Weakness of the Light

The other day I was struck by a somewhat strange thought: everyday, and without realising or caring about it, we face situations which could be considered highly dangerous, in the sense that a small deviation from the common behaviour of others' could lead to our death.

Let me explain. Think about everytime we cross a street with a green light. We walk right in front of some cars, waiting patiently for their light to turn green again, and we don't even blink. That doesn't give us any adrenaline, it doesn't feel dangerous at all. But truth is, should one of the driver decide to use the accelerator we'd be hit by a vehicle weighting hundreds of Kg and moving at a few dozens of Km/h, more than enough to put us out for good. And even we happily walk by a police officier and greet him with a smile, we never consider that he could kill us in a split second by drawing his gun and taking a shot. When we take a plane, some of us fear it might crash to some malfunctioning or due to bad weather, but who among us have ever worried about the pilot simply deciding to crash it? Those of you who've seen the movie The Happening surely remember how easy it is for one to take his own life, if you're willing and have the guts for it. Now imagine how much easier it is to take someone else's life.

This behaviour is both needed and usually logic. It is needed because we can't live in a steady state of stress. I mean, we couldn't take an exam worrying about whether or not the person next to us will suddenly bring up his pen and stab us in the eye. It is (usually) logic for two distinct motives: those kind of things usually do not happen, and there is no apparent reason for others to behave that way. Let's not linger on the first, since it only has to do with the frequency of uncommon events. The second one is the key assumption behind our behaviour; when it fails, everything stops making sense. This is way modern society is so vulnerable to acts of terrorism, be it a plane crashing on a building or some crazy shooter in a public facility. It's not that we aren't prepared for them, it's that we cannot be prepared for them. Why? Let's discuss it in detail.

There are two mechanisms that supposably prevent others from harming us. First is human empathy, the fact that (in theory) no human being would want to harm another one just for the sake it. The second one is the law, in particular the punishment that comes to those who disrespect it. Now, the first mechanism can be overcome either by sadicism or some twisted perspective of purpose. Although we would not kill for money, some people would. And in fact they do, everyday. And while we see no point in the murder of thousand innocent bystanders through a terrorist attack some believe that a holy crusade is reason enough. And it should be noted that our ancestors also did think that way, a few centuries ago. The problem with the second is that it works a posteriori; the punishment only comes after the act. This means that, should the perpetrator believe that he can get away with it or find the benefits worth the punishment (thus acting like some kind of martyr) he will go through with it.

To exemplify our vulnerability, let's consider that, for some reason, we fear that someone might enter a hospital and stab the secretary, or a doctor. What can you do about it? Well, you can put some extra security at the entrance. But their purpose will solely to be to arrest anyone who actually draws a knife, and it's not likely they'll be able to do it before the assassin makes a kill. Their main purpose is to disuade, but that is not enough against those who don't care about the consequences of their acts. The solution? Perhaps strip-searching everyone who wants to come in, and shooting down those who don't co-operate. Obviously this is not feasible/desirable in a free country, and that's the point precisely. The bad guys will always have the upper hand, since they play by different rules: they are far more unconstrained.

It is interesting that this fact is well known and visited in children's or otherwise considered "simple" movies and stories. Think about a classic good vs evil, light vs darkness kind of stories. One recurrent aspect is that the evil gang is stronger due to the use of forbidden techniques, or playing dirty. In Star Wars, the Sith can use the Dark Side of the Force. In Harry Potter stories the dressed-in-black bad guys (I can't recall their name?) use forbidden magic. In various children stories the evil characters take advantage of the good ones' empathy and/or sense of honour, for example by taking hostages and making demands.

This is why some stories include an unconstrained yet good character, a light-bringer who uses everything at his disposal to fight the darkness. In order to drive way from children stories I'll give Jack Bauer from 24 as an example. These characters are often rogue fighters, misunderstood or despised by the ones they fight for due to their methods. And they should, otherwise we'd fall in the fight fire with fire problem. Hopefully one day we'll see a world where good no longer means weak.

Waste

With Christmas drawing near,we all spare a thought for those less fortunate than us. Although the reasons behind difference in income can be quite complex and diverseit is undeniable that the world would be a much better place, with far less misery, were we not to waste so much.

