Blog

About women harassment

It seems like I have to spell this out to you. So here we go.

Women street harassment is a thing. Women go out on the streets and they get harassed. I am sure no one will challenge this statement, right? Now, what most people (mostly men) don’t know is that harassment is not only rape, or calling someone names, or inappropriate touching. No no no… Harassment can come in several different flavors, sometimes even unintentionally. And this is the hard part because, since the harasser has nothing but good intentions, and did nothing wrong explicitly, you will be the feminist bitch to bring it up and be mad about it. Well, I am not a feminist bitch, I will just be honest because some things have got to stop.

Men think that it is ok to approach women they don’t know, talk, flirt and, if she seems receptive, ask them out. It sounds ok… if you are at a bar, or a party! But *not* if you are in the bus, or subway, or airplane, or hotel, or doctor’s office waiting room. You have no idea how annoying it is to realize that that person with whom you were having a perfectly harmless conversation has ulterior motives and was actually hitting on you. We start believing that people are never nice just for the sake of being nice, which means that, if you are nice back, you’d be receptive to his asking for your phone number in about 5 minutes. So what do we do? We stay serious, we don’t engage on any conversation, we look anywhere but other people’s faces. And it sucks, because suddenly you realize that you walk around with a constant angry face, you choose not to sit next to unknown guys, you pretend you don’t speak the language and hide the book you were reading, you don’t do *anything*, absolutely nothing!!, that can be a conversation starter (unfortunately we have to sneeze sometimes…). It is sad that all these self-preserving acts come naturally for most women. This means that, at one point or another, every one of us found ourselves in a weird situation with a guy, and it happened so often that the person who came to talk to you had an agenda, that we just stop listening, even to the poor people that have no agenda at all, and are actually just being nice.

So, men of the world, I am sure that you sometimes have the best of intentions. You’re both just sitting there doing nothing, so what’s the harm in talking? But before engaging, ask yourself this: if the person sitting next to you was another guy, would you ask him the time or comment on the weather? If the answer is no, it is better to keep your mouth shut.

Sobre corrupção

J√° que corrup√ß√£o √© o assunto do momento, eu acho que a gente devia come√ßar a esclarecer umas coisas. Eu andei lendo sobre o esquema da Petrobr√°s (a Folha tem um infogr√°fico explicativo muito did√°tico) e perguntando pra algumas pessoas que trabalham em empreiteiras pra saber direitinho como o esquema funciona. A gente tem que se informar, n√©? Tamb√©m li alguns estudos sobre corrup√ß√£o de acad√™micos da √°rea de gerenciamento e psicologia social [1]. Aqui v√£o minhas conclus√Ķes preliminares sobre o assunto.

Quando esses esc√Ęndalos de corrup√ß√£o ocorrem, a rea√ß√£o imediata das pessoas que est√£o “do lado de fora” √© de querer apontar os culpados, e puni-los por isso. A id√©ia por tr√°s disso √© que existe uma meia d√ļzia de pessoas mal intencionadas, gananciosas e mesquinhas que est√£o burlando o sistema para benef√≠cio pr√≥prio. Se livrar dessas pessoas, portanto, iria garantir que n√£o haver√° mais corrup√ß√£o. Muito pr√°tico, n√©? S√≥ que as coisas n√£o s√£o bem assim. Acho que a gente j√° est√° crescidinho o suficiente pra entender que n√£o tem dessa de pessoas boas e pessoas m√°s, vil√Ķes e mocinhos.

Atos corruptos n√£o s√£o cometidos por pessoas imorais ou com algum desvio de comportamento, mas por pessoas como eu e voc√™ (assumindo que voc√™ n√£o tem um desvio de comportamento…). Pessoas que v√£o colocar o filho de castigo se ele pegar alguma coisa do coleguinha da escola sem pedir, que v√£o achar um absurdo o prefeito daquela cidadezinha que desviou dinheiro pra comprar uma fazenda e que n√£o v√£o sair de um restaurante sem pagar. Ent√£o o que leva uma pessoa que tem bons valores morais a cometer atos de corrup√ß√£o? Pra mim, esse √© o cerne da quest√£o. Se entendermos direitinho como as pessoas s√£o levadas a cometer atos il√≠citos, temos uma chance de resolver o problema antes dele come√ßar, de prevenir ao inv√©s de remediar. N√≥s sabemos algumas coisinhas sobre isso j√°, felizmente.

