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

Just like children

Facebook has finally decided to deprive its users of the right to choose their profile type, imposing their new timeline indiscriminately. Curiously enough they did it in August, which is well known as the Portuguese politicians’ favourite timing for unpopular announcements. The reasons behind this are far too obvious: in the peak of Summer the country slumbers into some kind of sabbatical hibernation, refraining any hypothetical complaints.

Being an international organisation, it is likely that Facebook’s choice of timing has nothing to do with that. Nevertheless, they both announced changes that gave birth to strong protests. One (important) difference is that it is somewhat difficult to accuse Facebook of having shrouded harmful intentions: it’s of their utmost interest to keep their clients happy.

Then why won’t they wield to our every whim? Steve Jobs, co-founder and former CEO of Apple, believed that people do not know what they want until you show it to them, just as they would be unable to recognise a product’s innovative geniality unless you impose it to them. Believe it or not, this apparent despise for its clients opinions has made Apple one of the most successful companies in the world, having in their stash some of the most acclaimed products of the technological market.

Does that mean we are but ignorant lambs that should remain silent and cooperative, while others pick what is best for us? This line of thought, seemingly reasonable in the context of technological devices, dangerously resembles dictatorial totalitarianism in the case of politics. We must find a balance in between.


Filipe Baptista de Morais

PS: This text, as will be the case of some to follow, was originally written in Portuguese and then translated into English before publishment. That may account for some awkwardness you might feel when reading it. The rest is simply due to lack of skills from the writer's part.