Not wanting to linger on this thought too deep or for too long let me just give one simple and concrete example. Every running competition I've been to supplies the runners with water every 5/10 Km, usually in bottles of 25 or 33cl. Thing is, the ammount is totally out of sync; I, for instance, only take 2 or 3 sips at a time, thus wasting around 15cl of water per bottle. To realize the impact of such a waste, take a look at the Lisbon Half-Marathon and do some simple math.There were 4 support set-points, which leads to 4 x 15 = 60cl of wasted water per athlete. It means that all the 7000 athletes running that day, together, led to a waste of 4200 liters of water, which for sure could have found better use.

Although certainly not the best example since it is not highly scalable (also certainly not the most striking one) it gives us a hint of the impact of some of the daily routines in our lifestyle. If you're still not convinced, just think about the ammount of (drinkable) water wasted during a shower, or while washing your teeth. Now multiply that by the number inhabitants in your city. Or in your country. Notice that by wasted I don't mean used, rather just the ammount that could have been saved by using a different method/procedure/technique. Point is, even if we are not able or willing to give up on our lifestyles there are some improvements which can be made in terms of efficiency, with huge impact when aggregated.

Indesejados

As sucessivas greves de metro obrigam muitos Lisboetas a procurar, ainda que temporariamente, alternativas de transporte para os seus locais de trabalho. No meu caso, e dado que nunca fui grande fã de autocarros, essa alternativa é a bicicleta. Seria de esperar que, após um tão grande investimento em ciclovias, os ciclistas se sentissem mais que à vontade a deambular pela cidade. Infelizmente tal (ainda não) acontece.

Na estrada somos, salvo o eufemismo, odiados. Não são raras as buzinadelas por "empatarmos" o trânsito e ainda menos os olhares desconfiados e furibundos, principalmente quando a nossa incapacidade para acelerar para 60Km/h quando o semáforo passa a amarelo leva a que algum automobilista tenha que esperar pelo próximo verde. Facilitar as mudanças de faixa é algo impensável, ainda para mais quando a maior parte dos condutores aparenta ignorar ou desprezar os sinais gestuais.

Tudo isto nos poderia levar a optar pelas passadeiras, mas também aí somos considerados um estorvo, desta feita pelos pedestres. E têm razão, já que de factor não pertencemos a esse lugar. Ainda assim poderia haver mais boa vontade quando não estamos, de todo a incomodar ninguém.

E chegamos assim, finalmente, à ciclovia: esse meio próprio a essa detestável criatura que é o ciclista. Mas até aí ele se sente um proscrito, já que a ciclovia se encontra repleta de pedestres a passear em todos os sentidos (directo, inverso) e direcções (longitudinal, perpendicular, aleatória), muitas vezes acompanhados do omnipresente carrinho de bébé. E não é que até aqui fazem má cara quando lhes passamos ao lado, tendo sido obrigados a abandonar a nossa gloriosa via porque não se quiseram dar ao trabalho de se desviar.

Por essas e por outras (eg: as 7 colinas) não me parece que Lisboa seja por enquanto uma cidade muito apetecível para os ciclistas. Mas talvez estejamos no bom caminho.


Filipe Baptista de Morais

42

42 is an interesting number, which can refer to many things: just google it or check it on wikipedia. Among other (more or less interesting) stuff, 42 Km is the length of a Marathon (actually it's a few meters short).

Being a long-distance runner is a tough hobby for one who's never run a full marathon. You can have a plethora of 10Km races and Half-Marathons in your "career". but when you tell someone about your hobby they'll undoubtly reply "Ah, so you run marathons?". The marathon has that distinct and powerful appeal; compared to it all other races seem child's play. No wonder after my explaining that I run not-so-long-distances people sighed disappointed bit "Oh....". Furthermore, when speaking about me, nobody would actually say I'm a long-distance runner. They'd simply say I run marathons, a lie I would later on have to undo. But not anymore.

For me, the marathon now had a much stronger importance: it was the only sports activity which had defeated me. Sure, I've lost plenty of football and tennis matches, but in that situation you lose to the other player/team and you can attribute it to their skills. It's totally different from giving up on a match, that I never did (actually I'm quite sure my account of saved match-points is much impressive than the % of matches won). And I'd never given up on an athletics competition either until (nor did I do it again afterwards) my first Marathon attempt in Faro, last October. It's a really sad situation, since you know the failure is yours and yours alone. It really hurts somewhere deep inside, leaving some ugly dent in your self-esteem. Until, that is, you prove yourself that you can overcome it.

