In Brazil, it is considered rude to be on time to a party
bbc.com
bbc.com
This excerpt appears in Ha-Joon Chang's book "Bad Samaritans" and it was written by an Australian consultant with regards to Japan in August 1915. Chang also mentions Sidney Gulick's 1903 book "Evolution of the Japanese" which also stereotypes the Japanese as "'easy-going' and 'emotional' people who possessed qualities like 'lightness of heart, freedom from all anxiety for the future, living chiefly for the present.'"
I don't have details on Brazil, but I am almost certain that this "Brazilian time" is just a symptom of some completely reversible, systemic problem that is making it difficult to do business with high-technologies in Brazil.
“Repetition is the mother of all learning”
I think that time is not really a factor here. Institutions like the IMF and WTO passively suppress the economic development of poor countries by withholding incentives unless they behave like rich countries. I don't think this is done out of malice though, because I've met people who genuinely believe that forcing businesses in Mozambique to compete directly with the U.S. economies of scale "creates a level playing field" and doesn't inhibit their growth in certain key industries at all.
It's easy for someone to "genuinely believe" something when their career (as policy advisors, bankers, development "experts", etc) and perks is based upon promoting it and enforcing it upon others.
Without "skin in the game" everyone can be a good person with "great intentions".
One person, One vote is the least flawed way to gather signal from actual people who have skin in the game.
That's a generalization its opponents make, but it isn't true.
In most places where it was practiced (ancient Athens, short-lived anarchist areas in Spain, egalitarian communities, etc.) it was shown to be more benevolent and inclusive to "true numerical minorities" than most representative democracies. Heck, the US had segregation in practice up to the 70s, with blacks being a 20% or so of the population (and more in some areas), and gays were persecuted throwout Europe representative democracy or not.
Even more, the most horrid persecutions of minorities have happened under elected representatives (like Hitler), or authoritarian regimes (e.g. Stalin), as opposed to any "direct democracy".
It's indicative that the arguments in the lemma ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority ) are contrived though experiments and not historical examples.
There's no "tyranny of the majority" that's inherent in direct democracy, any more so than it is in representative "democracy". The tyranny lies in an orthogonal axis (namely: the prevalent passions and ideologies of the era), and can be applied regardless of direct or representative democracy.
Source? Athenian direct democracy was only for males, legally sanctioned slaves and allowed for a simple majority to ostracize people. Sparta's direct democratic elements oversaw a large Helot slave population.
That's irrelevant to the discussion though, as that was simply the norm then across regimes, not a special characteristic of Athenian direct democracy.
Not to mention that the US representative democracy was only for males until the 1920s, had slaves until 1865 and segregation until the 1970s. And that's 2.5 millennia later than that pesky Athenian direct democracy.
You claimed "in most places where [direct democracy] was practiced (ancient Athens... etc.) it was shown to be more benevolent and inclusive to 'true numerical minorities' than most representative democracies." I'm disagreeing with that claim. I'm asking for a source for the the general claim because I'm confused about what separates "true numerical minorities" from other kinds of minorities.
I'm pushing back on the assertion that is has been shown direct democracy works well for minorities. It hasn't. (It has been shown that representative democracy works, or at the very least can be stable.) The tyranny of the majority has not been conclusively proven (nor disproven). This is an open question, and one that evolves as technology (and the population's education) progresses.
You can disagree, but not because ancient Athens had slaves or women didn't vote. That were common places until millennia later across systems of government, and not some inherent product of direct democracy (as opposed to representative democracy).
If you want to disagree, let's stick to differences in how the citizenry included or excluded in both is treated.
By definition, something found in both types of democracy (such as slavery or women not voting) wont tells us anything about how they differ.
>I'm asking for a source for the the general claim because I'm confused about what separates "true numerical minorities" from other kinds of minorities.
Nothing. I didn't chose the term "true numerical minorities" -- I just used the grandparent's (ff317) term.
Ignoring history of how stolen wealth from colonialism and protectionist policies of the west during the colonial era etc when its convenient to do so is nothing but malice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
President Ulysses S. Grant stated:
For centuries England has relied on protection, has carried it to extremes and has obtained satisfactory results from it. There is no doubt that it is to this system that it owes its present strength. After two centuries, England has found it convenient to adopt free trade because it thinks that protection can no longer offer it anything. Very well then, Gentlemen, my knowledge of our country leads me to believe that within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade.
It is not done with malice.
The IMF/WB believe that nations that have basic infrastructure, basic forms of democracy, low corruption and relatively open markets ... will be successfull. This is neither malicious nor entirely naive.
It's pragmatically naive when you consider the leader of some nation may take a 10% cut off the loan, hire his buddies to 'build the dam that never gets built' and then of course you have a nation in debt ... but those debts are not advantageous to the West at all, so the conspiracy theories are wrong.
Now - where there is actual malice is when a large, Western industrial conglomerate might win a big contract and so they influence, bribe, fake data - and then get the contract to 'totally overbuild' some kind of capacity leaving a nation with way more than they need. That's malice, but it's definitely not the IMF/WB or lending nations that win there.
Many of EU & IMF bureaucrats genuinely believed that they were helping the Greek economy recover while they were actually engaged in destroying it.
And no the Greeks destroyed their own economy though systematic hard and soft corruption, knowingly hiding irregularities, unwillingness to make any necessary reforms, etc. etc..
