Posts Tagged ‘fear’

Cultural icon, film director, film producer, and master of the suspense genre, Sir Alfred Joseph Hitchcock, and his thoughts on:


When an actor comes to me and wants to discuss his character, I say, ‘It’s in the script.’ If he says, ‘But what’s my motivation?, ‘ I say, ‘Your salary.’

I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle.

Disney has the best casting. If he doesn’t like an actor he just tears him up.


In films murders are always very clean. I show how difficult it is and what a messy thing it is to kill a man.

Some of our most exquisite murders have been domestic, performed with tenderness in simple, homey places like the kitchen table.

Someone once told me that every minute a murder occurs, so I don’t want to waste your time, I know you want to go back to work.


The more successful the villain, the more successful the picture.


The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder.


These are bagpipes. I understand the inventor of the bagpipes was inspired when he saw a man carrying an indignant, asthmatic pig under his arm. Unfortunately, the man-made sound never equalled the purity of the sound achieved by the pig.


There is nothing to winning, really. That is, if you happen to be blessed with a keen eye, an agile mind, and no scruples whatsoever.


Television has brought back murder into the home – where it belongs.

Television has done much for psychiatry by spreading information about it, as well as contributing to the need for it.

Television is like the American toaster, you push the button and the same thing pops up everytime.

Television is like the invention of indoor plumbing. It didn’t change people’s habits. It just kept them inside the house.

Seeing a murder on television can help work off one’s antagonisms. And if you haven’t any antagonisms, the commercials will give you some.

Managing Fear

The only way to get rid of my fears is to make films about them.


The paperback is very interesting but I find it will never replace the hardcover book – it makes a very poor doorstop.


There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it.


Blondes make the best victims. They’re like virgin snow that shows up the bloody footprints.


I am scared easily, here is a list of my adrenaline – production: 1: small children, 2: policemen, 3: high places, 4: that my next movie will not be as good as the last one.


Luck is everything… My good luck in life was to be a really frightened person. I’m fortunate to be a coward, to have a low threshold of fear, because a hero couldn’t make a good suspense film.

Film Direction

In feature films the director is God; in documentary films God is the director.

Film Sound

Dialogue should simply be a sound among other sounds, just something that comes out of the mouths of people whose eyes tell the story in visual terms.

If it’s a good movie, the sound could go off and the audience would still have a perfectly clear idea of what was going on.

Read Full Post »

The Chernobyl disaster is known as the worst nuclear plant disaster in human history, and adjusting for inflation, is the costliest human disaster in history. It also, according to records, released “four hundred times more fallout was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.”

These are all superlative descriptions. How much do we really know about Chernobyl? Would it shock you to know that the worst nuclear plant disaster in history had resulted in about 4,000 deaths and this based on latest estimates–most of this are related deaths (the actual direct death tally is only about 56).

More importantly: does that seem small for a disaster by today’s standards?

In this video, author Michael Crichton  describes the large margin of error we have in predicting the future based on present sentiments. Contrast the actual and estimated death count above with a CNN estimate of 3,000,000 potential deaths.

Crichton also explains how media and general sentiments magnify disinformation. He cites a U.N. report that explained that a large component of the death toll in Chernobyl was due to adverse sentiments brought about by disinformation–he calls them “information casualties”. Due to the prevalence of negative sentiment about the disaster, there was a large number of people who became depressed and invalid due to fears of cancer, deformed births, and all predicted health risks. One compelling statement:

authoritatively telling people they are going to die can in itself be fatal

At the end of the video, Crichton mentions that a very sobering exercise is thumbing through an old newspaper. Most of the people on the news 30 years ago aren’t familiar to us today, but more importantly, most of the NEWS and CONCERNS of 30 years ago, no one cares about today. This underlines the magnifying effect of the media and information in swaying sentiments at the present time.

Just reflecting, as of the writing of this post we have present concerns about the financial crisis which has strangely overshadowed other “pressing concerns” such as the environment, AIDS, poverty. Why do we seem to collectively embrace this “flavor of the month” mentality?

As a side note, going back to Taleb’s black swans–while events that were not predicted are the common definition, predicted events that don’t happen as scheduled also qualify.

Our only check against this irrational bias? Why, critical thinking of course.