Despite the importance this race had to me, I almost missed it. A huge workload from my studies prevented me from having the preparation I wanted (and needed) and a slight cold stuck me on the day before, making me wonder if it really was worth the try. I guess it was the bitter taste of defeat still lingering from last year's race that got me up to run this morning.

One of the things I really believe helped through this race was my Ipod, which I was not allowed to use the previous time. For that reason, I'll go through some of the songs I've listened to throughout the race, describing what I remember from when it was played. Since I was expecting a really long workout (my playlist had over 5h of music) I didn't really take the time to sort them; I just programmed the Ipod to play them randomly, with the exception of the first (chosen) and the powersong, which would only play when I ordered it.

Name of the Race: Lisbon-Marathon
Length: 42.195Km
Date: 9th December 2012 

Minimum goals: Finish It

Personal challenge: None
Best time in other races of same length: NA

Let's Get It Started (Black Eyed Peas) - Start. What could be more appropriate? The starting area was not that crowded (not as much as other competitions at least), mostly due to the fact that all the races taking part today had different time departures. Nicely done organization comitee! That allowed me to uneffortly keep track of my teammate Graça Roldão from "Os Tugas", our unofficial running team. Due to her large experience and good results in marathons I decided to try and stick with her for this one and we ended up crossing the finishing line together. Looking back, I'm not sure if I could've done if I were alone. But at this point the race was just starting, the Ipod kept shouting "and the base keeps running, running, and running, running..." and although I'm no base I did keep running. Determined, yet not confident.

Born To Run (Bruce Springsteen) ~ 5Km. Although the meaning of the song is totally different, I love listening to Born To Run when running. It's one of those songs that really seem to empower me; I started to set my fears aside and enjoying the race completely. Although we were still in the urban area of Lisbon, the city and its surroundings are quite beautiful making running in it a real pleasure. When though it's known as "city of the seven hills". Yes, obvious reasons.

Hearts On Fire (Cut Copy) ~ 10Km. Almost certainly the most repetitive song I like, it did its job without further ado. At this point we were descending quite a lot, which made me worry about the return. And with good reason as I came to learn. On the 10th kilometer mark the chronometer marked 50m32s.

Emerald Sword (Rhapsody Of Fire) ~15Km. Recommended by a friend of mine, I really came to like this song, among other of the same band. Certainly a nice tune for running.

Give It All (Rise Against) ~21Km. One of my favourite running songs, somewhat was ted so early in the race since I believe it could bring the back from the dead. Or from being lay down on the concrete. Not a good call auto-play, not at all. I crossed the Half-Marathon finishing line, this time without the naive thought of being halfway there. Every runner who's been through it knows the 21st Km is not the middle of the marathon, that lies somewhere close to the 30th maybe. The chronometer marked 1h45m, but I didn't let get over my head. I knew I still had a lot to overcome.

Cat People (David Bowie) ~25Km. Lovely song, also present in one of my favourite movies. It made me smile and, as you all know, sound mind leads to a sound body.

Through The Fire And Flames (DragonForce) ~28Km. One of the most powerful songs in  my collection, with strongly motivational lyrics. I couldn't help but remember the numerous times where I struggled with its notes in Guitar Hero. Still, its tempo is perhaps too fast for a Marathon; I had to resist the urge of speeding up my pace.

Startfire (DragonForce) - 30Km. I chose this moment to play my chosen powersong for the first time. A really unsual slow song by DragonForce (it starts with a beautiful sound of a piano with a cascade on background) it seemed appropriate to the slow pace I knew I would need to keep to finish the Marathon. The lyrics are motivation enough.

Points Of Authority (Linkin Park) ~35Km. "You can't run the race/ the pace is too fast/ you just won't last". What the hell? You're supposed to help Mr. Ipod... I cursed the random music player and skipped to the next song.


Startfire (DragonForce) - 37Km. Why oh why did our ancestor build our city on these accursed hills? We were finally going up the hill to the finish line, but my legs' cry for mercy made me reward them with the powerwong again. I didn't stop running though (the whole time). The chronometer marked 3h14m38s.