The IMF's 'dogma' operates under the assumption that there are conscientious, reasonable and rational actors on the other side of the loan.
One might argue that it is this assumption that needs to be revisited ... though what some lament as 'austerity' (required by lenders) to others simply is 'being responsible with the massive loan we are about to take'.
If you are assigning moral faults, then please do so for the banks too who made their loans knowing the facts & assuming that they would be bailed out by EU if things went bad.
A more rational thing to do would have been to force the banks to grant Greece a debt haircut, waiving off 50% of the loans, while helping Greece restructure its economy in a realistic manner.
Instead, many people especially at the EU saw the Greek economic problems as a moral failure of all the Greek people for which all of them, including pensioners, must be punished while safely bailing out the banks that originally lent. Somehow, it is unacceptable to blame the banks.
I doubt this. The ECB and EU have not ever done this, and thinking through it just for a minute means that this is highly unlikely. I can't fathom why anyone would actually think this is going to happen with any degree of certainty. But I get the impetus that 'way back in the 2000's' that people might have 'felt this way'.
Also - there's a lot of fault still on the side of the Greeks in this case.
It’s happened before in history and even has a name: debt bondage.
The Meiji Restoration was already incredible but I thought the work ethic was there throughout and helped make it possible. I had no idea there was also a revolution of work ethic.
There is correlation between stereotypes and GDP.
Any links on this?
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=h...
TL;DR (it's a 213 page grad thesis) Old Germany used to be basically Hufflepuff, a simple-minded, loyal, obedient rustic bumbler who's too stupid to really be a threat or even much of a partner. New Germany arose post-German unification and especially post WW1, where the stereotypes shifted to the modern more sinister concept of a nation of amoral mad scientists and clockwork soldiers - largely as an attempt to justify Germany being the great rival of England.
> passionate, melancholy, romantic, and tearful
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/thomas-dixon/british-stiff-up...
After all some of the most famous Romantic artists came from Germany: Heine, Beethoven, Hölderlin and Goethe himself. The latter's Werther was the most emotional novel until at least Madam de Bovary, which was written about 80 years later.
They beat the Brits by about a decade.
Are you sure about that? Compulsory education was introduced in Austria in 1774. Apparently Japan introduced it shortly after the Meiji Restoration in 1868. If anything the UK was particularly late to the game.
Austria had major attendance and implementation issues (e.g., only a 50-60% attendance rate) which apparently weren't fixed until the Reich Public School Law of 1869.
That said, I remember that there was a lot of discussion at one point about how individual behavior in countries that overlapped ex-Austrian/Habsburg territory could be mapped against historical (19th century) boundaries.
Getting back to the original point, Japan was successful because it had high levels of urbanization, which made state directed education more accessible and easier to attain. Other countries/territories implemented compulsory education well before Japan (e.g., Massachusetts first required compulsory education in the 1640s), but efforts either had comparatively lower penetration or relied on non-state institutions (e.g., the church or private institutions) to enforce.
On a longer time scale, it is hard when you look at Italy or Greece today to think of how the same population was once Sparta, the army of Alexander the Great or the Roman Empire. Populations evolve.
The Chinese had the reputation to be super reliable and
men of their word, while the Japanese had the reputation
to be unreliable and ready to cross you at the first
opportunity.
The Party is a large part of the difference in culture. Taiwanese and Singaporeans are Chinese but they didn’t have the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward to deal with. Communism does bad things to cultures. I’m sure things will get better in time but I doubt it will be the work of just one generation.
I read Paul Midler's "What's Wrong With China" recently, the followup to his "Poorly Made In China", and his research seems to indicate that communism and the Great Leap Forward are not the source of those aspects of Chinese culture, that those aspects go back much further.
Definitely a fascinating read.
Lee Kuan Yew famously fashioned Singaporean culture almost out of whole cloth as he believed that without a radical transformation in the social and economic culture that Singapore would quickly disintegrate. I can't find good quotes at the moment, but he had some really harsh opinions about the local ethnic Chinese culture from which he emerged; that it was corrupt, chaotic, criminal and an existential threat to the new nation.
That's just nit-picking about the complexities of history, but I do agree that the point that people and cultures can change is very true!
I was hoping someone whose started a business in Brazil would come along and tell me what it's like. I really know nothing about the country.
Or inversely, it's a western problem that makes it difficult to live humanely and stress-free and incurs great human toll -- and at the point when we're so technologically advanced to not need it as much (but are great at creating busywork for ourselves).
To write off the economic successes of the west under the guise of “problem” with western culture is deeply problematic. If you were to use this tableau to jump into an argument against societies that are captilistic and encourage the chasing of material wealth over the informal, beautiful moments that make humanity interesting you would have a much stronger case. I think we would all benefit if you were to sharpen your position, as there is something deeply intriguing about your point.
With that said, I also find issue with content of your argument. Economic success requires efficiency in all aspects of a business. A lack of punctuality that permeates a society to the point that it effects business strategy is problematic.
You hasten to generalizations. It's entirely possible that the economic success of the Western societies had historic roots in the industrial revolution and the mechanization of human life it entailed. But it's very hard to prove the same reasons hold today - it might be the case where the historical effect is confused with the alleged cause.
