VIDEO: Investigation Discovery’s Most Evil: Top 4 Problems

Full of Questions lists the 4 reasons why Most Evil, a Discovery show hosted by forensic psychologist Michael Stone, doesn’t use the greatest methods to determine that John Wayne Gacy was more evil than Jim Jones. Warning: This episode contains spoilers for Les MisĂ©rables and Titanic.

Scroll down to comment on this video...

You may also like...

  • MichaelANovelli

    Informative!

  • John Wilson

    You should really have “most evil’ in quotation marks and mention its a t.v.show like this(tv show). I though you were saying what was actually wrong with most evil things in fiction or somthing and not about a t.v. show.Nice video though 🙂

    • Agreed, I updated the title to make things a little clearer.

      • John Wilson

        Thanks:)

      • FullofQuestions1

        Thanks, man.

  • $36060516

    Always glad to see a new Full of Questions. Your basic point is what occurred to me on hearing you describe the concept of the show (which I haven’t seen). How can they say that a serial killer killing someone else is more evil than a parent abusing a child who is nevertheless left alive? The latter is in some ways more evil, because it is an intimate betrayal of trust rather than a random tragedy between strangers. Your focus on this flaw strikes paydirt when you imagine how offensive seeing these crimes ranked would be to the survivors of the crimes. I wonder why this potential has been disregarded by the creators of the show. Apparently they think this gimmick is a goldmine, given they put it right in the title. Thanks for another enjoyable video.

    • FullofQuestions1

      And thank YOU for watching it. And I agree with you, which is why it upsets me that “torture that does not result in death” is lower on the scale than “torture murder”. Even more so, considering who can say that the torture would not have eventually resulted in death?

  • Gallen_Dugall

    Now I want to see where Michael Bay fits on the “evil scale”

    • FullofQuestions1

      I’m going to hell for this joke, but probably Number 21, “Psychopaths who do not kill their victims but do subject them to extreme torture.”

      • Gallen_Dugall

        that’s probably not fair
        definitely funny
        but not fair

      • $36060516

        And Jim Carrey is Number 23, or at least was in the movie!

  • TheCrazyFish

    Crap, I had this whole big thing written out, then I totally forgot to hit the post button. I’m kind of daffy sometimes, I know.

    Basically, most of what I wanted to say was simply that of course you can rate things like who is luckiest, hardest working, etc. It would be difficult, sure, but possible.

    Most successful is a bit more difficult, since people define success differently. A magazine like Forbes would probably define it based on money, but what about fame? For example, the President of Monsanto Company is undoubtedly much more wealthy than Stephen Colbert, but could you tell me his name without looking it up? So which of the two is more successful? For that matter, is success really about money or fame, or is it about happiness? By that logic, if a man is dirt poor and nameless but loves his family and has great happiness, is he more successful than a CEO who is a multi-billionaire but single and lonely?

    Still, you could measure success. You could look at the total number of goals attempted in a person’s life, the ambitiousness of those goals, and the ratio of goals attempted to goals accomplished. Of course, at that point I think you’re starting to lose the thread of what exactly you mean by “most successful.”

    The point is, you can definitely rank things like evil and love, though I wouldn’t personally. Like you sort of said, ranking these things takes something away from them. When you rank atrocities on a scale of how evil they are it minimizes the tragedy in a way that is kind of insulting. Similarly, when you rank love it takes away from the magic of the emotion that is love.

  • Funky Dynamite

    I really dug this dissection of the show. I think all parties could be happier if they just broke down and titled the show ‘Exploiting Nasty Stuff’ and called it a day.

    • FullofQuestions1

      Which they easily could have done. Discovery Channel does all kinds of shows that are just documentary shows about catastrophe, crime, or something else like that. Those shows do fine without some bogus scale.

  • Zee Panda

    I bet Columbia’s mildly embarrassed about giving this guy a degree now. Don’t feel bad, Columbia – I know some of your other grads and they’d never stoop this low, no matter how much ka-ching they were offered!

    Horrible show, great video. You did a wonderful job articulating why this show is so gross.

    • FullofQuestions1

      I’m not actually sure if he graduated from there; I just know that he’s a professor of psychiatry there. And even so, his other points are really interesting; I just think his methods of defining evil are a stretch.

      Thanks for watching!