Best Of You (Foo Fighters) ~38Km. Yep, there were many people getting the best of me (I was barely moving). But I was also getting the best of lots of people (perhaps mostly the same people, as everyone kept accelerating/decelarating). The Portuguese minister of Education, Nuno Crato, once wrote a mathematical proof showing that, in a traffic jam with multiple lines, everyone spends more time being passed by other cars than passing by them. Perhaps the same could be applied in this situation.

Go For The Goal (Pop) ~40Km. Although I usually play the music in the beginning of a race, I must say it fits beautifully in the end as well. Five points for Ipod auto-play.

Minority (Green Day) ~ 40Km. True, I really did want to belong to the minority of people who've crossed that finish line.At this point my mind wasn't really capable of much more elaborated thinking, so there's not much to say.

Original Prankster (The Offspring) ~41Km. "You can do it". Indeed; after crossing the 41st Km mark I finally allowed myself to acknowledge I'd really finish it:  I'd crawl my way to the finish line if I had to.

I finally finished the race with the official time of 3h 52m 33s. It was an amazing experience, leading to a sort of cathartic feeling. I congratulate the organization both for the event itself (there were plenty of support areas with adequate drinks/food) and the souvenirs (2 T-shirts plus the medal). For now, I think I'll go back to running half-marathons (I've met my challenge), but I'll certainly go back to the "real deal" later on.


Filipe Baptista de Morais

Portuguese Sayings

There is a facebook group, going by the name "Portuguese Sayings", which is growing quite popular as of late. It is simply a collection of traditional Portuguese Sayings translated (close to literally) to English.

It is quite funny to see how most of them make no sense at all when not in their original language, leading us to wonder about their origins. Even for non-native Portuguese speakers some of them might be puzzling, such as (probably) Estou-me nas tintas / I'm on the inks, which means that we don't really care (at all).
Through sharing part of this "knowledge" I came to know that some sayings we Portuguese believe to be National are in fact used in other countries as well. For instance I've learned that Don't check the tooth of a given horse is actually also said in Czech. It's always interesting to find things that can be so amusing and culturally interesting at the same time.


Filipe Baptista de Morais

Irrational

Last Summer I had the privilege of reading, among other masterpieces, Thinking, Fast and Slow. The authoer, Daniel Kahneman, is a psychologist who was awarded the Nobel prize in Economics over his work around the psychology of judgement and decision making.

The book compiles a huge list of behavioural and decision biases, illustrating their effect through conducted experiments. These include, but are not limited to, the (amazing) anchoring effect, availability heuristic, base rate neglect, confirmation bias, decoy effect, duration neglect, expectation bias, framing effect, gambler's fallacy, illusion of control, insentivity to sample size, irrational escalation, just-world hypothesis, less-is-better effect, loss aversion, negativity bias, normalcy bias, omission bias (what we see is what we believe), optimistm bias, outcome bias, zero-risk bias. While it would take way too much time and paper (yes I still use it) to go through all of them here I urge you to look them up or, even better, read the book! Of course you can also just ask me, and settle for an ignorant's response.

The author tries to find a raison d'étre for these odd behaviours, ending up with the theory of the 2 systems. Basically he believes we're equipped with two different thinking mechanisms (without trying to make any physical/biological association). The first one is fast, emotional and hugely biased and heuristic based, thus irrational. The second is rational, though slow, and it's basicly how we think of ourselves in terms of reasoning. Unfortunately we're wrong, terribly wrong. Seems like system 1 is the one pulling the string as default, and system 2 is only called upon through conscious and effortful focusing. The conclusion is simples: we're not rational.

That statement, although seemingly inoquous and theoretical, has a huge practical impact in many different areas. Enough to be acknowledged with a Nobel prize in Economics. The reason is trivial: the entire Economy system is based on the premise that we are (or at least resemble greatly) rational agents. The same happens in other important areas, such as the political systems. When you drop that single premise it's as if we're solving a Maths problem with the wrong equations. The numbers add up, but the solution doesn't hold. And that really is a problem; we're agents alright, but hardly rational. After reading this book, I'm inclined to think that Dilbert (from The Dilbert Principle) was actually closer to the truth: people are idiots. Not my beloved readers, of course.