The strong economic growth of countries like Brazil or South Africa seems to indicate that, at least to a point, economics can blend with a relaxed attitude. Modern technology, offline communications like email, telecommuting and just in time fabrication could well usher in an era of high prosperity and low stress. Maybe these countries are laboratories of the future.
punctuality doesn't necessarily means efficiency. Punctuality itself comes at a cost. Somewhat similar to low latency. Your argument reminds about those Scrum proponents who tout that decreasing the latency and increasing synchronicity - what the Scrum is really about - would miraculously lead to throughput increase. Which it never does, and usually it has quite the opposite effect (exactly as expected from the systems theory and experience)
For example if you have 10 people attending a meeting and all must wait till they are present before starting (a very common occurrance) having all 10 people turn up promptly is more efficient than having 1-9 people waiting for the remainder of the attendees to arrive.
Efficient towards what, and what for? Those are good questions seldom asked.
I'm not suggesting that everything in business benefits from being regimented but that meeting expectations allows for others to plan their time effectively.
Time where people are waiting for others to do work which should have been completed can often be wasted.
Then you must first consider the need to have the business or meeting in the first place.
In fact, people's time is only "wasted" because it has been made precious -- i.e. because it was stolen and/or sold. That's way more wasted time (they'll never get again) there, than in "wasting time" by not being punctual.
Societies studied by ethnologists had little care for punctuality. In fact the same was true for rural societies in Europe and the US as well (the US South was considered "lazy" and without a "sense of time" as well), and even urban life before the tyranny of the modern "always on" demands. For the upper classes, being fashionably late was a virtue.
I think it would be better if meetings were seen as the expensive beasts they are and only the bare minimum of people that can attend it, should attend it, and it should be considered (especially with routine meetings) whether or not the meetings even need to be held in the first place.
Have they ever looked up a store's hours before going there? Or gone to see a movie? Or met with someone else to do... anything? Or utilized public transit?
Of course it can be argued that, in a cosmic sense, maybe society is more "efficient" toward people relaxing and enjoying life if that train doesn't leave for another 45 minutes because the conductor felt like sleeping in this morning. But at that point, it's not a meaningful discussion.
Honestly it's difficult to imagine having the opposing view with any experience at all managing anything. Or even considering what it might be like to do so.
Punctuality is a virtue of slaves -- to other people and to the clock in general.
Well, there is a problem with western culture in this area -- it can never be content, and its eating away the planet. It's own visionaries and thought leaders imagined a society of leisure and 3 hour workdays and such, but we have many times the efficiency per hour of previous ages, and people are overworked more than ever (not to mention increasingly in debt as well).
>Economic success requires efficiency in all aspects of a business.
Well, I'm against "economic success" beyond a certain point, and especially when it comes to the detriment of the society, and the environment. I'm for economic sustainability, and with utilizing the vast technological resources to improve life (as opposed to induce consumption).
The problem of many Western societies is that the cost of leisure is too damn high for many.
This is partly because the efficiency of work (its value for advancing a business project) is non-linear with time spent. Someone spending 100 hours a week maybe pretty inefficient due to overwork and thus lower (even negative) quality of things done. Someone spending 10 hours a week could be also inefficient because the project moves faster (when everyone else around works 40 hours), or the competition moves faster. So there is a range of maximum efficiency, which is hopefully far from 100 h/week, but also likely far from 10 h/week.
"Gig economy" can help: you work hard 2-4 months for a high rate, then coast 4-6 months at a nice place with low cost of living. The problem, of course, is that you must have saved a pretty thick cushion of assets for the case when a new gig is not coming when you planned.
I'd go further. Most products and projects are BS busywork, if not actively harmful and they shouldn't be part of the economy in the first place.
We've created a huge society middlemen, procurers, and snake-oil salesmen, and turned increasingly more aspects of life into commercial endeavours, where ever more people are constantly hustling and peddling something (manufactured crap, of which there are untold tons [1], planned obsolesce replacement products, their image, and so on).
Finding such toxic-but-still-used product is a good opportunity to both make a living and improve life in general. I suppose the hardest part is to detect and understand the real need being filled.
Certainly enough, education, and other ways to change culture, is a more profound way to change the way people fill their needs, and especially what they even perceive as needs. E.g. the need to serve a bloody revenge is by now mostly absent from a typical Western society, while the need to one-up a neighbor is still pretty widespread.
Well, I'm a believer in an objective world in which not all needs are equal.
I can accept that which need is important or not can be difficult to ascertain. But I also hold that in many, if not most, cases, it's very easy.
Despite the cult of the individual and the reverence with which subjective taste is held, I'd go on record to say that some (most) people have buy products that fulfill irrelevant non-needs.
For an easy to agree with (but real) example, heroin addicts ands Milli Vanilli listeners both buy products that "fill a need". The question is more whether they should.
If for some reason you prefer today's Western culture to that of 15th century, be certain that it changed mainly because of some people pursuing their irrelevant non-needs, as seen by then-contemporary "normal people".
Unfortunately, the people benefitting from the 'economic success' aren't the same people as those who are required to be efficient in everything.
It would be much better to look at quality of life than at profits. The only thing amounts of money have going for it is that you can easily put them in spreadsheets.
Here's an interview with an industrialist that describes the transformation: http://blog.lucforsyth.com/2012/01/under-pressure-byun-ho-sa...
