To point #2. Any guest in Brazil will be treated differently during their visit.
https://jornalistaheitormenezes.blogspot.com/2015/11/o-carna... has some interesting historical context about Feynman's trips to Brazil.
It's a matter of conscientiousness and responsibility. Even if there were no signs immediately available, nobody with an ounce of decency would leave a large hole unmarked. Signs are not expensive, if they're not available it's because of a lack of intelligent and responsible acting somewhere else in in the value chain.
As for #2, it's still a lack of conscientiousness. The students should (at least try) to go to their lecture, that the prof should try to give. Surely, a visit to Brazil warrants a quick hop to the beach at minimum but there's no reason people can't do what they are supposed to do all around.
99% of the world's problems would be solved if we all just acted with very basic levels of conscientiousness and responsibility: show up, do the basic work, think a little bit, be nice, don't be corrupt, try to do good work ... commensurate with increasing levels of responsibility obviously, but 'hole diggers' still need to do their jobs with responsibility and a little bit of pride.
It's also true that societal education and resources over time correlates strongly with putting up road signs, as the Japan anecdote suggests.
A subset of Scots from an area near the border on England used to be known for having a culture where fist fighting over disputes was common and education was looked down upon. Many of these groups migrated to the American south and eventually moved on from violence and education rates have since drastically improved.
You can be critical or concerned about a culture phenomenon without dismissing the culture outright like some racist book in the 1920s about Japanese...
I find explanation in the previous comment, that as a visitor Feynman may have been held to a different standard in order to make his stay more pleasant, quite reasonable.
Your expectations and the expectations in most parts of the west are that everyone take care to protect others from being harmed by their actions. Brazil, Indonesia, India, etc, expect people to be vigilant and steer clear of things that may do them harm. The only reason you see that as wrong is because it is foreign to you. If you grew up and lived in a different culture you'd almost certainly see that as right and anything opposite to that as wrong.
In the west we get everything in writing when we do business and rely on the ability of courts to enforce a contract to protect us when things go wrong (and this adds a lot of overhead, yes this has increased a lot in the past few generations). In China they rely less on contracts and legal solutions and rely more on the effects of a good/bad reputation to protect them from business dealings that go wrong. In the west we don't take people to court if we don't have to but it's the power of the court and ability to take things to court if needed that keeps things running smoothly, in other places the value of one's reputation performs that function.
Expectations of timeliness is another aspect by which cultures vary (as discussed at length in TFA). A meeting that starts on on time in Brazil would probably not be much appreciated. If meeting started late in Japan an apology would be in order at the very least.
These are just three examples of aspects of society that vary from culture to culture. Which is wrong and right depends on what you're used to. Personal physical safety is more likely to bring out people's inner puritanical crusader than the latter two which is why it tends to evoke such strong emotions.
Edit: changed the timing and contract law examples per comments.
Cultural relativism is largely nonsense. Leaving a giant pit in the road for people to drive into is objectively a dangerous and selfish thing to do. Whether the expectation in the country is that people will do dangerous and selfish things doesn't change that fact, it just means the society has some huge problems.
There are multiple optima on the cultural space. Americans' individualistic and Scandinavians' committee-loving systems both work well, and optimize for a complimentary set of problems. Saying "ignore the students–go to the beach," on the other hand, is an objectively worse cultural tenet than "balance everyone's needs."
Balancing everyone's needs tends to result in something that doesn't make anyone really happy.
This leads to a least common denominator result (you can have any color you want, as long as it's black) which is objectively worse in aggregate than "optimize for some, and let someone else optimize for the others".
The point I'm trying to illustrate is that where people draw the line on personal responsibility to do things to protect other people vs people's responsibility to look out for themselves varies greatly based on their culture and right and wrong is a matter of perspective and consensus.
Am I being dangerous or selfish if I don't pay a licensed plumber to connect my new gas stove or water heater? What about if I do my own electricity (the Aus vs US split on this one should be interesting)? What if I keep firearms in my home? Is it my fault if someone coming to knock on my door and annoy me trips over some kid's toys on my porch? What if my stairs are icy and they slip?