Of course politicians and people from marketing are aware of some of these 'glitches' in human reasoning, exploiting them to sell an item or an idea. It is not rare at all to listen to people complaining that they are manipulating us. However, from what I've read, I'm afraid this might be just the beginning. Sadly, being aware of our flaws is only helpful to some extent, given that our attention span is quite limited and therefore we'll quickly rever to our irrational form.

Among the Clouds

Recently  I had the chance to fly in executive class for the very first time. Best of all, I didn't even have to pay for it: there were vacant seats in 1st class and, for some reason, TAP (a Portuguese flight operator) kindly upgraded me.

At first I thought I would regret accepting the offer, since it meant travelling alone (I had two friends in regular seats) and my seat, while having a lot of space, did not have a table. Things started to look brighter when the happy-to-help (or at least looking like it) flight attendant explained me how to unfold the table hidden in my armchair. But the good stuff was yet to come. I was asked to pick some readings from a considerable stock of newspapers and magazines (I was almost ashamed to choose a sports newspaper) and soon after whether I'd like an apperitive. Martini seemed fine. Then came the menu, along with the wine list. Since I don't really appreciate octopus, the choice was obvious: white fish mousse as appetizer, roast veal with gnocchi for the main course and, wrapping-up the meal, lemon pudding. As it should always be, coffee came next. When asked for my (red) wine preference, I (cleverly I'd say) escaped the embarassment of answering "I don't have any" by stating my confidence in the house's choice. The whole meal was utterly delicious, and having proper napkins and silverware (the knife was not sharp, but proved itself quite a match for the extremely tender meat) also helps. The trailers are collected individually, so you are not face with the messy and slow cart rolling down the tiny corridor.

My only (but severe!) complaint goes for the coffee. I truly cannot understand how a Portuguese company can serve anything other than expresso under the label of coffee. Even if most of the passengers are not Portuguese I believe their countrymen deserve better treatment.

My long-time readers might be finding this post a little odd, due to its strongly personal nature. Not wanting to disappoint their predictions I'll finish it with a small reflection.

Although the executive class seats were mostly vacant (I counted at least 15), the staff did not bring people from the other aisle to fill it. While this could indeed lead to small savings (in drinks mostly) I don't think that was the determinant factor for the decision. It could be argued that executive class passengers, having payed extra, would not find it funny see people who bought cheaper tickets being given the same privileges. This is probably true, but still I believe the real reason lies elsewhere. I'm convinced that the main reason to be the feeling of unfairness that regular class passengers would experience when their neighbour is (randomly) upgraded, but not themselves. This leads to an extremingly interesting phenomena: given a group of people, the overall happiness is higher when they are all given average conditions, compared to the situations where only some are given better than average treatment. This is highly irrational: nobody is actually any worse, but you feel worse because you know there are others who are better, for no plausible reason. This also justifies why happiness seems to be much more correlated to discrepancies in income rather than the average. Does that mean that we'll never feel great unless others feel miserable? That certainly does not seem a flattering trait, but it might well be close to the truth.

Intellectual Art

It is quite interesting, even funny, to notice the evolution of modern art. In my opinion, art nowadays stands where science stood a few hundred years ago: an intellectual "island" that few can access. And proudly so.

This intentional separation of art from the mass public can be seen in painting, music, literature, architecture, etc... I guess at this point some of you might be thinking I'm far off from reality; a simple check on the number of youtube views or Itunes downloads of one of Bieber's songs seems to prove me wrong. But what would you see if you were to check the comments' section? Lots of heavy criticism, arguing that it is not so much "real" art but rather comercial crap for the mass market. Which I could agree with by the way.

If you ask a so called expert he'll tell you the same: Justin Bieber makes terrible music; Goldberg variations are the ones to look out for. And that painting you've seen at the museum (the horrible one which seemed that the painter tried to drink all of the paint and ended up throwing up on the canvas) is just too complex for you. It is interesting and beautiful, we're just too dumb to realise it. But there's no need to feel bad about it since the whole word falls under the simpletons' bind, except for a few enlightened minds.

But how then can you distinguish junk art from the real thing? Seemingly useful features, such as the number of people who actually enjoy it, do not seem to be fit taking the stated above into account. In previous times a work of art was often classified according to the skill required to perform it. This is also not the case with the modern art, since skillwise complicated art forms are considered arrogant and ostentacious and minimalism is the word of order. So where does that lead us? To highly random and unpredictable domain, I'm afraid.