"Why Brazilians are always late"
Always being late, and always being late to parties are too very different accusations. If you just read the new headline ("In Brazil, it is considered rude to be on time to a party") and checked comments before reading TFA, you might be confused.
1. “That evening I went for a walk in town, and came upon a small crowd of people standing around a great big rectangular hole in the road—it had been “dug for sewer pipes, or something—and there, sitting exactly in the hole, was a car. It was marvelous: it fitted absolutely perfectly, with its roof level with the road. The workmen hadn’t bothered to put up any signs at the end of the day, and the guy had simply driven into it. I noticed a difference: When we’d dig a hole, there’d be all kinds of detour signs and flashing lights to protect us. There, they dig the hole, and when they’re finished for the day, they just leave.”
2. “When I got to the center, we had to decide when I would give my lectures—in the morning, or afternoon. Lattes said, “The students prefer the afternoon.” “So let’s have them in the afternoon.” “But the beach is nice in the afternoon, so why don’t you give the lectures in the morning, so you can enjoy the beach in the afternoon.” “But you said the students prefer to have them “in the afternoon.” “Don’t worry about that. Do what’s most convenient for you! Enjoy the beach in the afternoon.” So I learned how to look at life in a way that’s different from the way it is where I come from. First, they weren’t in the same hurry that I was. And second, if it’s better for you, never mind!”
Excerpt From: Richard Phillips Feynman. “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman”: Adventures of a Curious Character.”
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.
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.
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.
The most memorable part for me was the vast amounts of cupholders in American cars that aren't found in vehicles anywhere else in the world.
Another memorable event was learning about the true American religion: Tide. I still cannot believe people seem to be addicted to a detergent that costs a small fortune per bottle. I kind of assume that the typical top loader washing machines aren't much more expensive than the detergent (here I have never seen one of these fake washing machines).
Another thing I remember is design. My father is a hobbyist wood carver and painter with an admiration for the romantic epoch up to the art of the 20ies I would say. I was raised in the firm belief, that a certain aestheticism was lost when artistic and design styles moved ahead. When I was in the US I had at one point an almost enlightenment. I - like many other exchange students - recognised how many things in the us are designed with ornaments, I am not speaking about old stuff things that are produced today. This starts with pens, book covers and furniture, over Greek style columns at family homes and hospitals, and I can only describe this weird feeling with what I assume to an American is the feeling when looking at stuff of Donald trunp. No clear lines but ornaments everywhere. Then I realised that the US has never completely said goodbye to art deco and related styles. Since I know now what the logical continuation of art deco in the 21st century is, j am much less inclined to join my father in mourning the arrival of modern design.
However, this is mainly an issue in rural areas. And even though there may be no signs, there's typically a line of small rocks, maybe 0.5 meter from the edge.
Portuguese classes were agonisingly boring and devoid of practical use.
No choice of basic or advanced topics were allowed, everyone studies “advanced everything” and to fail one single subject meant you had to fail and re-do the entire year.
The case of the car in the hole has a socioeconomic explanation.
There is huge wealth and education disparity within Brazil and specially Rio.
The divide between a blue collar worker fixing the road in Rio and a white collar worker is extreme enough that they are actually from separate cities and I’d suggest different cultures.
The road worker would possibly live in a favela with close to no involvement from the government.
His only interactions with the “rich”, anyone who doesn’t live in a favela, also called “asphalt people” would be in the form of his superiors who pay him little, treat him like a replaceable resource, don’t provide him with adequate training or tools.
There is very little incentive for him to excel at his job or go out of his way to find clever solutions to work problems. There is no career plan here.
Once the clock ticks to 5pm he goes back to his universe. The rich can sort it out themselves.
Quite a few of my other Japanese friends made nervous comments when we were waiting for Brazilian friends, or after they'd arrive. "sasugani [so-and-so, the Brazilian] hahahahaha" they'd say, and it was clear that they were annoyed.
After traveling a bit more and studying psychology a bit more, it's clear that the preference really does vary by the individual, even though patterns like those in the article exist within a populace. Some Japanese really don't care when you arrive, and some Brazilians are really timely people. Their personal strengths come from some position along the robotically-scheduled/free-floating continuum. Culturally, maybe they make arrangements to fit in a little better, or maybe they don't and they're just the weirdo. No matter what the preference is, if we can be flexible or tactical about how we use it, we gain some advantages.
São Paulo is a much more globalized city than Rio, which is really navel-gazing. (Most families in Rio can trace their ancestry centuries back, while São Paulo is usually the largest $(nationality-descent) population outside $(homecountry). This makes for cultural differences.)
But: it's not like carioca customs bleed over to the workplace any more than, say, West Texan customs do. I mean, at my workplace we wear suits but not ties; whenever in São Paulo we tie up. That's most of it.
Also, the article summary you cited says nothing about punctuallity. It talks about pace of life. Where can I see the full study?
Is 'almost everyone you met' a representative sample of the population of SP? Of Brazil?
To say that Brazilians are late is a generalisation. To say they are on time is also a generalisation.
But if you agree to meet people at a certain time, then being more than 10-15 minutes late without letting the person know is just rude, selfish and inconsiderate. Sure problems come up - these days there is zero excuse to not let the people know you are going to be late and give them an estimated ETA.