A primeira coisa que devemos ter em mente √© o contexto. As pessoas tomam decis√Ķes em um determinado momento, com uma quantidade finita de informa√ß√£o e muitas vezes sob press√£o para atingir um objetivo imediato. As decis√Ķes s√£o tomadas sem muita reflex√£o, sem tempo para analisar a situa√ß√£o como um todo, o que torna tudo muito mais dif√≠cil. Naquele momento crucial de decidir se pagamos a propina ou n√£o, se contamos com uma venda ainda n√£o consolidada ou n√£o, se falamos pro cliente que aquela a√ß√£o vai absolutamente subir ou n√£o, pensamos numa escala pequena. Se n√£o quebrarmos “um pouquinho” a regra, talvez ficaremos sem emprego, talvez muitas pessoas ficar√£o sem emprego, talvez a empresa n√£o vai cumprir a meta… nesse momento, dadas as consequ√™ncias, quebrar “um pouquinho” a regra √© um mal necess√°rio. Mesmo que, no fundo, no fundo, voc√™ saiba que est√° fazendo algo ilegal. A gente tem uma coisa que chama auto-preserva√ß√£o psicol√≥gica, que protege o nosso ego e que nem sempre √© muito boa. Ela √© respon√°vel pela racionaliza√ß√£o de atos il√≠citos, aquele pensamento de que “foi a coisa certa a se fazer no momento”.

Podemos fazer um exerc√≠cio pra ver como isso tudo funciona. Vamos usar o esquema da Petrobr√°s que todo mundo j√° sabe direitinho como funciona a essa altura. Vamos nos colocar no lugar de cada uma das pessoas e ver como elas podem ter racionalizado suas a√ß√Ķes [2]:

– Jos√©, diretor da Petrobr√°s. Jos√© foi indicado pelo partido X para ser o novo diretor da Petrobr√°s. No momento da indica√ß√£o, ele ficou muito feliz e orgulhoso do bom trabalho que fez durante sua carreira para merecer uma diretoria t√£o importante. Ele comemorou com um churrasco com sua fam√≠lia e amigos do partido X. Ele foi alertado que ter√° que seguir “sugest√Ķes” do partido X de vez em quando, mas ele confia que seus amigos s√£o profissionais competentes e v√£o indicar boas empresas. Al√©m do mais, √© uma maneira de conseguir verba pro pr√≥prio partido que o ajudou a conseguir essa posi√ß√£o importante. Se n√£o for assim, a empresa nunca vai doar tanto dinheiro pra um partido, porque elas s√£o gananciosas e m√°s. E partidos precisam de dinheiro para campanhas. Jos√© pensa estar ajudando a todos.

РCarlos, amigo de José do partido X. Carlos apoiou a indicação de José pra diretoria da Petrobrás porque José é uma pessoa de confiança e competente. Carlos se preocupa em conseguir verba pro seu partido para eleger mais pessoas e aprovar projetos que ele concorda que serão bons pra sociedade. Como as empresas não vão doar tanto dinheiro pra campanhas políticas, Carlos pode usar a influência de José na contratação para obras na Petrobrás e forçar um pouquinho esse pagamento. Tudo pro bem da sociedade. O dinheiro não fará falta pras empresas.

– Eduardo, dono da empresa Y. Eduardo abriu sua empresa ainda jovem, e est√° orgulhoso de como ela cresceu. Decide entrar finalmente na concorr√™ncia pra uma obra importante com a Petrobr√°s. Durante uma reuni√£o, uma propina √© sutilmente sugerida e Eduardo acha um absurdo, a princ√≠pio. Depois de algumas licita√ß√Ķes perdidas, ele percebe que se n√£o pagar a propina como todas as outras empresas t√™m feito, nunca conseguir√° obras importantes. Um contrato com a Petrobr√°s √© realmente algo grande pra se ter no portif√≥lio da sua empresa. Eduardo faz as contas e v√™ que valer√° a pena pagar a propina nesse momento e que esse contrato pode abrir portas pra sua empresa. Eduardo entra no esquema.