I believe this behaviour is mostly related to the need of differentiation and feeling superior. It is not rare to listen to someone saying, in a snobbish manner, something like 'It's a shame they don't know how to appreciate this wonderful painting' or ' I recognise it's a type of art that is difficult to enjoy'. You can even extend its scope to other areas which might not be uncontroversially classified as art, such as wine making or cooking.


Filipe Baptista de Morais

Inconsequent complaints

These days it is common to find references to the advantages of optimism and the undesirable consequences of negativism. I recently came across this article which states that, besides being contagious and harmful, listening to complaints can actually make you dumb.

The article cleverly outlines the distinction between relevant complaints (that call attention for issued that need to be solved) from inconsequent complaints. These, which are the nasty dumbening elements, do not call for a solution for the problem. In fact they don’t even pretend to, they simply aim to share the reasons why the person feels miserable or outraged.

This type of emotional craving is quite commonm particularly in women. But it is not entirely negative since it is also known that restraining our feelings (that is, not sharing them) can have an important and negative impact in one’s happiness. Even in social terms sharing problems, even unsolvable ones, is a powerful connectivity tool, as well as a proof and foundation of friendship. The ‘shields’ mentioned by the authoer might be more costly than it could seem.

As a final note I’d just like to say that the evidence presented to support the negativism’s dumbening properties theory does not seem that conclusive. It appears to me to be a huge leap of faith towards unknown territory, trying to prove some (previously concepted) point.


Filipe Morais 

Outcomes

It’s nowadays pretty much standard procedure to judge everything by the outcomes it produces. This can be blamed on two main issues. Firstly, it’s much easier to evaluate the results of an action than the foundations upon which it was based. Secondly and every bit as important as the first, results are often all that matters in this life. However, one must remember to keep a long term perspective in terms of objectives. This means that we should try to maximise the chances of attaining good results, which in turn is equivalent to betting in the ones with most qualities, which are not necessarily the same as those with best performance (in a finite time interval). Fortune often has an important role in the outcome of these events.

This phenomena of focusing on the outcome while totally despising fortune’s role in the outcome of a decision is well known, being know in psychology as the Outcome Bias. And it is most certainly real. The goalkeeper that dives in the wrong direction in a penalty shoot was tricked or deceived. Had the ball gone that way, though, he would have had a correct a smart reading of the play and of the shooter’s body language. We all know this. But has any of us in fact seen the shot in slow motion, analyzing the players’ movements, actually trying to predict the events or looking for evidence that the goalkeeper is doing the same? Considering the shooter now, scoring a penalty “Panenka style” is a sign of geniality and self confidence. Missing in the same manner, however, reveals stupidity, recklessness, over-confidence and negligence. But what separates one situation from the other, apart from the goalkeeper’s behaviour? Why should we judge the forward’s decision differently depending on others’ response? The subtle way we describe the winners as (positively) confident and the losers as over-confident is by itself interesting enough.

This spreads much wider than sports: stocks were smartly purchased if their value increases, a company well managed if it is successful and even a gambling bet is sometimes considered intelligent if it pays off. Imagine two different roulette players betting recurrently on red. Both of them make five consecutive bets: the first one wins them all while the other wins the first four and loses the last. Obviously, the first player was smart enough to know the right time to call it a day, whereas the latter was clearly misguided by his endless greed. Nevertheless, they both took the same decisions, with access to the same information. The a line between a clever and a stupid move becomes even more tenuous, and therefore its evaluation linked to its outcome, when we mix talent and fortune in an inseparable way. The first example that comes to mind is a poker game.

This phenomena is related to our difficulty in mentally reposition ourselves in a different time or context. When evaluating an event or action, we are unable to put side all posterior information which was not available at the time. Moreover, we tend to be surprised by the way the agents ignore those future events, verbalising statements such as “how did he not did that coming?” In truth, few of us would consider ourselves capable of foreseeing. But none of us thinks twice when it comes to analysing the past, often and systematically misunderstanding flukes for causality, bad luck for incompetence and good fortune for geniality.