By being deliberately/incompetently late in those scenarios where you've agreed on a time, you're telling the person whose time you are wasting that you value your time more than you value theirs - i.e. that you consider yourself and your time as more important than them, and so fuck you - I'll get there when I want and you can wait for me since I am the most important one in this meeting and you and your time is worthless...
Are you late because you are just a bit disorganised? Please get a grip make an effort because you're a grown up and the people you are meeting had to make an effort to get there too.
Are you late because you are just an arsehole? Take a long look at yourself in the mirror.
tl;dr - depends on context.
It does, and if you're trying to co-ordinate anything with a material number of people, one must recognize it's not a useful cultural aspect to carry forward. Timeliness allows for complex coordination. (It also allows for economic interfacing with the world's advanced economies.)
Also, what would be crazy for many people that live in small countries compared to Brazil, is that many workers live far away from their job or school. Up to 3 hours for a single way. It is also expected to have something not working in their way to their destination.
It's not a black and white thing. Writing a generic bold statement tends always to be harmful. Damn human brain that loves to find patterns to simplify information processing :)
I remember some years ago that my (french) boss was often frustrated with our indian colleagues being late or having delays in their work. Then I spent an internship with them and I understand. It was much harder for them to go from their home to the office and the conditions were far worse for them.
But it's hard for a lot of people to realize these differences and empathize without having to live under the same circumstances.
My example: I'm Portuguese but have lived in Denmark for quite a few years now, in Denmark I'm about as punctual as everyone else around here (which is mostly punctual, not as much as Germans though, who tend to show up before the agreed time) but when I'm visiting down south, I go back to the standard of showing up a little after the agreed time.
In other words: when in Rome do as the Romans do.
The exception to this is dinner parties, where people are much more punctual because they know you're planning the meal timeline.
Party timing is still something many of us struggle with as not every host does it the same. Some like the guests to arrive on time, others have adopted the more international habit of not expecting anybody during the first hour.
Having lived in both countries, I would say our Swiss neighbors are even more stringent regarding punctuality.
There is a relatively old Swiss movie that plays with them. Available only in French and German versions.
Trains are also late in Germany. A lot. I blame DB.
They come up with the silliest excuses too, like that one time were they claimed that the track bed had caught fire. I would have believed it if it wasn't -10°C in the dead winter while it snowed like crazy.
On the other hand I do have a punctuality tick, I have counted out the exact amount of time it takes to get to the train station and I wake up at 0600 with or without alarm clock, regardless of when I fell asleep. I also make sure that my clocks are set as exact as possible (I used to run a GPS powered NTP server just for my devices).
Here in Chicago, the tracks are intentionally lit on fire in the winter (so they don't develop an ice sheet, I think). Maybe the same thing, but whoever explained it was unfamiliar with the practice?
There is also a lot of different snow clearing vehicles that go around in the worst areas.
We do have trainbed fires during dry summers at times (like currently) but not winter, it was just some excuse for lack of trains or otherwise produced delays.
You invite 20 people over for a BBQ at 2pm. Here's possible conversations I can envision in America:
"Thanks for the invite! I actually have a haircut appointment at 2, but I'll come right after"
or
"Thanks for the invite, but I have a a haircut appointment at 2..." "what? No worries! Come join whenever you can; we want to see you!" "Great. I will thanks!"
So how would it go in Germany?
"Sorry, I am busy and can't make it"
Because of this, I would say it's even more important to schedule things sufficiently ahead of time. Making up plans only 2 or 3 days in advance, when weekend plans are mostly settled and they can't properly schedule around your event, will just stress people out.
1. the first one can occur, if they can't be on time they will ask if they can arrive later and as the host you get to decide whether they should still come or not, either way the guest will arrive on the pre-determined time
2. if the start time is flexible, this is stated clearly as part of the invitation e.g. you invite people for a bbq "starting around" 2PM (rather than at 2PM) and make it clear that they can arrive and leave at any point in the afternoon, just that they should not arrive before 2PM
The haircut example would just mean you tell your friend in advance that you will arrive later.
I was then amused to see all the other (Danish) guests arrive within 2 minutes of each other.
I wouldn't say it's an American thing. Any party that's starting at 10PM isn't gonna get a good crowd till 12-1AM in Europe as well. Cause you don't want to show up when there are barely any people and have to awkwardly dance to the music in an empty place.
The majority of America just doesn't care about appearance in this way.
We have relatives who usually leave their home at the declared start-time (so they're at best half an hour late, usually an hour or two), they're by far the most disliked members of my extended family for this an other reasons. Arriving late is disrespectful of both host and other guests, and is emblematic of and perfectly in line with their character.
When I was in California a few years ago I showed up to a party a few minutes before the invite time. Not only was I the only guest there for the first ~30 minutes, but the host clearly wasn't expecting anyone to show up at the given time.
When I'd ask why they were late, it was the same reason each time. "Oh, we were watching a movie." A typical movie is 90 minutes long, so they would've been putting it on just around the time the party started.
In general though, everyone was a good 20-30 minutes late, but a few people and myself would show up early to help the host prepare last minute food/drinks.
I've heard of "fashionably late", never anything about "early".
IME early bird gets all the good nachos. And you can leave earlier.
I prefer too ease into these events by starting early and with a small group instead of making an entrance to a full room.
In some cultures appearing a busy person can be important. Showing early to a party could send the message you had nothing to do before. Not that i like or do that, but some people could pay attention to such details.