Read Full Post »

Remember how we discussed how the God vs. Science debate seems to be simply a question of convenience (albeit psychological) rather than a question of truth? Well, recently blogger Star Larvae had an interesting email exchange that highlighted this:

People I encounter who have an interest in speculative cosmology, or whatever we might call our endeavor, tend toward extremes of scientific rigidity or New Age wooliness. At least, that is my observation. I try to keep my thoughts on these matters somewhere in the middle. The scientific types tend to be preoccupied with establishing scientific credentials for their ideas. While I have bolstered my speculations with scientific references, where I am able, I have grown less concerned with receiving blessings from science. My project is philosophical, theological, political, psychological and has many other dimensions, including the scientific. I don’t feel a compunction to position all other dimensions subordinate to the scientific. I think that humankind can be served by conceptual breakthroughs in philosophy, theology, etc., as much as by breakthroughs in science. (Of course science has a certain privileged veto power, and if any idea I propose is scientifically disproven, I will have to abandon or reformulate that idea.)

The context of this exchange was that Star Larvae was denied membership in an online forum that dealt with evolution and scientific development of man, simply because Star Larvae’s work left an opening to consider theological arguments.

I also notice either an outright rejection of God or a tendency to avoid the God question altogether in many science forums–and I think this is as limiting as the outright rejection of science and reason by religious discourse. This can be called “theophobia” and this kind of compartamentalized thinking is not conducive to critical thought and truth-seeking.

I do agree with Star Larvae that the scientific method is a robust one–and is used as the backbone of critical thought. To cement the point, in statistical inference there are two general kinds of errors: Type 1: rejecting a statement when in fact it is true, Type 2: failing to reject a statement when in fact it false. These two errors result from a failure to appreciate evidence, or even a lack of sufficient evidence. However outright blind rejection of possibilities without adequate evidence is NOT scientific by any definition.

The lesson we keep harping: face all possibilities squarely and in light of not just existing evidence, but potential evidence. And more than this: be brave enough to make an assertion and a judgment, and be willing to change your assertion as more possibilities emerge. Static thinking and passive thinking have no place in critical thought.

Between settling for convenience and pursuing truth, choose truth.

Read Full Post »

Is God Above the Law?

This is a post i found in a ‘Pinoyexchange’ website.

bold is mine


God the Father through His one and only Begotten Son Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit solely and singularly created this Universe for His own good pleasure and will.

As such, God owns and possesses this Universe that we live in. He is its sole owner and possessor.

Being such, God has all the rights of possession and ownership regarding us and this Universe that we live in. These rights of ownership and possession are, among others, the right to destroy and the right to dispose of. These rights are inherent in creation, ownership, and possession.

As such, God in His sovereign and absolute power can even wipe out our existence and this Universe, and we can not complain about that, He being the sole owner and possessor of us and this Universe, He being our sole Creator.


Read Full Post »

Further to a previous discussion on religious belief due to fear here is an interesting video about fear mongering done in the name of religious faith:

Note in this case, it isn’t even sin that condemns the poor sap, just plain ignorance.

Scary, but not for the reasons the video blatantly suggests.

Read Full Post »


YAKMAN wrote:
We recognize the terrible and vengeful God that’s why we do not want to antagonize him.
gejable wrote:
Let me add to this, bro, just in case some may think that’s the only reason why we believe. There are actually four, the next three, I suppose are deeper reasons why:

1. holy fear – which is quite different than fear of His wrath as you mentioned
2. reverence of His majesty
3. submission to His authority
4. dread of His wrath – this is what you mentioned above.

rickym wrote:
i don’t see anything which says that religion is rational and that’s why you believe. then why do people here even bother debating about whether god exists. you believe because you are simply afraid that’s it. in law that would be an open and shut case.

to say that you believe because of rationality would make you guilty of the “psychological defense mechanism” called “denial”. and in some cases you would even be thought to be a liar, at the very least, rationally inconsistent.

is this typical of a lot of christians, or is it only the christians in this forum? and is this an official thing or not?

so would you lie and say that your belief is due to rationality, or is it because you were under denial in the first place?

but let me say that i commend you in your honesty, knowing you are in denial is one of the first steps towards healing.

gejable you said:
“We recognize the terrible and vengeful God that’s why we do not want to antagonize him. ”

so you admit that god is not moral?

The quotation above is a discussion in an internet forum a few days ago. Theists have long been debating with atheists in two forums I go to that there is proof that God exists. Now I get to read this. Sometimes you begin to wonder whether the theists I have been debating with actually believe that God exists or just want to parrot that phrase for fear of eternal damnation.

As for the ‘psychological defense mechanism’ I mentioned. You could take a look at another blog article that I had made earlier.


Oh, and the second to the last and third to the last lines were my mistakes, it was YAKMAN that said that and not gejable.

Read Full Post »