Filipe Baptista de Morais

Leitura

Estas férias tive a sorte de retomar o hábito da leitura. Por leitura não se deve entender o displicente folhear de páginas que culmina numa pilha de uns meros dez livros para armazenamento no final do ano; não, refiro-me a devorar de forma insaciável capítulo após capítulo até chegar à última página, só então libertando as mãos do agora inútil volume de modo a as ter livres para pegar noutro. Creio que arrumei uns 7 livros só no mês de Agosto.

 O termo sorte não foi aqui empregue por acaso, estando imbuído de um duplo sentido. Por um lado pretendia afirmar que se tratava de algo feliz, positivo. Por outro pretendia também deixar claro que se tratou de algo fortuito, obra do acaso.

Que a leitura é um bom hábito já todos sabemos. Não o recomendo a toda a gente, claro; sempre fui especialmente contra a algo popular ideia de forçar as crianças sem qualquer apelo literário a ler. De facto, ler quando tal não nos apetece ou o livro nos desagrada pode ser extremamente penoso. Posso afirmá-lo sem sombra de dúvidas, visto que ainda hoje me lembro do sofrimento que foi para mim ler Os Maias, assim como do trauma consequente que demorou meses a dissipar-se. Curiosamente, não me consigo lembrar de informação suficiente sobre o livro para falar mais de 30 segundos sobre ele. De qualquer modo, acredito piamente que cada um deve praticar os hobbies que lhe dão prazer, sendo que todos têm os seus benefícios. E malefícios.

A casualidade do evento prende-se com o facto de não ter sido nem ponderado nem deliberado. Simplesmente aconteceu, apeteceu-me ler e o apetite ainda não se esgotou. Espero que, com o regresso aos trabalhos que já se começa a sentir, essa fome não se desvaneça da mesma forma que apareceu.


Filipe Baptista de Morais

Equal Standards

I've just come across this interesting article on the discriminatory role of standardised tests against ethnic minorities, such as black and Latino students in the United States. There are some things I didn’t like though, starting with the title “Why It’s Time To Get Rid of Standardized Tests “. Provocative and determined, it clearly underlines the article’s intent to address the issue in a simplistic manner, mocking standardised tests as if they were some stupid and pre-historical idea with no place in the modern world. I’ll try to answer it explaining why, in my view, we still do use standardise tests.

As a side note, I’d just like to point out that the data mentioned seems to have much simpler explanations than the one provided by the author. For instance, deducing ethnical favouritism from statistics stating that students with richer parents perform better seems a bit over-stretching the evidence: after all students with more resources can have access to private tutors, better study environments, etc. Of course there are specific techniques to detect correlation and causality and maybe they were employed, but since the article makes no reference to it at all we can’t know for sure. Perhaps they are detailed in some of the numerous links, which I didn’t have time to check.

At any rate, let’s say all the studies were conducted in a perfect manner and that their conclusions are valid and bear statistical meaning. Where does that lead us? It’s not surprising, in my opinion, that the problem statements included in standardised tests favour the majorities. It is a hardly contested truth that people with different backgrounds (both social and biological) perceive things in a different manner, so it’s only natural that when communicating we’re better perceived by those with similar backgrounds. On top of that there’s also a shared way of thinking that can be helpful when it comes to finding solutions to specific problems. Does that mean minorities face a disadvantage? Probably, although it’s probably quite slight. Shouldn’t we fix it then? Sure. So let’s put a halt to these stupid standardised tests and make different ones for Caucasians, black and Asian people. Rich and poor students. Maybe gay and straight while we’re at it. In less than 10 seconds we’ve already come up with twelve different exam format needs. Does anyone actually believe it is possible to make so many (different!) exams with the same level of difficulty? Teachers already struggle to make two such! That wouldn’t be fair and would lead to all kinds of injustice.

Another important remark to be made is that the competences being testes are the ones considered relevant to that culture, in a way fitting that environment. Some are naturally more prone to achieve better results in that framework? Perhaps. It’s a known fact that some ethnics have (biological) advantages over others in, let’s say, long distance running but we don’t see any athlete running the marathon with a time handicap, or on a different track to make it even.

Finally, it’s a funny fact that at the same time the article clamours for differencing it also fiercely criticises attempts to do so. The different pass quotes (indeed a stupid measure in my opinion, specially at a social level) are such an attempt to recognise the standardise tests’ biased evaluation, and were received with hatred.