Also if you're first, be ready to help set up!
In the US and most of the West, it's expected to be okay to be around one hour late for big house parties. However, Americans wouldn't normally be late for job interviews or other important events in a set time, which is completely normal in Latin America.
Nope. Sorry, but you are completely wrong. If you are late in job interviews for instance, you will probably not grant the job, if its in bussiness meetings, it will hurt your credentials in the company and it can even lead one to be fired.
Bussiness mentality is different than party mentality. Other things you must have to take into account is local culture. Rio is more laidback, while Sao Paulo is much, much less because it has more of a bussiness culture. (And i bet its the same in the US between different cities).
Thats one of the reasons why i try to teach some people, that for some contexts, thinking in terms of 'Latin America' its just wrong and too broad of a generalization.
You cant hardly generalize the whole of Brazil, and doing so in terms of Latin America is even worse.
But if you expect people to show up 30 mins. late structurally, why not just give a time 30 minutes later and have them be on time ?
All this does is cause unnecessary ambiguity.
A month later, we were dating. A couple years later, we married.
Sometimes being too early is good. :-)
The goal is to realize and understand the differences so that you can anticipate and cope despite culture gaps.
I've read it myself, had two coworkers read it, and have recommended it to numerous other people who work in multicultural contexts and everyone has found it useful and insightful. It really recalibrated my personal way of looking at the world and people from other cultures.
Besides this is only for social appointments. Try to arrive a couple hours late for a meeting and you'll find yourself talking to your boss aboit how this article misled you
They have a word for it too: jam karet, or "rubber time".
I have a profound respect for other people's time and demand the same respect for mine. This is not uncommon in Sao Paulo city.
Wait but that's not just being "oh look how cool and laid-back we are here", that's just lying. He's not caught in unexpected traffic, he's just running late.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems objectively worse than agreeing to a time and then being there. With this system, you agree to a time and then have to know unspoken rules. Why not just speak the rules? Because then we're back to the "not so relaxed" actual time. But unspoken rules will always catch some people by surprise, either because they are not from the region, their family has different practices, whatever, but it will mess things up sooner or later. I can't imagine hospitals, courts, or other vital components of society are happy with the attitude, either, and while it says that people try to be on time for business meetings (I assume one's surgery would fall in the same category), I imagine that some of the attitude still shows and things are less efficient because of it. I wonder if this system will still hold up when the country develops further.
It's just a polite way to say you're running late. Nobody cares whether it's actually the traffic or not. It's like saying to someone "you look nice in this shirt" when they don't.
Not sure if that's just a Dutch thing, but I would care as to why someone is late. There isn't an accident on the same road every day, so traffic can be a legit reason to be late; having forgotten to set an alarm clock, however, is totally someone's own fault (under normal circumstances, of course).
It's similar in southern European countries, although to a lesser extent, so it's very likely it'll remain.
You have to tweak it a bit for different situations (for example, a meeting, is about -15, a conference call, -10, but an after work event is roughly -30 to -60, but works well.
In Los Angeles it's also about -30 to -60 due to traffic, fire or both.
Unless you have found yourself working with a very peculiar group of people, you are being duped or just exaggerating to the point of being outright wrong.
It is absolutely not a custom anywhere in Brazil, not even in Rio, to be late (_at all_) for professional appointments.
_Especially_ systematically late that a "system" like that is put in place (and supposedly works). To be blunt, the idea that you could correct such behavior from professional adults by duping them with altered schedules is even childish.
If this is indeed the case, please post the name of the company so we can blacklist everyone that works in that office
My observation, being born and having lived in Brazil for my whole life, is that there's a power/authority/seniority dynamic involved, too: If you have a meeting with a customer, you should be on time, but it's okay for them to be late. When meeting with your boss, they'll probably be late, but you probably shouldn't be. Internal meetings within the company usually start later than meetings with other companies. Once you know people professionally for a longer time, you'll also be more comfortable arriving later.
My Mexican friend traveled a lot here for work to meet with various executives. These executives would be the ones who set the time.
She'd drive four hours and arrive at their office for a 8am 1-on-1 meeting and be directed to a sofa outside their room. She told me often 30+ minutes would pass and the guy would be in there twiddling on his smartphone, she could see him right through the blinds.
It was like some proof of time-burn to remind you that they had the power.
I live in Minas Gerais, where things are not this bad, but last month we gave a party for my daughter's birthday. All the invitations were sent with a 30 minute offset from the real start time as agreed with the caterer because we knew everyone would be late, and it turned out fine.
All my professional meetings start at least 15 minutes late, and it enrages me to no end! Yes, it is really that bad!
>To be blunt, the idea that you could correct such behavior from professional adults by duping them with altered schedules is even childish.
I tell you, it's real...
However, the comment that I want to make relates more to how South Africans are often late and why the reasons are different to Brazillians.
In South African English there exists a word "now now". This was adopted from Afrikaans, which is largely based on Dutch. The existence of this word is probably due to something that is true of the larger continent and relates to African time. In my words: time does not pass uniformly, rather it passes with events, such as rain, sunset or the latest regime change.
In any case, what "now now" means is either: in a short while, in a (not so short) while, now; or even, a short while ago. The English, as usual, only had one part of the story. In fact, in the original Afrikaans, there exists multiple variations of this term that all have closely related meanings: "net-nou", "nou-nou", "net-net" and "nou-net".
