrusted in various ways throughout the years [1], although not all societies have been abusive towards them. It is only very recently in our history that we have seen them not just as divine harbingers or adorable pets, but also as sapient intelligences with their own desires and goals. Indeed, it is only just now, in our lifetimes, that we have moved from a theory of us taming housecats to a theory of self-domestication [2]. What I'm getting at is that these folks in the past did not have the same empathy for animals that we do, and so they had not just different cultural values, but also different mental attitudes towards their (mis)treatment. When people say phrases like, "tigers are wild animals," or "dogs are unclean," they are not just indicating a cultural value but also how they personally empathize (or don't!) with different species. None of this is to especially contradict your point. Their norms then were not our norms today. I merely would suggest that different norms lead to different abilities to empathize. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear#Etymology [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_cats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_cats [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-domestication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-domestication

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

Even butchering livestock for food, more or less a routine household chore in the past, is sufficiently alien today to most that it would likely cause PTSD if they had to do it.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
On the other hand a lot of people today can watch super intense horror movies which probably would have traumatized ancient people.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  One is real, with sights and smells linked to millennia of instinct and the knowledge that you yourself are the primary agent of what is occurring to the livestock. The other you know is fiction which you can criticize the script, special effects, and cinematography of from a comfortable chair, often with friends. I don't think the two really compare.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    I think they compare for some people. I can handle real world situations better than movies. I think it's because the movie only stimulus some senses (sight and hearing) whereas the real world experience is complete.

mattigames 7y ago

I can relate to not being traumatized with any of those practices but at the same time being easily traumatized from watching the dismembering of a close family member; that is to say that is not only the nature of the act that traumatize us but to whom is done.

sorokod 7y ago
The examples mentioned are entertainment. People would spend money to participate.
- mattigames 7y ago
  And I pay to see similar depictions in horror movies, I don't think either proves much about the damage from something traumatic happening to a family member or close friend.

lidHanteyk 7y ago

It's true, we didn't have the same theory of other minds for those animals in those times. For a long time, bears in particular were so feared that their modern names actually come from ways to avoid referring to them directly [0]: > This terminology for the animal originated as a taboo avoidance term: proto-Germanic tribes replaced their original word for bear—arkto—with this euphemistic expression out of fear that speaking the animal's true name might cause it to appear. According to author Ralph Keyes, this is the oldest known euphemism. And it's well-known that housecats have been distrusted in various ways throughout the years [1], although not all societies have been abusive towards them. It is only very recently in our history that we have seen them not just as divine harbingers or adorable pets, but also as sapient intelligences with their own desires and goals. Indeed, it is only just now, in our lifetimes, that we have moved from a theory of us taming housecats to a theory of self-domestication [2]. What I'm getting at is that these folks in the past did not have the same empathy for animals that we do, and so they had not just different cultural values, but also different mental attitudes towards their (mis)treatment. When people say phrases like, "tigers are wild animals," or "dogs are unclean," they are not just indicating a cultural value but also how they personally empathize (or don't!) with different species. None of this is to especially contradict your point. Their norms then were not our norms today. I merely would suggest that different norms lead to different abilities to empathize. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear#Etymology [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_cats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_cats [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-domestication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-domestication