Filipe Baptista de Morais

Orgulho Lusitano

Numa altura em que se diz tanto mal do País (que, de facto, não parece estar lá muito bem) parece importante olharmos para aquilo que temos de bom, aquilo que nos fazer sentir orgulho em sermos Portugueses. Aqui a maior parte das pessoas recorre a personalidades ou empresas Portuguesas que singraram lá fora: orgulhamo-nos de Mourinho, de Marisa ou da NELO. Outras relembram acontecimentos há muito passados, como a batalha de Aljubarrota ou o nosso Império pós Descobrimentos. Poucos são os que referem aspectos que lhes digam de facto respeito, como por exemplo a célebre classificação de povo de brandos costumes.

Da minha parte sempre me orgulhei de pertencer a um povo conhecido pela sua hospitalidade, tanto a turistas como a imigrantes. É certo que é provável que isso fosse mais uma crença na opinião dos outros sobre nós do que propriamente a sua verdadeira impressão. Mas sempre foi uma crença que me alegrava e enchia de orgulho. Agora, tudo parece estar a mudar.

Embora ainda acredita que sejamos em geral um povo simpático, o racismo e a xenofobia parecem estar a alastrar como um cancro maldoso e impiedoso. Nota-se nos pequenos gestos e olhares, ouve-se nas bocas de quem menos esperaríamos. A causa não tem nada de surpreendente; desde sempre que os animais lutam pelos recursos, tornando-se mais agressivos quando estes escasseiam. Esta é apenas uma forma mais fancy de continuar essa mesma disputa. Espero que este período negro passe antes de nos marcar socialmente enquanto povo.


Filipe Baptista de Morais

Alpha species

Muse have just released their new album, The 2nd Law, whose name is a reference to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I must say I was positively surprised, after listening to so many negative critics. Shame on me for doubting Muse’s talent.

The new songs bring along whole new electronic effects while keeping some of their previous ground stones, namely Bellamy’s beautiful vocals and piano performances. Creativity and uniqueness were not forgotten; how often do you listen to a physics’ law description in a song?

But all of this wouldn’t make up a great album, were it not for the deep meaning behind the lyrics. The album’s name and the references to entropy maximization aren’t just random mumblings intended to look cool. Far from it: they convey clever criticism on the unsustainable way humanity has been exploiting the environment for its own benefit. A topic already present in their previous album, now given a central role.

From this album, the song Animals struck me particularly hard. At this point I must say that the song’s interpretation I’m about to share is truly my own. I haven’t read it anywhere and so it’s totally possible for it to have nothing to do with what the band wanted to express. Still, the liberty to interpret music to our own accord is one of its many qualities.

At first glance I thought the song was about social classes’ differences and the way the richest exploit the poor. The song does seem to encode a powerful negative feeling against the capitalist system in general: “You’re out of control (…) Analyse/ Advertise/ Expand”. The narrator also seems to realize, halfway throughout the song, that he himself is part of the system, adjusting his discourse to “We’re animals (…) we’re out of control”. While this seems to make perfect sense, I believe the lyrics yet go deeper. I’m convinced that the title bears a double meaning and that the narrator is in a way speaking on behalf of all the other animals in the planet. From this perspective, “Animals, we’re animals” attempts to make us realize that we share this planet, as well as bring our attention to our recklessness and brutality, features we often associate with wild beasts. “buy yourself an island” and “Buy yourself an ocean” stand for both our capitalistic perspective of life and the way we treat the environment and its natural resources as if they’re rightfully ours. Simply pick a random line of the lyrics and you’ll find heavy criticism on our attitudes.

The last lines are specially haunting to me. “Kill yourself / Come on and do us all a favour”. Is that what the other animals think of us? Is that what the planet would say, were it capable of thought and speech?

Not long ago I saw this movie called Chronicle (which I strongly recommend while we’re at it) in which a calm and bullied kid obtains super powers and starts to get progressively more aggressive towards other people. In the end, his feelings of superiority are so strong that he loses perception of the value of human life: “I am an Apex predator. Does the lion feel bad killing the gazelle? Do people feel remorse when they kill a fly?”  These aren’t just pretty catch phrases; they really underline the reasons behind our reckless actions. Have we grown so important (in our minds) that nothing else matters?


Filipe Baptista de Morais