What Gore Videos Reveal About How We Really Know

To start at the beginning, I like horror movies. I don’t really like gore.

I can handle some, but I get mentally queasy with the more intense stuff. About a year ago, I made a Reddit post about “what’s the best way to enjoy gore?” My thought was that I might be missing some really good movies (people talk about Martyrs and some of the Terrifier series in high esteem). What has really surprised me is that I still get notifications when people comment on this thread. Mostly, it’s people looking for gore videos, like the old rotten.com.

So what’s the science here?

The Story: How Knowledge Is Made—Not Just Learned

Watching violence doesn’t just shock us. It teaches us. A new study argues that some of our deepest knowledge is formed not in textbooks or lectures, but through shared, emotional, and bodily experiences—even when those experiences are disturbing.

That claim comes from sociologist Ekkehard Coenen, who studied how people engage with gore videos: recordings of real, lethal violence circulating online. His question wasn’t whether these videos are ethical or harmful. It was more fundamental: What do they reveal about how humans come to “know” anything at all?

And the answer turns out to challenge some of the oldest assumptions in science.

We Thought Knowledge Lived in the Head. The Data Says Otherwise.

For a long time, science treated knowledge as something internal. You observe the world, process information, and store it in your mind. Think of learning like downloading a file.

Coenen’s research flips that idea.

Drawing on communicative constructivism—a theory that sees meaning as something created through interaction—he shows that knowledge emerges between people, through communication, bodies, media, and emotion. It’s not just what you think. It’s what happens when you experience something with others.

To understand this, Coenen didn’t run lab experiments. Instead, he analyzed real videos of violence and the online discussions around them. He used video analysis and digital ethnography to study not only the footage, but how people reacted—covering their eyes, arguing in comment threads, expressing disgust, fascination, or grief.

These reactions weren’t side effects. They were the data. And they revealed something powerful.

Three Ways Violence Produces Knowledge

Coenen identifies three distinct kinds of knowledge that emerge around violence. You can see them anywhere—from a phone screen in Cambodia to a classroom debate in Santiago

1. Knowledge of Violence (Knowing How)

This is practical, embodied knowledge. It’s the kind you see in action.

Think of a butcher who knows exactly where to cut, or a soldier who knows how to move in combat. This knowledge lives in the body. You don’t explain it—you perform it.

In violent videos, this knowledge is visible in movements, coordination, and timing. Viewers recognize it instantly, even if they could never carry it out themselves.

But here’s the twist: recognizing that knowledge is already a form of knowing. And that leads to the next layer.

2. Knowledge About Violence (Knowing That)

This is the kind of knowledge we usually talk about in science. Is this violence justified? Is it criminal? Is it political? Is it “real”?

When people debate violent footage—on social media, in newsrooms, or in classrooms—they’re building shared categories and explanations. That process turns raw experience into concepts, rules, and judgments.

In many parts of the world, this happens under radically different conditions. A video that feels shocking in a peaceful city might feel tragically familiar in a conflict zone. The same footage produces different knowledge depending on social context.

And that difference matters for global science. But violence does something else too.

3. Knowledge Through Violence (Knowing Why)

Sometimes violence isn’t the topic—it’s the message.

A public execution, a beating, or a filmed threat communicates norms: who has power, what’s allowed, and what happens if you cross a line. No words are needed.

In these moments, violence becomes a medium of knowledge. It teaches rules through fear, shock, and spectacle.

Coenen shows that this kind of knowledge is especially powerful in digital media. High-definition video, sound, and repetition don’t just show violence—they make it felt.

And feeling, in this framework, is a form of knowing.

Why Bodies, Not Just Brains, Matter

One of the study’s most important insights is this: knowledge is embodied.

When people watch violent footage, their bodies respond first. Muscles tense. Eyes turn away. Stomachs churn. Some feel anger. Others feel numb.

These reactions aren’t private quirks. They’re socially shaped. We learn how to react from others—friends, comment sections, cultural norms.

In a crowded internet café, a lab meeting, or a shared phone screen, reactions spread. Laughter can dull shock. Silence can amplify it. Disgust can become collective.

That’s how knowledge forms—not inside isolated individuals, but through shared experience.

But here’s where it gets interesting…

Media Isn’t Neutral. It’s Part of the Equation.

The study also shows that technology changes what we know.

Watching violence on a phone is different from seeing it on a large screen. Muted audio feels different from sound on. Edited news clips shape meaning differently than raw footage.

Media doesn’t just carry information. It structures experience.

This matters far beyond gore videos. Think about climate disasters, police footage, medical training videos, or AI-generated images. In every case, knowledge depends on how bodies, media, and communication interact.

For early-career scientists, this is a quiet warning: methods don’t just measure reality—they help create it.

Why This Matters for Science—Everywhere

In resource-limited settings, where access to journals, labs, or formal education may be constrained, knowledge often circulates through images, stories, and shared experience.

This study reminds us that those forms of knowing are not inferior. They’re foundational.

Whether you’re studying public health, environmental risk, conflict, or technology, Coenen’s work suggests a shift in mindset:

Knowledge is not just discovered. It is performed, felt, shared, and mediated.

And once you see that, science looks less like a library—and more like a conversation.

Let’s Explore Together

• Could this way of thinking about knowledge change how you design research or teaching in your community?
• If you were on this research team, what kind of media or experiences would you study next?
• What everyday problem do you wish science would understand not just cognitively, but emotionally and socially too?

Science doesn’t only live in data.
Sometimes, it lives in what we feel—and how we face it together.