A shrewd observer would notice that we covered all four combinations diligently. The first two terms are almost identical in meaning and correspond loosely to "now now", the second means "by a small margin" and the last refers to "a short while ago" (thankfully, it is always in the past). Moreover, when used in isolation, "nou" can either mean "right now" or "in a (short) while", although you can expect a long wait if someone says that to you.
Would "net-nou" or "nou-nou" make any sense in Dutch?
So too does this [2] article, although "nou-nou" certainly is sometimes used to refer to the past tense. I personally use "net-nou" to especially to refer to the future tense, so I am not sure whether the article's comments are historically more correct (i.e. that "nou-nou" should be future and "net-nou" should be past tense).
What I can say is that, in context, the words do seem to have different emotional value.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_diaspora_in_Africa#Lan... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_African_slang_wo...
What's the quote?
' Richard Feynman on Brazil:
1. “That evening I went for a walk in town, and came upon a small crowd of people standing around a great big rectangular hole in the road—it had been “dug for sewer pipes, or something—and there, sitting exactly in the hole, was a car. It was marvelous: it fitted absolutely perfectly, with its roof level with the road. The workmen hadn’t bothered to put up any signs at the end of the day, and the guy had simply driven into it. I noticed a difference: When we’d dig a hole, there’d be all kinds of detour signs and flashing lights to protect us. There, they dig the hole, and when they’re finished for the day, they just leave.” '
One characteristic of the latter is, they can't say "no" to anyone. Generally they get late because someone else asked them a favor or to do something "urgent". This trait affects them in many other areas of life as well: overpromising, overcommitting, etc.
I see a contradiction here.
It became a problem with meeting rooms being booked but empty so you would use and then get kicked out 20min past the booked time as the people turned up. The company eventually brought a rule if you were not in a room within 15min of the booking start time you lost it to avoid this problem.
I think some people in this enviroment would play to it as 'I'm so busy & important' but I always felt it was such a economic cost to the company having a bunch of people sitting there making small talk while someone was delayed.
I guess some stereotypes on Germans are true after all...
"Hey you are X mins late. This is Germany man!"
I thought it was a bit too expositional IMHO.
And of course this was set in a sex shop.
Arriving within the first hour of a party start time means you are volunteering to prepare food, make a fire and move chairs. Never go hungry to a braai (barbecue) as lunch will be eaten at 6pm and dinner around midnight!
To me it seems the reason Brazilians (and others, for example, Greeks, Indians, Italians etc) are not very punctual is the weather conditions.
The weather conditions, which are more relaxed in these countries, have allowed people to form a culture where they can be more relaxed in their social life.
On the other hand, in places where weather conditions are more difficult to tackle, for example colder, being punctual, being direct etc saves all the involved parties a lot of effort in communication and co-operation.
We are also less strict on leaving time, compared with Germany, or UK.
The many excuses as lack of reliable transportation does not really apply because I see the same behavior when Brazilians are in countries that have said infrastructure.
To be on time is a developed skill and as I Brazilian myself I surely had to develop that skill late in life. However being on time among Brazilians costed me dearly. I had many problems, fights, and arguments because I expect some degree of punctuality of others Brazilians. I have countless personal accounts of that. For someone not used to it, let me quantify it: I'm talking lateness from 30 minutes to 4 hours.
The root cause is that lateness is highly tolerated in Brazil, and is inherently contagious. If someone is always 10 minutes late to an appointment, someone else, who values their own time, will be not less than 10 minutes late. Next one will be not less than that, incrementally, each more late than the other. The more people, the worst, and we are more than 200 millions.
For people who think that being late is not a big deal, imagine being 10 minutes late for a meeting with 6 other people. That's 6 times 10 minutes, 60 minutes of people's time waiting you. Wasted time. Then there is the time lost due context switching, pinging you to see where you are, and being late to other appointments. It's disrespectful and selfish to be late. You are showing that you care only about yourself and not about other people's time.
Yes, I know that anyone can be late, but please without false symmetries. It's an endemic problem among Brazilians and we need to fix it. Please, if you know you have this problem, stop making excuses and do something about it. Buy a watch, use Google Calendar, it's not even that hard.
So the measuerment of being reliable is the stress factor in the city? How sad.
I really like reliability .. to lower stress. And hurry only, if needed, not as default.
Within our first few weeks, we made plans to meet with some of our new German friends at 9 o'clock. By 9:10 both of our phones were flooded with messages asking where we were. We of course had not even left our houses yet.
The differences in culture when it comes to social settings and punctuality are very real.
It was a bit mind boggling to me since I was used to the behavior in Sao Paulo where delays were possible but usually not common and no shows were rare.
Amusingly, a lot of these terms seem to have their origin in people who were really annoyed by the phenomena.
Certainly seems like that to me. I've arrived at wedding functions at the exact time mentioned in the invite and even the hosts weren't present. I had to wait 30 min for them to show up.
Ive grown to like it! Your never in a rush, don't have to worry too much about unforeseen traffic. You can arrive late to meetings that tend to drag but can start without you.
Maybe we take timeliness too seriously.
I appreciate it when people arrive 15-45min after the party start time.