Olhando assim, de pertinho, não parece que eles estão fazendo algo de muito errado. Olhando de longe, como estamos vendo nas notícias, tudo é um grande absurdo, uma roubalheira, imoral, e todos esses adjetivos. A lição que tiramos disso é que atos errados não parecem tão errados num nível micro. Se cada uma dessas pessoas tivesse uma noção do tamanho do esquema pro qual estão contribuindo, como estamos vendo hoje nas notícias, talvez tomariam uma decisão diferente. Mas elas não tem. Nem eu e nem você, se estivéssemos no lugar

Claro que meus personagens fict√≠cios s√£o s√≥ os personagens principais. Mas um esquema desse tamanho n√£o se faz com uma pessoa em uma empresa ou institui√ß√£o. √Č necess√°rio haver o apoio, ou pelo menos consentimento, de muitos e muitos outros. O que leva √† segunda coisa que sabemos sobre comportamento humano: comportamento de grupo e obedi√™ncia. Se voc√™ √© uma pessoa dentro de uma institui√ß√£o, e percebe que algo de errado est√° sendo feito, voc√™ tem duas op√ß√Ķes: aponta o erro e arrisca perder seu emprego ou fica calado e v√™ se algu√©m vai falar alguma coisa. Como a maioria das pessoas escolhe a segunda op√ß√£o, o sil√™ncio coletivo te faz pensar que talvez a coisa n√£o seja t√£o errada assim. E tudo passa a ser ok e voc√™ pensa “bom, ent√£o √© assim que as coisas funcionam por aqui, tudo bem”. E se tudo que voc√™ tem que fazer √© assinar um papel ou jogar uns n√ļmeros numa planilha ou fazer uma transfer√™ncia banc√°ria, a sua sensa√ß√£o de responsabilidade em um esquema de corrup√ß√£o √© perto de zero. Afinal de contas, voc√™ est√° apenas seguindo ordens. Na verdade, eu acho que a maioria de pessoas num esquema de corrup√ß√£o, sen√£o todas, n√£o pensam conscientemente que est√£o sendo corruptas ou fazendo algo errado (o que n√£o impede que elas paguem pelos seus atos, claro).

E a√≠? Como fazer pra prevenir essa situa√ß√£o? Ficou dif√≠cil agora n√©? Pois √©…
Com certeza existem pessoas trabalhando em coisas que podem ser aplicadas a essas situa√ß√Ķes. A gente tem que prestar aten√ß√£o, se informar, e juntar os dois mundos da teoria e da pr√°tica pra uma solu√ß√£o de verdade.

[1] A prop√≥sito, muito pouca coisa dispon√≠vel online… N√£o sei se √© por causa de direitos autorais ou se realmente existem poucos estudos sobre o assunto.

[2] A situação descrita é altamente hipotética e serve simplesmente como um exemplo exagerado para fins didáticos.

About corruption

Since corruption seems to be the hip topic, I thought it would be good to clarify a few things. I have been reading about the Petrobras scandal (Folha, a Brazilian newspaper, has a nice info-graphic about it, in Portuguese, sorry…) and asking a few people I know who work in companies to find out exactly how these schemes come about. We must inform ourselves, right? I also read a few papers about corruption from management and psychology academics [1]. Here’s my two cents on the subject.

When corruptions scandals erupt, “outside” people’s immediate reaction is to point the guilty ones, and punish them for that. The underlying idea is that there exists half a dozen of “bad apples”, who are greedy and evil and who cheat the system for their own benefit. Getting rid of these people would guarantee the end of corruption. Practical, right? But wrong. We are all grown ups, and we know very well that there is no such thing as the good guy and the bad guy.

Corrupt actions are not committed by immoral or unethical people, but by people like me and you (assuming you have a sense of moral and ethics…). People who will ground their kids for taking materials from school, that will be outraged by politicians’ money laundering and who will always pay their bills. So how come otherwise moral people end up so corrupt? For me this is the ultimate question. If we understand how people are led to commit illegal acts, we have a chance of solving the problem before it starts, preventing instead of treating. Fortunately, we know already a thing or two about that.

