As for #2, I don't think Feynman meant that the students won't show up for their lecture. It's just they would prefer to have their lectures in afternoon. In fact, from his writing in the later sections of that chapter, it seems that they did show up for their lectures.

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.

I love your response because it's a great take-down of the "everything is relative and cultural" argument, which I have always thought comes from an overactive imagination.

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.

> They leave because they are lazy...

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.

I don't care if they are Brazilians or Norwegian. If you leave an open hole for someone to fall down you are being negligent.

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.

> I don't care if they are Brazilians or Norwegian. If you leave an open hole for someone to fall down you are being negligent.

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, I was using Brazilians and "they" in the context of the thread. I was not attempting to make assertions, but carry them through the conversation.

Sorry that it came across that way, and for any offense!

When I first went to Rio in 2003 and saw the greater abundance of moderately dangerous situations compared to U.S. cities, I thought it was partly due to differences in legal systems and legal culture. In the U.S., an accident resulting in personal injury is very likely to lead to a lawsuit and there are a huge number of lawyers entirely specialized in personal injury cases. This is less so in Brazil.

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.

The justice system is really slow and expensive. It can take years to end a lawsuit. Judges have 2 months and a half of vacation and most of them work less than 8 daily hours.

"Brazilians don't leave uncovered holes in the street because of something entirely logical within their own culture"

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.

I think a better approach than calling them lazy, would be to look into how easy it is to sue, who can be sued and what the difference is between the limit on liquidated damages allowable between the “lazy” countries and a place like the US.

that's what I meant by education, not formal education per se but social responsibility and conscientiousness. It is easy to take that for granted in first world countries.

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.

You mean social norms, not "education". In in some cultures a disregard for these norms is sometimes referred to as a "lack of education", implying the individual's behavior is the result of bad parenting. This assumption is usually a coping mechanism, a simplistic attempt at a resolution of cultural conflict by asserting that one set of norms are better than those of their cultural antagonist. In cases of cultural conflict, where cultures with sets of incompatible norms attempt to coexist, the result is usually conflict followed by the establishment of new refined sets of norms shared cultures.

Road work signage is an issue of liability in the US, not courtesy.

Why so adamant that the two are mutually exclusive? The reason road work signage has been legislated (or socially defined) into an issue of liability is, again, due to education.

It's true that not putting up road signs doesn't tie clearly to education and resources.

It's also true that societal education and resources over time correlates strongly with putting up road signs, as the Japan anecdote suggests.

They are all correlated and I'm not pointing fingers. A society in which nobody give a crap ... it's hard to find people that will consistently rise above.

Indeed, it's also dangerous to be so passe about everything. Especially construction. Just because it's a cultural phenomenon doesn't make it an admirable one or one that should just be accepted as 'how it is'. Plenty of cultures have evolved and changed for the better.

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...

Completely agreed. Didn't mean to imply otherwise!

Conscientiousness is taught and learned. You weren't born with your current conception of what it means to be a conscientious member of society, you learned it explicitly and through osmosis. "Nobody with an ounce of decency" is an unnecessarily loaded way to refer to people who, frankly, are who they are through no real fault of their own.

I agree with most of that but this:

"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.

>99% of the world's problems would be solved if we all just acted with very basic levels of conscientiousness and responsibility

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.

In many societies they mutilate the genitals of female children. In many others they carry out honor killings when a member of the family acts, as they see it, incorrectly. These are two examples of aspect of society that vary from culture to culture.

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.

> Cultural relativism is largely nonsense

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."

Absolutely. In no way would I argue "It's what the West does, therefore it's right", and being aware of the "it's how we do it, so it's right" bias is worthwhile. There are definitely equally viable alternatives to many cultural norms. Unmarked pits in the road is not one, and I find the desire to treat all alternatives as equal, and a matter of culture, unsettling.

If you want to lure Feynman back to give more lectures, you roll out the red carpet the first time he comes. That's sales, not culture.

Is balancing needs really the best, though?

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".

This is exactly the "where I draw the line (as a result of the culture in which I was raised and live) is right and everyone else is wrong" way of thinking that I was complaining about.

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.

Fair enough, that is a much more nuanced point than I originally took you to be making. I apologize for the misreading.

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.

"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 "

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.

This is probably a better example of how cultures are not a fixed thing and can evolve and change over time. Western culture, especially in rural areas and in smaller communities where you can know everyone (a more common phenomenon in the past), a contract would not have been needed. Or even have been insulting.

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.

> A train that leaves the station on time in Brazil would probably not be much appreciated.

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.

> 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 isolated the most ambitious people ... forged a solid and mutually-respectful working relationship with them

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.

> There is nothing wrong with explaining

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.