First of all, the author makes the (very common and disconcerting) mistake of thinking cariocas represent Brazilians in general. Cariocas have their own way of life and it's very unfortunate for our image that they are the ones most foreigners think of when they think of the stereotypical Brazilian (there isn't one).
I can't speak for the whole continental-sized country or the whole of its 200+ million population but in the south it's definitely not rude to be on time. It might not be the norm but it's absolutely acceptable. I usually try to be 10-30 minutes later than scheduled but mostly because I'm slightly socially awkward and don't like to be the first one in.
On the other hand, a few months ago I went to my (British) friend's party in London. I was a bit distressed as I was about 45 minutes late. When I rang the bell I was greeted by my friend with a warm welcome and the news that I was the first guest in.
BBC can take their preconceptions and stereotypes elsewhere. Or at least make it clear in the title that they're talking about a VERY SMALL percentage of the population of the country.
I honestly do not give a shit what time someone shows up to a social function as long as they say an accurate time.
If you want to meet at 8, then lets meet at 8, but if you say 8 and then don't show up til 9, what the hell.
Nevertheless, I grew up in Brazil but never agreed with lateness. I found not necessarily a sign of being sloppy but rather disrespectful with the others. However, I can understand why, specially in Rio where the public and private service can't deliver service with punctuality, it is impossible to manage time properly.
Another classic is "let's get together sometimes" (which means "dude, I totally don't hate you so let's be on each other's background social circle but never get together sometimes"). And its friendlier varient "come by my home sometimes to visit". (Don't go. It means they like you, but just don't show up unannounced).
Everyone is on about how São Paulo is much more businesslike than Rio (it is, but the ambiguous social norms of Rio don't bleed over the worlplace that much), but I think the main difference is how these cultures treat friendship.
In São Paulo friendship is very binary. People are strangers and sort of hostile by default, but once you make into their friend circle you might as well be family. Cariocas are friendly in a broad general fashion but have very very few true friends you can count on, visit unannounced, ask for help moving, etc.
This accounts for a lot of social customs re: parties and such. Cariocas are just more fluid.
https://x-culture.org/peach-vs-coconut-cultures/
Seems like cariocas are peach and paulistas (people from São Paulo) are coconut.
It's interesting that they would characterize Americans (at least those of an "international" style that study abroad or socialize with Brazilians) as peaches, though. My first impression with an American is typically "this is a very very honest person that will hold me to a high standard".
This is maybe where the coconuts/peaches idea breaks: you can be someone who is "open" in the sense of having a Bayesian prior that people are generally good; but also be very quick to change their minds (unforgiving) and very literal (which is a kind of reactionary take on the ambiguity of superficial relationships).
So the spectrum I want to draw is more like ambivalence-judgementalness. (I want to keep ranting about Joao Gilberto vs. Chet Baker as jazz-pop singers and how one uses dissonant x/9/11/13 chords as a way to open up interpretation on the underlying basic harmonic structure while the other uses the same extended chord-color palette to create smoother but definite harmonic structures.)
Maybe this has to do with not wanting to arrive at a party that's still empty.
Where I was raised, "Estou chegando" (I'm arriving) means exactly that. Arriving late is kind of expected in parties/bbqs but not at work, meetings, appointments etc.
As for Rio culture, no idea since I've never been there.
Host a feijoada in Rio and you can be sure all your friends will be there on time for the meal.
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is part of the cause is also that Brazilians are more “in the moment” with whoever they are currently with. It’s ok (expected) that you may be late for a future meeting because you never want to be rude or short with the people that you’re currently with.
This is also why many non-Brazilian politicians are perpetually late.
Being honest about it sets people’s expectations better. And you have to tolerate it from others as well.
It also correlates with higher creativity and success:
In London, I know very few parties that would really get started less than an hour after the publicised start time.
What?
Can someone inform our train drivers of this please?
One thing that struck me about Brazil compared to the U.S. is the huge number of people standing around doing nothing. You will never see that in the U.S.: if someone is loitering here, they are a teenager or homeless. But it was huge in Brazil. I am assuming this is because of the extreme unemployment and lack of opportunity.
Unfortunately, seeing so much despondency is likely to affect everyone in the society. You tend to change your outlook on things. I have heard there is an "everyone does it" attitude with regard to paying bribes, stealing services like electricity, etc. This also drags down society.
My wife is Brazilian and she is a very timely person, living in the U.S. Partly due to acculturation but also because of the "I wasn't born here but got here as fast as I could" effect.
Screw this subtle racism.
Being someone who was born in a country with far from ideal stereotypes is not fun, specially those related to work ethic which are potentially harmful should you want to make a career abroad.
This is a lie.
But you to keep in mind that generalizations about the cultural influence on certain behaviours say nothing about the individual and not even a group of indivuals. There are probably a lot of punctual, hard working brazilians in rio de jainero. I think that's the line that racist ideas like to cross.
TLDR: I like the piece, but I struggle with the title.
So if you book your appointment early in the day, you're good to arrive on time. But if you book in the afternoon, you'll be doomed with 2 hour+ waiting time.
Not all countries. I got last slot recently...knew he's 15mins behind so went for a stroll. Showed up 5 late and got flak for being late (he caught up in last session so was back on track)
The few countries where people did not give a shit were Italy and Brazil, with Italy being the worst. When they mean noon, they really mean late after noon.
Racism would mean there are races in humankind, which is mostly found to be untrue.