Reconciling differing opinions on public safety vs individual freedom to act (or not act) as we please is something society must do. As much as I'd love to push everyone I don't agree with off a cliff that's not an option.
I think most of us would agree that the line is "when your negligence could likely and predictably lead to severe harm to others". As you've pointed out, there are a lot of details to decide there, and different cultures will figure those differently.
I do think that it is fair to say that leaving an unmarked pit in a road is, objectively, over the line though (as are my extreme examples). It could easily, predictably, lead to someone's death through no fault of their own, and is easily prevented. That balance between burden imposed to prevent harm and ability for individuals to protect themselves from that harm is important, I think.
I wish I had more time to mull this over and discuss with you, as I think there are a lot of interesting questions there.
No way.
The courts are a last resort both in business and for personal functions.
My grandfather ran a hardware store and lumberyard back in 'the olden days' and would make windows for a farmer who promised to pay with '1/2 a cow' during slaughter season. The farmer would bring the cow to the butcher 6 months later. Conscientiousness, trust, community.
Note that Brazil has quite a high rate of petty crime, whilst in Japan it's really quite low. Obviously so many factors ... but a fundamental one is culture.
The "Gentleman's handshake" is a famous "old way" of doing things in America/the West. So this is not unique to foreign cultures.
But as we've industrialized, urbanized, globalized, etc, etc the use of contracts became a necessity and culture patterns began to reflect this. Partially as a reaction to need: it was harder to trust random people in a city with a few million people than a guy you know from town and see at Church. But also because it just made everything simpler and more efficient to just write it down. It makes any future disputes far less destructive, because what it says in the agreement is what matters, not what you think was the arrangement, which is a lot more personal and potentially destructive to relationships.
So therefore the cultures evolved largely out of need and rationality. And I expect many of the examples listed in China, Indonesia, etc to evolve in a similar way as the culture moves away from farming and rural areas to a globalized urban economy.
Oh, it would be, as a train (or plane) is expected to depart at the right time. People get up and queue for their plane 15 minutes before boarding time, even though they have marked seats and boarding groups.
A meeting starting at the right time? Inconceivable.
I found a solution to this problem which is as effective as it is potentially insulting, and so is best left for later in one's career. Schedule a few more days than you think you'll need. Show up for meetings 15 minutes early and then, after waiting 15 minutes, leave. When asked about it, play dumb and imply you thought you got the time or location wrong. Reschedule, rinse, repeat. (It helps to have an aloof or distractible personality.)
By the end of the trip, you'll have isolated the most ambitious people (who will show up to things on time and thereby be able to interface with ambitious people outside their country), forged a solid and mutually-respectful working relationship with them, and found time to enjoy the place. Works well in Brazil, the Middle East and India.
You'll have found people who are willing to play petty games instead of having frank conversations about expectations. Those sorts of things are anything but mutually-respectful and encourage future childish behavior. There is nothing wrong with explaining "The meeting starts at noon. I expect everyone attending to be there at noon, and the meeting will be canceled if you're not there on time", there is a problem with expecting people to read your mind when their default mode of operation is to act differently than you expect.
I do--and did--this. And then for about half the meetings nobody showed up for thirty minutes. My point is that setting the expectation by example--in addition to explicitly communicating it in advance--works.
As for signs are not expensive. You gotta go to Brazil and see with your own eyes then.
Brazilians are hard worker, just go and check with your own eyes. The problem is a bit deeper in my opinion and experience.
Road work signage is an issue of liability in the US, not courtesy.
When you start to reduce life down to simplistic concepts, everything is not relative and cultural. Sure, maybe on the fringes (.01%) there are situations that are heavily influenced by those. But for most things in life (near or on mazlowe's hierarchy) it is almost like math, or a logic puzzle.
Brazilians don't leave uncovered holes in the street because of something entirely logical within their own culture. They leave because they are lazy and do not care for the level of danger it represents to others. To imply otherwise is simply dressing a pig.
I don't have a clear answer about where that difference comes from, but I thought it was a factor in people's differing behavior.
Probably sounds better in the original German.
These proofs by anecdotes are really fast food for the biased mind.