The first thing we should keep in mind is that it is all about context. At the point of the decision making, people have limited information and are usually under pressure to solve an immediate problem. Decisions are made without a lot of reflection, with no time to analyse the situation as a whole, which makes the matter that much harder. At that moment when we need to decide whether to bribe or not, to count with that sales or not, to sell a bad product to a client or not, we think small. If we don’t bend the rules just a little bit, maybe we’ll be without a job, maybe many people will be without jobs, maybe the company will not reach its goal… at that moment, given the consequences, bending the rules is a necessary evil. Even if, deep deep down, you know this is something illegal. We have a thing called psychological self-preservation that does wonders for that and protects our egos. It is responsible for our rationalization, at the time of the decision making and afterwards, that we made the right choice given the conditions.

We can try an exercise to see how this works. Let’s use the Petrobras scheme since it is in vogue. Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of each player and think how they could have rationalized their actions [2]:

– Jose, Petrobras director. Jose was nominated by party X to be the new director of Petrobras. He was very happy and proud of himself and all his hard work that led him to be trusted with such an important position. He celebrated in a barbecue with his family and friends from party X. His friends warned him that he should follow some “suggestions” every now and then, but Jose trusts his friends and he knows they will suggest good companies for the job. On top of that, it’s a way for Jose to pay back to the party who nominated him, helping them get money for campaigns. If it weren’t like this, the companies would never give so much for electoral campaigns because they are greedy and evil. And political parties need the money. Jose is only helping.

– Carlos, friend of Jose and member of party X. Carlos supported the nomination of Jose for Petrobras’ board of directors because the former trusts the latter. Carlos is worried about getting funding for campaigns so that his party has more representatives in the government and can approve more laws which he deems are good for the people. Since companies do not donate a lot for electoral campaigns, he can use the influence of Jose when hiring them for Petrobras’ jobs to give it a little push. All for the good of society. The companies can surely afford it.

– Eduardo, owner of company Y. Eduardo opened his own company as a young entrepreneur and is very proud of how it has been growing. He decides to enter the competition to win a contract with Petrobras. During a meeting, there is a subtle mention of a bribe to get the contract and Eduardo is outraged at first. After losing all the contracts in a few years, he realises that the only way of getting in is accepting the bribe. A Petrobras contract is really something to have on your company’s portfolio. Eduardo does the math and see it will be worth it. Eduardo is in.

Looking so closely, it does not seem they are doing anything wrong. Looking from far, as we see today on the news, it is outrageous, unethical, immoral, and all the proper adjectives. What we learn from this is that wrong-doings might not look so wrong from up-close. If any of these people had an idea of the size of the scheme, as we are seeing it today, maybe they would make a different choice. But they didn’t. And neither would have me or you, if we were in their shoes.

Of course that my fictional characters are just the protagonists of the whole story. A scheme such as that does not maintain itself with only a handful of people in an organization. Many others must support, or at least consent with, the whole thing. This leads to the second thing we know about human behaviour: group loyalty and obedience. If you are a person inside an institution and you realise there is something wrong going on, you have basically two choices: speak up and risk your job or stay quiet and hope someone else will say something. Since most people choose the second option, the collective silence makes you think that  maybe it was not so wrong to begin with. Everything becomes ok and you just think “well, that’s how things are done around here then, very well”. And if all you have to do is sign a paper, put some numbers on a spreadsheet or transfer some money, your sense of responsibility in a great corruption scheme is minimal. After all, you are only following orders. Actually, my guess is that most people in those schemes, if not all, are not conscious of the fact that they are corrupt or doing something wrong (which should not keep them from being punished, or course).

Well… how to prevent this? The problem is much harder now, right? Yeah…
I am sure there are people working on things which could be applied to this situation. We need to pay attention, inform ourselves, and bring the worlds of theory and practice together for a solution.

[1] By the way, not many things available online… I don’t know if it is because of copyright issues or if there are not many studies about corruption.

[2] The described situation is highly hypothetical and serves the purpose of being an exaggerated example for making a point.

Invertibility and permutability

Everyone I have asked so far seem to agree that if a rule in a sequent calculus system permutes down all the other rules of this system, than this rule is invertible, and vice versa. But when I ask for a proof of that, no one knows about it. Is it folklore? Is it so obvious that I cannot see it?