Just as a thought experiment, if Brazilians are inherently 'lazy' as you say and it has nothing to do with the environment that they are in and its incentives, then are they also lazy abroad? Do they also forget to put signs when they dig holes? Do they do a worse service in restaurants? Do they work less than their coworkers? Are they also consistently late? Is this not the case because they are from a biased sample of non-lazy Brazilians that leave the country? Or maybe Brazilians are not inherently lazy?
Just a few questions for the debate.
The whole crux of my argument is to remove the concept of culture from the discussion unless it is absolutely necessary.
Sorry to bow out but I think you are barking up the wrong tree trying to get me to say something unique about Brazil. Human laziness and general awfulness is universal.
We agree then.
> _Brazilians_ don't leave uncovered holes in the street because of something entirely logical within their own culture. _They_ leave because they are lazy...
I guess it is fair to say that your point was quite hard to grasp based on your last sentence, seeing the other comments as well. If you say "Brazilians don't leave uncovered holes because of...", then it seems you are making a point about the whole population in a generalized sense. Therefore "they are lazy" also refer to this generalization.
Sorry that it came across that way, and for any offense!
To be fair, there is some cultural relativism here: leaving a hole is probably 'logical' on some level because a) maybe it's not an operational requirement of the workers, b) maybe there are no signs available and they can't do anything about it ... but more likely c) these behaviours are common and it's hard to get anyone to 'act above and beyond' the local climate.
Those same workers might be totally different people with 3 months 'on the job' in Germany, with German standards, laws and behavioural norms.
I think cultural relativism (to which you are referring) is a real thing, but we can't use it as an excuse either.
"are who they are through no real fault of their own"
This is the ultimate cultural relativism rubbish, no offence, but people make their own decisions in life. It's this kind of reasoning that some try to use to absolve murderers and thugs for their actions.
Surely on some level we're all the result of our upbringing, but we also have to take responsibility for what we are at some point.
Having spent the first half of my life in Canada, and the second in Asia, I've quickly realized that Canadians (and, I assume most of the west) are overprotected (insurance, medicine, health schemes, regulations, big brother, and, most obviously, food safety).
(While it isn't unique to Hong Kong, Hong Kong is the most affluent place I've seen this widespread).
Why is there no such focus towards responsibility in Brazil? That's the question imo.
Why the US is so blame happy, rather than personal responsibility, that is the question.
--------------------
Just different cultures
Furthermore, this is about driving and not walking, and during the night. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people are not able to see a black hole on black cement at 'high' speeds (50kph/30mph). Add a little bit of rain or fog, and it's just a recipe for disaster. Maybe if people are aware that workers do stuff like that, they are a little bit more careful but it's probably too late when you finally see it.
The problem here is that there is a culture that does not care very much about their action towards others and think it's not their responsibility and nothing is going to happen to them. While I liked my stay in Brazil a lot (although it was only for a few days), the difference is quite obvious.
Once you get beyond the bare minimum of warnings that alert people to some hazard returns diminish quickly, better to spend your resources on minimizing the damage of people being dumb than preventing them from being dumb in the first place.
https://i.imgur.com/pw4iYk8.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/1Am87Yq.jpg
If you accidentally stepped in one of the holes, you could be seriously injured, or potentially have a life threatening injury if you're elderly.
At night time the street lights are very dim, and I only walked on the road, because I didn't have a flashlight and the sidewalk was too unsafe.
This is a pretty dangerous way of looking at the world - it’s victim blaming and means nobody has to take responsibility.
Negligence is definitely a problem. Some time ago the Brazilian Samarco iron ore mine collapsed due to negligence. That had dire consequences. Did they blame the victims for not being careful enough? Of course not.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/bhp-billiton-samar...
Societal exceptions of where that line is vary greatly even from state to state even in the US, say nothing of the differences between expectations in say, wealthy city in the US and Brazil.
Education? Sure, but resources are in no way low in Brazil unless you mean very specific resource(s).
But even 8,600 is high relative to the US in 1920’s when the economy was seen as booming. In many ways it’s the perception of wealth and a poor social safty net that’s at issue not resources.