I started writing about this invertibility issue here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1cby7a3qgraiyyd/invertibility.pdf?dl=0 [1]

If any one out there has more information or ideas, I’d be happy to be informed.

[1] Thanks to Elaine Pimentel, who read and commented on the first draft, and with whom I’ve had many insightful discussions, and to Arnold Beckmann for having pointed out the induction proof of invertibility (and to Norbert Preinning for a lovely workshop).

Observação

Observar faz bem. Escutar, refletir, pensar. Artes perdidas nesse nosso tempo de conectividade e posts e compartilhamentos. Falar ficou muito fácil, dizer qualquer coisa que está na sua cabeça, mostrar fotos, anunciar onde está ou o que está fazendo. No meio desse caos, ninguém pára pra observar mais. Filosofia é uma arte perdida, até para os filósofos.

√Č uma pena. Um pouco mais de reflex√£o e discuss√Ķes (relevantes) cair√≠a bem no mundo. Quando observamos, percebemos coisas certas, coisas erradas e o qu√£o subjetiva √© a distin√ß√£o entre certo e errado. Entendemos outros pontos de vista e fica mais f√°cil encontrar um meio-termo. Mas para isso, √© preciso haver sil√™ncio. Sil√™ncio interior. E uma p√°gina em branco. Precisamos ser capazer de ver o mundo sem pr√©-concep√ß√Ķes. S√≥ assim as quest√Ķes relevantes s√£o perguntadas. E precisamos escutar as respostas, e refletir. Mas n√£o h√° mais tempo para perguntar, escutar, refletir. S√≥ h√° tempo para falar, gritar, compartilhar.

Uma discuss√£o na qual todas as partes est√£o escutando √© bastante frut√≠fera. N√£o concordamos sempre (nem ao in√≠cio, nem ao final), mas aprendemos bastante, e √© isso que importa. As pessoas n√£o devem discutir para convencer os outros da sua opini√£o, mas para aprender sobre as outras opini√Ķes. Tentar resolver problemas juntos, apesar das discord√Ęncias. Hoje todos parecem muito preocupados em se imp√īr. Voc√™ *precisa* ter uma opini√£o formada, voc√™ *precisa* rebater os outros argumentos contra, voc√™ *precisa* dizer aos outros em que lado voc√™ est√°. Isso virou sin√īnimo de intelig√™ncia.

Quando estamos t√£o anciosos para falar, n√£o estamos escutando. Se n√£o escutamos, n√£o aprendemos e n√£o evolu√≠mos. E estamos precisando tanto de uma evolu√ß√£o…

Escutar é inteligente, refletir é inteligente, perceber que não podemos ter uma opinião bem fundamentada sobre tudo é inteligente. Ou talvez eu deveria dizer sábio.

An observation

Observing is good. Listening, reflecting, thinking. Lost arts in our time of connectivity and posts and shares. It is too easy to speak, blurt out anything on your mind, upload pictures, announce your position or current activity. In the midst of the mess, no one takes their time to observe any more. Philosophy is a lost art, even for philosophers.

It is a shame. The world could use a little bit more reflections and (fruitful)
discussions. When observing we see right things, wrong things and the blurry line between right and wrong. We learn other points of view, it becomes easier to find a middle ground. But for that, there needs to be silence. Inner silence. And a blank page. We need to be able to see the world without preconceptions. Only then the relevant questions are asked. And we need to listen to the answers, and reflect on them. There is no time anymore. No time for asking, listening, reflecting. Only time for speaking, shouting, sharing.

A discussion where all parties involved are listening is very rewarding. We don’t always agree (neither on the beginning nor the end), but we learn a lot, and that is the important thing. People should not discuss to try to convince the others of your point of view, but to learn about the other side. To try and solve problems together, in spite of disagreeing opinions. Nowadays everyone is too worried about imposing themselves. You *need* to have an opinion, you *need* to refute quickly the other side, you *need* to let other people know your opinion. This is the new smart.

When people are so eager to talk, it means they are not listening. When we don’t listen, we don’t learn and don’t evolve. And we are so much in need of some evolution…

Listening is smart, reflecting is smart, realizing you cannot have a well-founded opinion for everything is smart. Or maybe I should say wise.